Morrison, Keith. (2002). School Leadership and Complexity Theory. Reviewed by Darren Stanley, University of Windsor

Morrison, Keith. (2002). School Leadership and Complexity Theory. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. xii + 215 $45.41 (paper)     ISBN 0-415-27784-1) Reviewed by Darren Stanley University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario September 14, 2005 In School Leadership and Complexity Theory, as Keith Morrison suggests, his aim is to show his readers “why and how an understanding of complexity theory is important for leadership in education” (p. 1). As he states, his book is intended for readers who may be headteachers, middle managers and lecturers of higher level courses in educational leadership and management. Morrison, however, does not assume that his readers will be familiar with the emerging field of “complexity theory,” (Note 1) and, as such, he breaks up his work into two parts. The first part is an introductory chapter to complexity theory; the second part, which consists of seven chapters, explores and examines the practice of complexity in school settings, especially around the notions of leadership in relation to self-organization and the school, the concept of “emergence,” learning organizations, the school’s connection with its environment, communication and the concept of “fitness landscapes.” Morrison ends his work with a final, and brief, reflection on how complexity theory is opening up different possibilities for thinking about leadership and the prospects it might hold for enacting a different kind of leadership. To be sure, Morrison’s introductory chapter to complexity theory is not exhaustive, even though it is heavily referenced for a reader who may wish to consult other major texts in the field. Morrison’s introductory chapter provides but a brief preamble to some of the ideas relevant to the field of complexity science, however, he does situate these ideas within a broader historical context, connecting the field with past theoretical frames like open systems theory, chaos theory, self-organized criticality, and dissipative structures. (Note 2) These various theories express different theoretical commitments and assumptions– it does bear some reminding that there is hardly complete agreement as to the meaning of “complexity.” Morrison’s work, nevertheless, does provide a look at a number of important concepts that generally are discussed by many complexity-related discourses and systems theories, broadly speaking. The study of complex phenomena has crept into many areas, including biology, ecology, economics, urban planning, anthropology, sociology, healthcare and (slowly) education. In addition, many of the concepts aligned with complexity theoretic frames also have been invoked in the area of leadership, but Morrison’s work appears to be one of the first major contributions to school leadership framed by a complexity science orientation. As such, his work is important here as he sets the stage for an important introduction to the field for those involved the field of education. To assist him in this matter, Morrison draws upon work from a number of individuals who have made significant contributions to the study of complex phenomena as well as the leadership literature. Readers will find that much of Morrison’s sources are from the 1990’s, with a smattering of references from before this time. As far as earlier and important works related to the study of complex phenomena, there are some important texts which are missing from his bibliography. For instance, Warren Weaver’s (1948) work marks one of the earliest texts to address the nature of “complex” phenomena as opposed to “simple” or merely “complicated” structures. As well, references to Benoit Mandelbrot as the originator of “fractal” forms are missing. As an important notion in the history and study of complex non-linear dynamical phenomena, the ideas and literature are strikingly absent from this work. That said, Morrison’s introductory chapter does provide a good place to start although there is much more that one might read about the field. (Note 3) One might imagine that readers of this review will want to know what complexity theory is all about. Generally speaking, complexity theory is concerned with particular objects of study rather than a particular mode of inquiry. To be clear, the “objects” of concern are dynamical, unpredictable, unstable, and sensitive to initial conditions; they are also adaptive and change over time, highly connected or relational, and have the capacity to create something much bigger than the individual “parts” of the system. Put differently, complexity theory is a study of living organizations. As modernistic institutions, however, schools have been described through more mechanical metaphors. But given that schools have a heart, in a manner of speaking, not only would a different collection of metaphors be useful to understand them, but the possibility for a very different way of engaging with others who stand in relation with this complex collective can unfold. The implications for school leadership framed by notions of schools as living organizations, therefore, suggest something very different from, say, the concept of leadership as command-and-control. Moreover, while advice for leading in such a manner may sound easy, it is far from trivial and not particularly easy to enact. One important notion of leadership, framed by a complexity sensibility which Morrison discusses, is that of “distributed leadership” which he describes as the “sine qua non for the emergent organization” (p. 71, original emphasis). That is, this is about “shared” or “collective” leadership wherein there is a capacity for power to be shared with rather than imposed upon a social collective. To be sure, “formal” leadership may be concerned with “the power of senior figures and with hierarchy,” but leadership in emergent organizations–in living organizations–is more towards a “quality of practice” and not so much about one’s position in the organization. As Morrison writes: The task of distributed leadership in the self-organizing school frequently becomes one of managing and developing relationships, developing opportunities for new working relationships to be formed, celebrating diversity in people and cultures, working towards conflict resolution…and developing inclusive and collaborative work in the organization. (p. 73) As one might glean from this short passage, there are other aspects of “healthy” social organizations like schools which Morrison highlights in this work. In particular, he points to the importance of relations, the need and importance of diversity, novelty and innovation, forms of democratic practice, and the ability to problem solve and communicate effectively with others. These notions and concepts are prevalent ideas in other complexity-related texts and the importance is shown across so many other scales of organization that encompass the biological, the social, the cultural and the ecological. Living systems, when they are alive–deeply alive–and healthy, show themselves in ways that reflect the importance and necessity for such principles. Certainly, Morrison’s work suggests as much through his analysis and deep consideration of the leadership literature. The complexity science literature and its discourses often “speak” to phenomena that are described through metaphors that suggest a quality of being alive. As such, we read about organizations as being like the brain, the organism and collectives of species like bees, ants, flocks of birds and schools of fish (Morgan, 1997). In a similar fashion, Morrison’s work, specifically through his referenced work, continues to show how this notion of “being alive” resonates with the larger field of complexity theory. As he suggests, quoting Michael Fullan, for instance, for schools to survive, an understanding of complexity is necessary. The opposite of being able to survive, as through an ability to adapt to a constantly changing world, is death – or in the very least, a case if disease, disorder or illness. The notion of an unhealthy social organization, as when one talks about unhealthy relations or a toxic workplace, is not far away. Although this connection to health is not strongly made in Morrison’s work, the same kinds of necessary conditions for (un)healthy organizations are to found at all scales of organization from the physiological to the biological, the social, cultural and ecological. There are times when Morrison might seem like he is providing a highly prescriptive guide toward enacting a very different sense of leadership in school. For instance, the concluding thoughts at the end of each chapter could read as prescriptions for viewing and transforming schools, as well as thinking about leadership, however, they should not be read as such. Ultimately, Morrison’s conclusions should be read in terms of creating the kinds of conditions for (healthy) self-organizing schools. In addition, a part of those conditions involve some important ways of thinking about leadership and enacting a different set of practices. In particular, the move from command-and-control leadership and its corresponding practices to transformational leadership is a hallmark of leadership for self-organization and emergence. As such, relationality becomes crucial, moving away from coerciveness and authoritarianism toward a greater attention to and promotion of interdependence, open communication, cooperation and a recognition for the need of a diverse community of individuals and practices. One might imagine that no book will satisfy every reader. Admittedly, I can’t say that I was exceedingly satisfied. The book seems overly referenced, and although it is widely referenced, which can be a good thing, reading this work felt very choppy. Moreover, there also were occasions when I found myself disagreeing with Morrison’s conclusions, and especially his framing of and enthusiasm for complexity theory. Thankfully, he does point to some of these same “concerns,” concerns that people in the field have with the enactment and application of complexity theoretic ideas to social organizations. For instance, and in particular, I was pleased to see Morrison include references to the work of Ralph Stacey (2001; Stacey, 2003) on complex responsive processes which challenges what complexity science, and especially complex adaptive systems, has to say about the nature of social organizations, as a kind of counter-argument. While I can appreciate why these principles as ideals are important, for me, Stacey provides a better example for understanding what actually might be happening in social organizations. I suspect that Morrison spends less time addressing what people like Stacey can contribute to our collective understanding because Stacey appears to offer noting which would tell leaders what they can actually do different. The penultimate chapter on “fitness landscapes” seems out of place in spite of being, as Morrison claims, a potentially useful tool for ascertaining how well a school and its subgroups (e.g., administration, departments) have adapted and continue to adapt to an environment. Put briefly, the landscape fitness diagram shows the quality and quantity of connections within and without a system. As such, the aim of this chapter, as Morrison tells his reader, is to show how one might draw and interpret fitness landscapes. The claim that fitness landscapes can be “an interesting tool for schools, departments, faculties, formal and informal groups to use for mapping the territory to be covered in school review and school improvement” seems a bit strong. As far as paying attention to those important conditions for self-organizing leadership and self-organization and emergence for a place like a school, the fitness landscapes seem (to me anyway) to be less than helpful. I can only leave this matter up to other readers as to this chapter’s usefulness and relevance to the topic at hand. To be sure, as Morrison points out as well, the ideas on leadership presented in this book can stand alone without requiring an understanding of complexity theory. Indeed, the ideas presented in each of the chapters of the second part of this work are heavily and widely referenced, providing much insight and guidance for further reading. On their own, each of the chapters holds the possibility of being a good resource for a great deal of empirical evidence. Still, this is not to say that complexity theory is redundant and holds no place in the larger domain of school improvement, and leadership and management concerns. Complexity theory is opening up the possibility for the collective consciousness to think about organizations differently. Morrison’s work not only brings the world of complexity theory to the field of education and educational leadership, but he brings some measure of hope for doing things a bit differently so as to create a more humane place for students and teachers and a school’s larger community. Notes 1. “Complexity theory” is the name given to the study and understanding of phenomena framed by a theoretical commitment to non-linear dynamics. It is really not so much a “theory” or branch of inquiry as it is a study of particular objects and dynamical forms. Sometimes complexity theory is referred to as “complexity science,’ although even this is problematic. I have chosen to think of the field as “paradigmatic complexity” given that the world is already complex. 2. For a more extensive and popular look at how complexity theory emerged, see (Waldrop, 1992). 3. Another good place to consult is the website for the “Complexity and Education” study group. Although it is recent in appearance, the website appears to be the most significant gathering place for complexity studies in relation to education. See: www.complexityandeducation.ca. References Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. New York: Routledge. Stacey, R. D. (2003). Complexity and group processes: A radically social understanding of individuals. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster. Weaver, W. (1948). Science and complexity. American Scientist, 32, 536-544. About the Reviewer Darren Stanley is Assistant Professor of Elementary Education (Mathematics) in the Faculty of Education at the University of Windsor in Windsor, Ontario. He received his doctorate from the University of Alberta, and his research interests include the study of complex phenomena as a paradigm for understanding and framing aspects of health and healthy learning organizations, including healthy schools and how democratic schools, in particular, could be considered as models of healthy learning organizations. Additionally, he is interested in the circulation of lived phenomena with complexity frameworks. As a teacher educator in the faculty’s pre-service education program, he is interested in the ways in which pre-service teachers enact various mathematical pedagogical stances through complexity science-related notions. He may be reached by e-mail at: dstanley@uwindsor.ca Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.