“COMPLEXITY”, THE 6th
COMPETITIVE FORCE THAT
SHAPES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A CYBERNETIC APPROACH TO “PORTER’S FIVE FORCES THAT
SHAPES INDUSTRY STRATEGY” IN TURBULENT AND COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENTS
Qeis Kamran, BA, MBA-GM, MBA_PPM, MBL-HSG, Germany
([email protected], [email protected], Tel. +49-176-66814739)
Abstract The core pillars of the job of the strategist have shifted. This changed has not occurred because of the
foresightedness or farsightedness of the strategist’s shaping our business’ wisdom and fundamentals, but because of
the lack of the strategist’s understanding of doing his job. The job of the strategists must be reinvented and redefined.
The cracks, which are being more and more visible in the world of business’ functioning’s are threatening our card-
houses, we so dearly cherish as stable business’ structures from the meta layer but moreover from its very core
structure. Its high time that a long due revision has to be made to our fundamentals of strategic thinking and mindset,
then the occurring crises, which we are asked to accept as a business as usual endeavor and occurrence, is ought not
to be found in the dictionary of the grand organizational strategist. The purpose of the paper is to embark on a
journey in competitive strategy and revisit Porter’s five forces strategy model. The author will introduce a cybernetic
approach to Porter’s model and coin the 6th
force that shapes management strategy.
Note: The author uses the words strategist and manager as synonyms.
Conceptual Paper I think the next century will be the century of complexity.
(Stephen Hawking 2000)
Introduction
In essence, the essential fundamentals of the job of the strategist have been looked into very narrowly. The
gap of this narrowed view has been to some extend reduced and its spectrum widened by Porter in his
groundbreaking 1979, 2008 Harvard Business Review (HBR) article. However, the job of the strategist is
to look beyond the basic understanding or coping with competition as defined by Porter. The core pillars
on which the strategist so proudly stood are insufficient to deal with “the century of complexity”
(Hawking, 2000).
Fig. 1 The five competitive forces that shape strategy (Source: Porter)
Porter has defined five competitive forces that shape strategy in business and its industry. These forces as
fig. 1 describes, are customers, suppliers, potential entrants, substitute products, and rivalry among
existing businesses. However, designing a competition model for organizations according to Porter’s
definition of ‘competition for profits’, has a systemic flaw. Porter may be to some extend right after we
have respected the factors of government, technology, internet, innovation, and industry growth rate
(Porter, 2008, p.86). “Most of today’s lively discussions of management by objectives is concerned with
the search for the one right objective. This search is not only likely to be as unproductive as the quest for
philosopher’s stone: it is certain to harm and misdirect. To emphasize only on profit, for instance,
misdirects managers to the point where they may endanger the survival of the business. To obtain profit
today they tend to undermine the future”1 (Drucker, 1954, p. 62). According to Drucker, the challenge in
managing business affaires is not setting the objectives; it is moreover the yardstick we use to define
organizations’ objectives in the first place. The author underpins the claim that organizational objectives
must be widened in grasp. His claim goes deeper into the ontological observation and meta-level
transformation of the organization and of the notion of competition itself, but moreover into the heart of
strategic management. Thus the competition of our era goes beyond profits; it requires the strategist to
compete for survival. Reducing survivability of an organization to its short term profitability is the major
flaw in the strategic thinking in the first place. As the depth, the rate, the spectrum, and the width of our
business crises are ubiquitously increasing; a more functioning strategic thinking ought to be invented and
our understanding of the job of the strategist must be redefined and redesigned. The weltanschauung of the
strategist and manager of our zeitgeist is mainly fashioned by the US type business administration’s2
reductionist3 and business school
4 trained lens. This shortsighted and narrow lens coined and observed for
the mass5 as strategic thinking has been chiefly responsible not only for our hard failings as strategists but
it has falsely shaped our main understanding on how we define strategy, organizational and societal fit
(Judt, 2010, p. 2) in general. This misdirection in our thinking and observation that all strategic analogies
in business are rooted in economics and economical success has been one of the most dangerous
inventions in strategic thinking at all. The author understands and his observation goes beyond the notion
of liquidity as essential requirement to do business legally, he moreover emphasizes that the lack of a deep
strategic understanding is lethal (Beer, 1995). Nowhere in the world has this systemic flaw been more
obvious than in the country of the business administration’s invention and its wisdom’s founding fathers,
even more precisely at the inventor of the MBA’s, the Harvard Business School (HBS) itself. The whole
edifice of organizational purpose in share-holder value and economic terms as indoctrinated and
propagated by the leading business schools and consultancies is flawed (cf. Stacy, 2010, p.12). HBS,
which has been hit severely by the 2008 ‘management crises’6 and loosing 30% and more of its
endowments, that adds to its biggest losses in the last 40 years (Hechinger, Karmin, 2008, p2.).
“Ultimately… the control of the economic system by the market is of overwhelming consequences to the
whole organization of society: it means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market.
Instead if economics being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic
system” (Gray, 1998, p. 12, after Polaniy, K.). Strategist is the holistic juggler of organization’s
intelligence. Organizational intelligence is the total quality of its capabilities. These capabilities are the
1 The cases of WorldCom, Enron, Lehman’s but moreover the whole management crises of the year 2008 are the
results of the contemporary business model 2 Business Administration is not Management , see (Malik, 2007, ff. pp.22-29)
3 To explain holism in terms of reductionism, is impossible and meaningless See (Beer, in conversation.
www.kybernetik.ch) 4 Some Schools call themselves ‘School of Management’ but teach the same methods as ‘Business Schools’,
changing the words does not reflect functionism 5 Observing observers Von Foerster, Maturana, etc.
6 Indeed, the 2008 observed crises had its roots not only in the financial economy, but moreover in the created
management and strategy models by the Ivey League Business Schools, as the only doctrines of navigating a
business
necessary embedded intelligence, outputs, values, eigen-values7, and varieties
8 of the purposive- identity
transforming respectively identity preserving adaptive organization’s ‘requisite variety9 (Ashby, 1958, pp.
1-2). “In other words, Eigenvalues represent equilibria, and depending upon the chosen domain of the
primary argument, these equilibria may be equilibrial values (“Fixed Points”), functional equilibria,
operational equilibria, structural equilibria, etc” (von Foerster, 2001, p. 265). Thus the strategic system
of the organization must be designed for the organization to survive and the necessary sets of equilibria
ought to be predetermined and ubiquitously regulated by the integrated regulator to maintain stability
within the organizations system and subsystems. This paper is starting to look at the viability of the
strategist’s job and to introduce an additional force to Porter’s five forces that shape business strategy
model.
Holistic vs. reductionist According to (Weinberg, 1992, pp. 51–64) “the arrows of explanation point downward”, (Beer, 2002, p.
2) points out, “The paradigm the whole of science has had for the last 200 years has been based on
reductionism”, (Kaufmann, 2008) states, “Beyond that, reductionism, wrought by the successes of
Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck, and Schrodinger, and all that has followed, preeminently in
physics,has, …., left us in world of fact – cold fact with no scientific place for value.” (Weinberg, 1992)
emphasises; “The more we know of the cosmos, the more meaningless it appears.” For example, if we
dismantle a car into many smaller pieces we might know how the engine works, but we will not be able to
find the speed, which is the purpose of the car. To dismantle a radio into very small items may show us
how the speakers function, but we will not be able to find the sound, which is the radio’s purpose. In
addition we are able observe an organism from biological lens into divers’ parts, we may be able to treat
some diseases, but will lack the understanding of that organism’s behaviour. The entrepreneur writing his
business plan may be able to write all the probabilities and the calculations, but how can we find his
creativity, drive, motivation. The Apple, FedEx, Google Microsoft and other successes stories could not
be explained by rational methods, but they have changed the game of business, communication
respectively the quality of our lives. The same goes to the organization’s strategist, who has been able to
dismantle the organizations’ systems into small compartmentalized chunks as HR, Marketing, Finance and
Legal, etc., but to reengineer its behaviour and to pro-actively regulate its variety to dissolve
organizational problems, rather of being occupied by the ever solving them (Beer, 1995, p.10, from Beer
1966), he needs to take the holistic approach to things, causes and matters. The strategist needs to redesign
the meta level of the organization, which according to (Beer, 1995, p. 93) it is the thinking level of
organization’s strategic system. This system must be built into the body of the organization as an
ubiquitous regulator, which may not be totalitarially imposed on the organization as it is found in the
family tree top-down designed organizations structures, but moreover it ought to be a regulating pre-
control and control function of it. (Beer, 1995, p.74) states: “The purpose of a system is what it does.
There is, after all, no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it consistently fails to
do.” And here the strategist in business administration has surely failed. The number of the organizations
in crises or which have been shaken to demise outnumber the pages the author has at his disposal to fill
them. The ever-occurring crises from the US economy, EU currency crises, which is only being kept alive
by governmental financial surgeries and other divers’ countries as Germany and France fighting for the
Euro zone, reveal the author’s claim. The reasons and causes may defer, but the reality that the strategist
7Eigenbehavior is thus used to define the behavior of autonomous, cognitive systems, which through the closure
(self-referential recursion) of the sensory-motor interactions in their nervous systems, give rise to perceptual
regularities as objects (Varela, 1979, chapter 13). Heinz von Foerster (1965, 1969, 1977) equated the ability of an
organization to classify its environment with the notion of eigenbehavior. (informatics.indiana.edu) 8 Used as a cybernetic term meaning: The number of possible states of the system, also the notion of measuring
complexity 9 the variety in the control system must be equal to or larger than the variety of the perturbations in order to achieve
control" (See: pespmc1.vub.ac.be).
needs to fail always first, so that an organization is dismantled, bankrupted or unable to survive is a
fundamental fact. When organizational crises occur the curve always starts with the meta level of the
organization, see Fig. 1, and goes down wards until the collapse is final. In redesigning the meta level of
the organization, the purpose of survival is the main priority of the strategist, anything else, yes, even the
US designed and spread doctrine of shareholder-value, which is the most falsely observed doctrine of our
era (Malik, 2006, p. 9) or its enhancement is not the primarily purpose or objective of the strategist. The
holistic strategist is occupied by creating favourable conditions in advance for the organization, so it
actually can maintain viability.10
The science of “Cybernetic or the science of control and communication
in the animal and machine” (Wiener, 1948), which was coined by Norbert Wiener, a MIT mathematician,
(Beer, 1959) called it, “cybernetics is the science of effective organization”. (Ashby, 1956, p. 1) defines it
as “the art of steermanship”. “Our science, cybernetics, is not reductionist. It is holistic. The way people
talk is reductionist. Trying to explain holism in terms of reductionism is impossible. If you’re trying to
discuss holism and begin to describe it by looking at it from 2 sides that is reductionist. Therefore it is
meaningless,…, “Real problems do not respect the disciplines of academia. Nor do they respect
commercial attitudes. To a holist, physics and chemistry are all the same thing because you can’t talk
about the real world without the other. You can’t talk about marketing and leadership separately because
they are dependent on each other. You must cover the whole spectrum.” Even most universities are
organized in divers’ institutes and fields; they do not respect that science as a holistic construction of
reality. Therefore they produce insufficiently able managers, whole are merely predictable agents with a
selected academic lens.
Identity
Strategy
Success
Liquidity
Collapse
t
How crises emerge
Figure 2. How crises is fashioned and organizational collapse occurs in business
In essence, co-ordination, communication, cooperation, regulation and control are the main themes of
cybernetics. The author coins the term that: ‘cybernetics is the science of dissolving management and
control problems.’ (Popper, 1952, p.125) states very precisely, “We are not students of a subject matter
but students of problems.” Popper emphasizes that there is no unique or certain methodology specific to
science. He goes further and states that, science, like virtually every other human, and indeed organic,
activity, consists largely of problem-solving. (Cf. http://plato.stanford.edu)
The point on which the author is emphasizing to come across to the reader is that the strategist is a
problem solver, however his problems are mainly in the future, or they have not yet occurred. The
strategist dissolves problems by preparing and controlling organizational capability and environmental
circumstances to cope with the complexity arising. The problem of strategic planning is to take the
appropriate course in advance (cf. Malik, 1993-1999, p. 122). His job is to navigate the organization, via
variety engineering (Beer 1972, 1981, 1985) or designing immunity, also as emphasized by (Beer, 1973)
“designing freedom” for the organization in advance. The author emphasizes that the strategist as a
‘problem dissolver.’ (Ashby, 1957) introduced his fundamental law of management, which states: “variety
can destroy variety” (Ashby, 1956, p.206), Beer the father of management cybernetics, coined the notion
10
Viability is a cybernetic term, meaning the ability to keep an separate, autonomous and self-organized existence
of “to absorb”, and called the law “only variety can absorb variety (Cf. Schwaninger, 2000. p. 210).
Beer applied Ashby’s law to his theory and development of management cybernetics (see also fig. 3).
Figure 3. Variety attenuation according to Ashby’s Law (Source: Schwaninger 2000)
Economistic or survival Strategic rep. managerial problems are not only reduced to liquidity. The same is true that all
organizational problems are not economistic. (Beer, 1985) “As to managerial problems: these are no
respecters of financial boundaries, nor of the territorial preserves of any other professional function or
geographic domain. They grow like cancers; and 'secondaries' may appear anywhere. The organization
as a viable system has to become immune to infection, adaptive to environmental change, and — somehow
— to extirpate its cancers.” The general observation of our reality and the questions we ask, even on our
daily basis are questions trained by the dominated materialistic world view. “We no longer ask of a
judicial ruling or legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Will it help me bring a better society or a
better world?” (Judt, 2010, pp.1-2) Strategists in business do not ask: What will be our legacy? How can
we serve the humanity? How can we contribute to protect the environment? And foremost and above all,
the question: how can we survive for the next 100-200 years? Our contemporary strategist is mostly
focused on quarterly compartments backwards. He manages by looking at the rear-view mirror while
going forward. The questions that we need to pose are beyond the notion of: productivity or are we
productive? Are we sufficient? (cf. Judt, 2010, pp.1-2) Even the idea of considering viable human agents
in an organization-- by reducing them to human resources (HR) (human as resource) is not a question that
embeds ‘requisite variety’ according to Ashby’s law. It reduces creativity to obedience. “As managers we
have to… lern to be what we really are: not doers and commanders, but catalysts and cultivators of a self-
organizing system in an evolving context” (von Foerster, 1984, p.2). “There is no scientific base for the
reality of values in the reductionist world view.” (Kauffman, 2008-2010, p. 11) Moreover, there are no
bases for survivability and long-term values, if our lenses are obscured solely by economistic reality.
Furthermore it violates the law of our very systemic nature, where divers’ agents are more than particles in
space and motion but purposive, social, productive, adaptive, self-referring, self-governing and autopoetic
beings- acting as whole for a larger cause or embedded in a greater system.
If our lens focuses on the notion of survivability (e.g. most family businesses are concerned on passing the
legacy to the next generation as there main strategic objective instead of the enhancement of the quick
profiteering methods), our objectives change and so changes the yardstick by which we calculate and
observe success for the organization in general. Asking for survivability is the ultimate question. It goes
much beyond the wizardry of some contemporary strategists’ shlock found in the shelves of the business
school libraries and bookstores. The same goes to the military oriented strategies imported into the world
of business. Business is an unlimited organizational activity, while warfare is a temporary organization.
Business ought to be based on survival, while warfare and military tactics and objectives are based on
destruction. If we are always fixed on the destroying our rivals in business, it can be responsible for our
own demise. We need to ask, what purpose it will have if our whole organizational intelligence is solely
focused on destroying our rival? The greatest lessons we can gather is from the rivalry of the Soviet
Empire with the US led west’s conquest of the world’s resources and strategic positioning. The soviet
Empire demised and the contemporary US challenges and economical cracks are blowbacks inherited
from the strategies applied during the cold war. What would have the results been, if these both super
powers would have applied the course of cooperation for a better world, instead of the rivalry by which
they were occupied for over 40 years. The greatest services to humanity or in the business world the best
service to customers have resulted by someone thinking on making a difference and seeking different
alternatives than the mere warfare strategic lens, dangerously applied in the world of business. If the
strategist needs really functioning insights to implement into the world of business, than the author
suggests going to the ultimate survival machine, namely the nature. The nature gives the strategist the best
possible alternatives and ideas on how it can be done. The laws of nature have been formed and are in
ubiquitous function for over three billions of years (cf. Malik; Blüchel, 2006, p.13). The basic law of
nature is function. Whatever does not function, will be out manoeuvred and unwearyingly disposed.
Efficiency, leanness, creativity, self-organization and innovation are the themes of nature. Above all
productivity without disposing any waste to the environment is one of nature’s biggest mastery. The
nature always acts and carries the effects of its production on the environment, always in its balance-sheet.
There is no place for propaganda and financial engineering to tell us a different story. It may cause some
serious doubt by the technical or technocratic- freak, to know that all forms of organization have there
form in the living organisms and their actions- by trail- and error the nature has mastered the greatest
complexity of the universe namely to survive (cf. Malik; Blüchel, 2006, p.13). Sustainability is the slogan,
motto or the business mission the nature carries on its forehead. The grand strategist is highly advised to
make this wisdom his own and actually designs an organization, where this intelligence is transferred into
the structure of the organization by implementing it into its DNA.
Structure is strategy “Structure follows strategy” is the term introduced by (Chandler, 1962) after his empirical studies at the
General Motors and DuPont. With this wisdom in mind, strategists are mostly asking, which demands we
can put on the organizational design, and which actions we need to take to meet the stated demands? The
author suggests a better more functioning world view; ’Structure is strategy’. The author’s claim fosters
the debate of strategy as resource-based vs. strategy as a structure- based views. The structure claim
widens the narrowed view of strategy models solely concentrated on a resource-based version of
constructing an environmental reality in which the organization is embedded. The environment poses
additional threats that can not be absorbed by the organization only running to balance between resources
to avoid the resource-based view’s main challenge the stuck in the middle dilemma or giving in to a
stronger force as the Porter’s five forces model suggests. The notion of structure as strategy is not a wide
and contemporary strategic understanding and thinking. “The strategy-structure debate both brings
together, yet highlights the distinction between what is examined/formulated (the strategy-as-content) and
the processes from which strategies arise and are implemented (the structure)” (Harwood, 2011, p. 509).
(Carsten Bresch, 1977) a famous biologist’s words are; “Higher capabilities arise only by more
complexity” (Malik, 2007, p. 39). (Malik, 2007) emphasises that management in essence is handling
complexity. Schwaninger another doyen of system sciences goes further and states; “Coping with
complexity is at the heart of management and leadership in the environments faced by the organizations of
our day Schwaninger, 2000, p.207). In nature the best way to deal with environmental complexity is to
cope and deal with it by being a complex, self- organizing and autonomous agent. Complexity can only be
absorbed by complexity; this means to the manager the same as Newton’s gravitation to the physicist (Cf.
Pfiffner, 2006, p. 24). The control- function of its regulator for ‘coping with complexities’ is designed
within the intelligent structure of the organism/ agent and is a part of the purposive whole. The agent is
always in a state of maintaining the equilibrium of its parts and states within its structure. Every aroused
complexity is merely a disturbance or attenuation of its equilibrium. It deals with complexity while
applying the trial and error also called feedback loops by having an adaptive and learning structure to deal
with the challenges. Therefore strategic function of the organization is a part of the organization’s
structure and it ubiquitously navigates and corrects organizational actions. However the author tends to
introduce in addition to the feedback regulating function the notion of feedfarward function as a
prerequisite of a sustainable equilibria and organization’s system’s stability. (Heylighen, Joslyn, 2001,
p.14) have introduced three mechanism of regulation, which are buffering, feedfarward and feedback. Pre-
regulation, ubiquitous regulation and feedback regulation of a disturbance is the theme of strategic
management. By pre-regulation the author underpins the claim that the organization’s intelligence, which
can be designed and modelled in advance and must maintain all the information or intelligence of the
organization at its disposal while a threat is sensed, which has not occurred, described better in the Ashby-
Conant’s Theorem; “Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system”…. “The theorem
has the interesting corollary that the living brain, so far as it is to be successful and efficient as a
regulator for survival, must proceed, in learning, by the formation of a model (or models) of its
environment” (Conant; Ashby, 1970, p.1). The ubiquitous regulation ought to be understood by the speed
of information flow and communication, and the systems fast response to the problem. If the body of a
living being is inflected with a disease or a pain, the body ubiquitously sets of an alarm of a disturbance.
This notion is mostly understood under the term of early warning systems. The same applies to the aircraft
–pilot system or a nuclear facility and its safety-controller system. If a disturbance to the system is sensed
it will not be a sound advice to wait for an action’s approval going to all the hierarchies in that
organization and back. The strategy in zero failure tolerance system or organization is having zero failure
option anything else is fatal to survival. The feedback control system maintains the regular and
predetermined state or equilibria state of that system. Feedback is the wider accepted regulator in control
systems. This idea can be better explained by the room’s temperature regulator. As soon as the room’s
predetermined and set temperature is achieved it shuts off the heater or turns it on to maintain the viable
status. This control function in the structure of the observed system maintains the viability of the system.
The notion of ‘viability’ in organizations can be better understood by the groundbreaking works of
Stafford Beer, the father of ‘management cybernetics’. According to (Beer, 1979-1982) “The laws of
viability lie at the heart of any enterprise. So too do human beings.”
Viable system model vs. top down or bottom –up family tree “The hierarchical / family tree / organogram models the formal power structure of the organisation. More
cynically we could say that it models the blame structure. What it doesn’t model is any of the more
fundamental things about the organisation: what it is, what it does, how it does it, its processes, formal
and informal structures, communications and information transfers, or decision making” (Hoverstadt;
Bowling, 2002, p. 3). If we study the organizational structure of most of major organizations of our day,
we will be handed- out their ‘organization charts’ and most of them are idiosyncratic as the ‘family tree’
of some noble lineage, but the missing link that we will always find in them is the notion of viability.
Being ‘viable’11
, is the first pre-requisite of an organizational structure. However, we are used to ask for
organizational charts, instead of inquiring for the organizational structure. Stafford Beer developed the
VSM of an organization based on laws of cybernetics and the human’s nervous system. “The difference is
that the VSM is a "whole systems" theory. Almost all other theories of organisation think in the
billiardballs mode of A leads to B leads to C, and therefore miss the essence of what's really going on.
They forget that A, B and C are inextricably linked with a myriad other factors, and that for any model to
work it must take all of this complexity into account” (Walker, 2002). The contemporary organization
charts do not embed the vital stakeholders and the circumstances of the organization in which it’s
embedded. One will never find customers but moreover the environment is either narrowly integrated or
absolutely absent. It only defines job titles. The VSM, however, as fig. 3, c, and e describe has its main
focus on the ‘organization versus environment’ or vice versa, thus it ensures adaptability based on natural
laws. ‘Struggle for existence and life’, lies at the heart of all natural phenomenon. “In looking at Nature, it
is most necessary to keep the forgoing consideration always in mind- never to forget that every single
organic being around us may be said to be striving to the outmost to increase in numbers: that each lives
by a struggle at some period of its life; that heavy destruction invetibley falls either on the young or old,
during each generation or at current interval” (Darwin, 1859, 66). (Drucker, 1954, p.75) emphasises that
all objectives and decisions ought to aim at providing the supplies needed for market standing
(environment) and innovation (adaptability).
11
‘Viable’ means: being able of maintaining a self-governing and self-organizing separate identity.
Figure 4. The evolution of the VSM (Sources: a, b, c, d, Ward, 1991-1998; e, Hoverstadt;
Bowling, 2002) c- E= Environment, M= Management and O= Organization or operations
‘Complexity’, the 6th
force that shapes management strategy “Science has explored the microcosmos and the macrocosmos; we have a good sense of the lay of the
land. The great unexplored is complexity” (Mitchel, 2009, after Heinz Pagels). Complexity as described
by (Lock, 1690, p.147) is: “Ideas thus made up of several simple ones put together, I call complex;—such
as are beauty, gratitude, a man, an army, the universe; which, though complicated of various simple
ideas, or complex ideas made up of simple ones, yet are, when the mind pleases, considered each by itself,
as one entire thing, and signified by one name.” “…complexity implies significant unpredictability so that
the contribution from the model is a deeper understanding of organizational dynamics which can point to
counterintuitive strategies (Tracy, 2010, p.73). The root of complexity goes back to the Latin ‘complexus’
meaning ‘entwined’ or ‘embraced’, which means two or more distinct parts are joined in such a way that
its difficult to separate them. Therefore, we find here a basic duality, where these parts can not be
explained by analytical methods, since by separating them; we destroy their connection (Gershenson;
Heylighen, 2005, p.49). We can not understand a system by dismantling it. Complexity is not understood
by analytical methods, it’s moreover understood by the notion of ‘ordering systems and its reality’.
“…complexity is situated in between order and disorder” (Heylighen, 2007-2008). Complexity can also
be defined as influencing the emergence of order out of disorder or chaos. Complexity is the interrelation,
cause, root and states of real systems (Malik, 1984- 2008, p.166-168 ff.). However, the most difficult thing
about complexity is its definition, since we tend to think in reductionist way, but to understand complexity
we need to change our mindset that in order for us to understand what complexity is, we need to
understand what complex systems are. The best way to understand complex systems is by understanding
how they are controlled. Strategists in the future ought to focus on how complex systems are kept (in
advance) under control in a chaotic, unpredictable, turbulent and moreover in a complex environment. The
strategist may not be able to predict what precisely may occur and what the system under his control may
react to the situation, but he can capture the underlying characteristics of complex systems and their
dynamics by means of modelling and simulation, in order to understand and control them, thus to enable
the design of measures, actions and policies that the system can foster desirable developments; as well as
to make errors along the way less likely and correction as an ubiquitous interplay between the navigator
the organization and the environment (cf. Schwaninger, Pérez Ríos, 2008, p. 145). The main function of
the manager/strategist is to control complexity. The fundamental and really hard problems of management
arise from the complexity of the systems that one has to construct and steer (cf. Malik, 1999, p.22).
Money, material, machinery and man, wherewith mangers have been busy are only a part of the strategic-
management’s spectrum; the next frontier in addition is best denoted as complexity. (Beer, 1979-1994, p.
31) “The ability to master complexity is the most important skill for organizations in the 21st century”
(Hetztler, 2008, p. XIX). Indeed, order in organizations is well structured manifestation and observation of
absorbed complexity. There are two different arts of complexity to be managed: 1) the technomorphic
variant, and 2) the systemic-evolutionary variant (Malik, 1993-2003, p.13). The former we can observe as
the generally complexity managed which the author would coin as ‘reductionist complexity’. The later is
an ever evolving complexity from the interaction of the organism or organization in its embedded
environment. This complexity the author would coin as the ‘dynamic complexity’. In the cross-link and
inter-connected world of our era, the main theme of strategist is ‘to control’ dynamic complexity. The
strategists challenge is not mere the construction of strategy models as in Porter’s five forces description,
its moreover the generating and creating of favourable circumstances and conditions for the organization
to be managed and controlled. (Malik, 1993-2003) emphasizes that these two variants of complexity may
not be treated as mutual, since the former can only be applied if prior the favourable conditions are set, but
as the ever-evolving evidence of our contemporary crises reveal it always fails when organizations are
confronted with the later namely the dynamic complexity. The revolutionary shift in the strategic thinking
ought to be shifted from the old fetishism of ‘construction via detail’ to moreover the ‘construction of a
favourable reality’ while relying on the eigenbehavior and dynamic of the organization as a regulator (first
order) and an observer (second order). To put it metaphorically for better understanding, flowers evolve
better in sunny places and by watering them (cf. Malik, 1993-2003, p. 44-45 ff.).
Conclusions The Porter’s five forces model has only integrated five forces as the main threats to an organization and
made profits the yardstick wherewith he measures organizational fit, industry competition and strategist’s
success. The reader must have realized that competition requires an additional holistic force wherewith the
strategist can actually start to do his job. A systemic analysis of the environment and organization, and
general management model was introduced and designed by (Ulrich; Krieg, 1972-1974) at the university
of St. Gallen. This model was one of the major reasons for the fame of the University of St. Gallen. It was
the first time that a business school model of organizations’ navigation and steering was developed
according to the laws of systems and cybernetics. Based on this ground-breaking work many additional in
depth works have been developed (Gomez, 1981; Malik, 1984,- 2002; Probst 1981-1987; Ulrich, 1978-
1987, and et al) (cf. Rügg-Stürm, 2002, p.6). However the Porter’s model is still a non-falsified strategy
model. (Porter, 1998, p.3) emphasis that the collective strength of the five forces model determines the
strategic positioning of an organization and potential profit of an industry. In addition Porter claims that
the essence of strategy formulation lies in relating business to its environment. However, the definition of
the environment according Porter is very limited, since the state of competition in an industry must
integrate more than the defined five forces according to Porter. (Karagiannopoulos, Georgopoulos and
Nikolopoulos, 2005) observe the Porter’s model from an expansionistic and innovation based view and
state: “One of the critical comments made of the five forces framework is its static nature, whereas the
competitive environment is changing turbulently.” This view is still narrow, because all business is not
expansionism or blunt innovation. (Wang and Chang, 2009) have examined the Porter’s model from an
entrepreneurial and strategic perspective in China and introduce additional forces as which they observe as
more accurate. These forces are as: business’- purpose-, - climate, - location, - organization and - leader.
According to Wang and Chang’s survey Porter’s five forces, they confirm that Porter’s model had not and
did not play a role in strategy development in China. As strategist we can construct many forces and
deliver some empirical results; however the best way would be to design an organizational structure based
on the laws of viability and self-organization to enable the organization to pro-actively absorb complexity
as a next force. “…. there is no such thing as “profit”; there are only “costs of staying in business”
Drucker, 1954, p.77) …. Von Forster famously said: “…to navigate is to construct…” …. Amen to that
References
1. Ashby, R.W. (1958): An Introduction to Cybernetic, Chapman & Hall, London, 1956. Internet
(1999):http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf
2. Beer, S. (2002): In Conversation with Prof. Dr. Stafford Beer (URL:
http://www.kybernetik.ch/dwn/Interview_Beer_Bausch.pdf; 12.01.2012, 13:24pm)
3. Beer, S. (1979-1998): The Heart of Enterprise, Chichester, New York, Brisbane. Toronto.
Singapore, John Wiley & Sons
4. Beer, S. (1995): Diagnosing the system For organizations, The Managerial Cybernetics of
Organization, Chichester • New York • Brisbane • Toronto • Singapore, John Wiley and Sons
5. Darwin, C. (1859- 2004): The Origin of Species: New York, Barnes & Nobel Books
6. Drucker, P. (1954): The Practice of management, New York, Harper Collins Publishing
7. Gershenson, C.; Heylighen, F. (2005): How can we think complex, A volume in : Managing the
Complex, pages 47-61, Information Age Publishing, edited by Richardson, K.A.
8. Gray, J. (1998): False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism: New York, New York Press
9. Hechinger, J.; Karmin, C., (2008). Harvard Hit by Loss as Crises Spreads to Colleges, (URL:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122832139322576023.html, 11.01.2012; 16:07 pm)
10. Heylighen, F. ( 2007-2008): Five Questions on Complexity, To appear in: C. Gershenson (ed.):
Complexity: 5 questions, Automatic Press / VIP, 2007 or 2008,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/5QuestionsComplexity.pdf, (URL: 30.01.2012, 17:07 pm)
11. Hetzler, S. (2008): „Brain supporting envirnments” für Entscheide in komplexen Systemen,
Dissertatios Nr. 3459, Schesslitz, Rosch-Druck
12. Hoverstadt, P; Bowling, D. (2002): Modelling Organisations using, The Viable System Model:
Fractal, www.fractal-consulting.com (URL25.01.2012, 9:34 am)
13. Judt, T. (2010): Ill fares the land, New York, The penguin group
14. Karagiannopoulos, G.D. ; Georgopoulos N. and Nikolopoulos, K.(2005): Fathoming Porter’s five
forces model in the internet era, VOL. 7 NO. 6 2005, pp. 66-76, Q Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, ISSN 1463-6697 DOI 10.1108
15. Lock, J. (1690) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
ftp://ftp.dca.fee.unicamp.br/pub/docs/ia005/humanund.pdf (URL: 30.01.2012, 17:18 pm)
16. Malik, F. (2006): Effective Top Management, Beyond the failure of Corporate Governance and
Share holder Value, Weinheim, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & KGaA
17. Malik, F. (1993-2000-2003): Systemisches Management, Evolution, Selbstorganization, Bern,
Stuttgart. Wien, Haupt Verlag
18. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ (URL: 12.01.2012, 17:11pm)
19. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/18/nation/na-briefs18.4 (URL: 24.01.2012. 12:22 pm)
20. Malik, F. (2007): Management, Das A und O des Handwerks: Frankfurt, Campus Verlag
21. Mitchel, M. (2009): Complexity A Guide Tour, Oxford- New York, Oxford Press
22. Pfiffner, M. (2006): Von biologischen Systemen lernen : io new management Nr. 12
http://www.bionikzentrum.de/img_upload/Pfiffner%20-
%20Von%20biologischen%20Systemen%20lernen.pdf (URL: 24.01.2011, 16:02 pm)
23. Rocha, L. M. Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems: http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/ises.html (URL: 28.01.2012, 12:05)
24. Stacy, R. (2010): Complexity amd Organizational Reality, 2nd edition, London, Routledge
25. Walker, J. (2002): An introduction to the Viable System Model as a diagnostic & design tool for
co-operatives & federations:
http://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=0cybeyes
26. Wang, W. and Chang, P. (2009), ‘‘Entrepreneurship and strategy in China: why ‘Porter’s five
forces’ may not be’’, Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 53-64
27. Weinberg, S. (1992): Dreams of Final Theory: New York,: Pantheon