Stacey and Arrow both view groups as complex adaptive systems. Arrow writes,
what is genuinely new, we believe, is the development of a comprehensive theory of small groups that adapts, transforms, and integrates concepts from dynamical systems theory in a way appropriate to thinking about systems that are themselves composed of complex systems–members whose actions are guided by goals, intentions, perceptions, and preconceptions that also change over time. (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 4)
Stacey asks how we can make sense of our experience of life and organization, and answers that we need a new framework which is to be found in the science of complexity. (Stacey, 1996, p. 19)
A small group meets the description of a complex system since it is comprised of individual members who are diverse, connected through their group membership, interdependent on each other for the work of the group, and adapting as members and the group learn and evolve. In this regard human groups share characteristics and dynamics of other complex adaptive systems. Flocks of birds and schools of fish are an example of such a system. The individual members are able to move in intricate and ever-changing forms without running into each other.
Human agents and the group of which they are members are engaged in an ongoing process of discovery, choice, and action. This process creates feedback loops, both positive and negative which affect behavior of individual members, the behavior of the members as a group, and the structure of the group itself. The results of this feedback process may be linear or nonlinear in its effect. Stacey describes it,
The interaction of the agents creates and continually re-creates an organization as a whole, and that organization in turn influences the groups of which it is composed and the manner in which those groups are continuously re-created. This process of re-creation is what is meant by learning. (Stacey, 1996, p. 35)
Human systems differ from other types of complex adaptive systems in that human beings have internal structures whereas agents in other systems do not. Stacey identifies four ways in which human systems differ:
1. Human agents are affected by positive and negative emotions.
2. Human agents are able to choose their own individual mental purposes rather than shared ones.
3. Human agents are affected by power differentials, i.e., leader-follower dynamic.
4. Human agents are capable of systemic thinking, taking up the role of both participant and observer. (Stacey, 1996, pp.34-35)
These unique traits of human individuals add a level of complexity to human systems that do not exist in other complex adaptive systems.
Complex systems, including human ones, exist on a continuum from highly ordered to highly disordered. A highly ordered system is stable and in equilibrium while a highly disordered system is on the edge of chaos. The highly ordered system is marked by rigidity and lack of change and learning. Systems theory tells us that learning, change, and evolution occur in systems in the disordered zone at the edge of chaos. Stacey maintains that creativity only occurs at the edge of system disintegration. (Stacey, 1996, pp. 13-14)
Most research and schools of thoughts about small groups take place within what Holly Arrow calls, “the positivist-reductionist-analytic paradigm.” (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 25) In this approach, the laboratory experiment is the idealized strategy. An attempt is made to identify dependent and independent variables, holding other aspects of the group constant and ignoring other factors. In addition, this approach looks at the group as a single entity removed from its larger environment and contexts. In contrast, the complex adaptive systems approach to groups recognizes the rich dynamics, contexts and states of order and disorder that exist within every group. If we attempt to examine only parts or limited dynamics, we are no longer dealing with a real group.
