Summary
The present work is based on the writings of Edgar Morín about Complex Thinking and aims to show how managerial decision making can be improved in some cases when filtered through understanding the nature of problems and the situations that govern them, in an attempt to express confusion and an inability to see and define things more simply.
The complexity
There are many authors who coincide with Morín in defining complexity as a tissue united in a set of elements of different nature, two or more phases in the physicochemical question, or two or more elements in the systemic question, which presents the situation to analyze the one or the multiple, feeds in human beings uncertainty, ambiguity and disorder, for this reason it could be said that complexity has a messy, chaotic and in some cases disturbing form.
Morín affirmed “Legitimately, we ask thought to dispel the mists and darkness, to bring order and clarity to reality, to reveal the laws that govern it. The term complexity can only express our confusion, our confusion, our inability to define simply, to name clearly, to put order in our ideas "
For this reason, it is not possible to confuse or try to explain the complex in terms of complexity, nor attract it to a law, that is, simply reduce it to the idea of complexity. The word complexity in itself represents a problem and is far from showing or facilitating a solution.
Complex thinking
Until a few years ago, scientific thought in search of knowledge had as a method the abstraction of reality and the understanding of the phenomena of a problem in order to be able to register it and obtain the information it needs from it, dividing the whole into its elements and analyzing the problems. parts that compose it separately, which raises what, seeing the organization as the whole, instead of its parts in isolation is not capable of producing new qualities, the use of this deterministic method is based on abstraction, but does not allow to build a common context where all its elements live and the results when analyzing the problems in their independent elements generates more than one analysis context.
Given the constant changes that are present in the world today in all its areas and contexts, the adaptation that society needs to live alongside these changes makes it forget that for our time, all political, economic, anthropological and ecological context is the world itself. In such a way, then, there is the need to place everything in a common context, Morín spoke of a planetary context where knowledge of the world in relation to the world, in present and future time, which raises the idea that access to Information about the world is the task of acquiring knowledge, articulating and organizing it. What in short is the revolution of thought, a complex thought.
Morín's readers, critics and analysts explained it this way: “On the one hand, you have to complement the thought that separates with a thought that brings together. In this sense, complexus means - what is woven together. Complex thought is a thought that seeks, at the same time, to distinguish - but without disuniting - and to reconnect. On the other hand, we must consider the uncertainty. The dogma of a universal determinism has collapsed. The universe is not subject to the absolute sovereignty of order, but rather the game and what is at stake in a dialogic (antagonistic, competing and complementary relationship at the same time) between order, disorder and organization. "
In such a way that the purpose of complex thinking and its relationship with complexity is the task of gathering what is separated for analysis, globalizing the environment and situations and contextualizing the whole in common, that is, the work of collecting uncertainty and turn it into assumptions for analysis.
Use of theories in Complex Thinking
In order to understand and explain from the perspective offered by complex thinking, some authors have arranged that the use of the theories mentioned below, serve as a basis that allows their analysis, favor the understanding of their environment and help to place the common context.
The first of them is the Information Theory which works directly with uncertainty and surprise, since it offers the elements that come from problems, specialists in the area have explained it thus: “the winner of a battle, resolves an uncertainty; the one that announces the sudden death of a tyrant brings the unexpected and, at the same time, the novelty. "
In this way the information allows us to access the universe of that whole and in the same way organization by extracting ideas, situations and context from there.
The second theory is Cybernetics better known as the theory of automaton machines, which basically raises the fundamental idea of feedback, which breaks with the principle of linear chance and introduces the principle of the casual loop. Experts say: “The cause acts on the effect, as in a heating system in which the thermostat regulates the operation of the boiler. This so-called regulation mechanism is what allows the autonomy of a system, in this case the thermal autonomy of an apartment in relation to the cold outside. The feedback "loop" (called feed-back) plays the role of an amplifying mechanism, for example, in a situation of exacerbation of extremes in an armed conflict. The violence of a protagonist leads to a violent reaction, which, in turn,it entails an even more violent reaction.
Since in the phenomena of this world, to analyze the whole, summarized in economic, social, political or psychological, such feedbacks are necessary, the application of this theory is necessary to realize and generate knowledge.
The third is The Theory of Systems, which is based on the following principle "the whole is more than the sum of the parts." This is explained by understanding that there are emergent qualities in the whole and the elements, which are born in the organization of a whole and which can feed back on themselves.
Some authors add: "On the other hand, the whole is equally less than the sum of the parts, since the parts may have qualities that are inhibited by the organization of the whole"
Decision making under complex thinking
Administration can be considered as the science of decisions, since under the objectives of organization, control and direction, among others, according to modern administration, the common element is decision-making, either in response to observations, models, experiments, actions or reactions. Decision-making models have been in charge of constructing procedures for the correct application of the effects of acting, but I intend to show that with the help of complex thinking, this method would broaden the horizon of alternatives when deciding.
The problem I pose is based on the idea that managers today have to make decisions to problems with less and less time to analyze all the variables that are related and sometimes they are valuable and critical effects. Your decisions are based on the data that results from your workers, your historical reports, your work reports and we can add that as a result of the analysis derived from your work. Some authors add that as a basis for managerial decision making, the analyzed results should be tempered with experienced judgment, since there are usually factors that cannot be incorporated into the analysis.
Professionals in the decision-making area affirm that having control over all the variables involved in their business activities, whatever the line of business, is the most important thing, they maintain that knowing the characteristics of their models and understanding Its operation allows showing all the elements to consider to carry out an action or propose a change, which results in the most effective task of a manager, but this way of making decisions leaves aside the environment and context where those decisions are going to be made. effect, and if at that time they were not the most appropriate or if you just had to leave things at that.
The current conditions of the new managers present increasingly dynamic and changing challenges due to the current business conditions and their relationship in world globalization, we could not say that decision-making was the same 20 years ago or 40 years ago, the era Of information, the constant economic changes of countries, states and companies, as well as a more specialized and demanding consumer market, present more complicated challenges to solve, most managers respond to these changes from an interpretive perspective oriented and in the search for models that best describe the decisions to which they are subject and which they must take for the benefit of their companies.
Analysis models are currently used in decision-making based on the following approaches:
- Seeing the results of their variables whatever they are, but it is not enough, so they spend time to observe. To think that these variables show, but it is not enough, so it is necessary to reason. Realize what needs to be done, but not It is enough, you have to allocate time to understand "the how and why" and the consequences. Plan the actions, but it is not enough, you have to allocate time to implement and adapt the plans. Communicate to those involved what has been planned, but it is not enough, you have to spend time interpreting what has been achieved, its meaning and consequences so that everyone can see it.
In essence, these points, with their adaptations in each particular case, are the procedure that managers have to make and make a decision, it is here where the complex thinking approach intervenes to help managers to incorporate a different vision that includes everything the elements, their environment, their context and a vision of the whole for each case without the necessary reduction of the situation into increasingly simple elements, on the contrary offering to understand the whole (in this case the decision) as a whole that will change the conditions in the company.
The idea of fragmenting problems into small realities prevents knowing the nature of the whole, for this reason it is that the administration by objectives made companies efficient, reaching the objectives set, where entrepreneurs were enriched, increasing their infrastructure or whatever their objectives were Even at the cost of social injustices, corruption or poor customer service, in the same way, the administration based on strategic planning, planning by scenarios or quantitative models could predict economic crises, according to Jorge Ricardo Cueva in his work explains: “The decisions of the large organizations could not predict the economic crisis of 2008, nor was it estimated that the financial system in Latin America would be more solid than that of other regions,causing great losses to Latino investors who bet on the North American or European financial markets, this economic environment is the result of a failed administrative theory that does not consider all the factors that can influence the organization, compiling fragmented realities that sustained failed decisions. "
Conclusions
For this reason, it is now when I say that management must currently be proactive in the face of its environment and its context, adapt to the changing world, full of uncertainty and avoid, on pain of failure, splitting problems into small realities, leaving aside the problem of the company in members of only a specific department or person, this means avoiding the use of abstraction as the only element to understand reality, the important thing will be that the notion of reality must be delicately weighted and balanced under the integration of all elements without separate the company into isolated departments or sections, into leadership or expert opinions only,or under the results of the relationship with the client or suppliers in order to avoid excessive simplification in the search for particular solutions that could lead to poor decisions.
For this reason I consider that incorporating the following points will help to improve the decision-making process, enrich it with useful and important information, creating complete realities in order to make decisions that understand both the environment, context and spectrum of application and its permeating effects. across the organization:
- The problem is conceivable It is really necessary to conceive it There is the necessary information to conceive it The causes and effects of the problem can be predicted or modeled Use gradualness, to avoid being above or below the problem, rather within it Use plurality, applying knowledge Theoretical, mathematical, rational as well as experience Use complementarity, discover a solution that is given by the combination of opposing possibilities Use integrity, see the person as a complex and unitary reality Use solidarity, improve human relationships in the search for solutions, avoiding that the only relationship is transactions and negotiations.
I conclude using the phrase of the experts on the subject: “Complex thinking is, in essence, the thinking that integrates uncertainty and that is capable of conceiving the organization. That it is capable of reconnecting, contextualizing, globalizing, but, at the same time, recognizing the singular and the concrete. "
Bibliography
- MORÍN, Edgar (2006) Introduction to complex thinking.CUEVA, Jorge (2009) Complexity and management. Guidelines to manage the complexity of the company.
