Your conceptual point touches on the ‘phase space’ of a complex organisation. Basically, the Phase space defines the current (yes, 4 dimensional) options available to which a system can occupy in response to inbound energy (to the systems sphere of influence and sphere of control). The greater the variety found within the organisation (assisted by circulating management, the hire of outside talent, experience and culture) the greater and more robust the phase space of the organisation. The greater the phase space, the increased propensity of the complex system to evolve (as oppose to disintergrate) after bifurcation.

The level of disorder experienced by a system is subjective – not all systems will experience disorder as a result of inbound energy – just those with simple, non-complex phase space…

I never thought the juncture of theoretical sciences and management would be so engaging.

Your analysis hits home a very important point: the leader’s job comes down to “keeping entropy at bay” and “inspiring emergent action”.

Focusing on these two (and resisting to engage in what you describe as the “design process” to produce a top-down master plan) leaders would almost immediately unleash enormous human potential in most organizations.

Alas, the reality I observe in my work with leaders and organizations is almost the total opposite: they engage heavily in designing the top-down master plan, do almost nothing to keep entropy at bay and totally fail to inspire action with the way they set corporate goals. There’s nothing inspiring in growing revenue, improving the bottom line or improving total returns to shareholders! People don’t get out of bed every morning to make money (for them, for their bosses and for shareholders) – but to live their lives and do something meaningful with it. If only more leaders would lead with this in mind…