The Māori Marae as a structural attractor: exploring the generative, convergent and unifying dynamics within indigenous entrepreneurship

Transcription

1 2nd Research Colloquium on Societal Entrepreneurship and Innovation RMIT University November 2014 Associate Professor Christine Woods, University of Auckland (co-authors Associate Professor Mānuka Hēnare & Dr Billie Lythberg, University of Auckland) The Māori Marae as a structural attractor: exploring the generative, convergent and unifying dynamics within indigenous entrepreneurship Introduction: Indigenous entrepreneurship is an emerging field of study within the broader field of entrepreneurship. While it is acknowledged that indigenous entrepreneurial activity comes from a particular cultural context, what is not so well understood is how it emerges and how historical context and cultural heritage inform the activity (Peredo & Anderson et al 2006). This was addressed briefly within Emergence journal by an article that examined one particular indigenous context: Māori entrepreneurship. In their article, Tapsell & Woods (2008) consider how social innovation arises in the indigenous Māori community through the interaction of tribal leaders and young entrepreneurs. They suggest that Māori entrepreneurship can usefully be thought of as a complex adaptive system and that both opportunity and heritage play a role in the emergence of entrepreneurial activity. Since then, in collaboration with other authors, they have continued to explore the field of Māori entrepreneurship including the area of social innovation (Tapsell & Woods, 2010), governance and entrepreneurship (Overall, Tapsell & Woods, 2010), family entrepreneurship (Nicolson, Hēnare & Woods, 2012), theoretical development (Kawahru, Tapsell & Woods, 2012; Kawharu, Tapsell & Woods 2013) and Māori tribal enterprise teams (Hēnare, Lythberg & Woods, 2014). In this paper, we re-engage with indigenous entrepreneurship and complexity theory, specifically the suggestion made in Tapsell and Woods (2008, p. 31) that the Marae, the ancestral home of Māori, can usefully be thought of as an attractor that shapes entrepreneurial activity. By so doing we hope to do two things. First, contribute to the growing literature in the field of Māori entrepreneurship, in particular the notion of indigenous enterprise within the tribal community. Our contribution here is to develop the theoretical foundations of indigenous entrepreneurship by again drawing on complexity theory, a theoretical perspective aligned with indigenous worldview (Cajete, 2000). Second, add to the body of work within complexity theory that examines attractors, specifically work by Allen (2001, 2012) and Hazy (Hazy, 2011, Hazy and Backstrom, 2013). Allen argues that the complexity perspective facilitates

2 the transition of our thinking from Being to Becoming. It is about moving from the study of existing physical objects using repeatable objective experiments, to methods with which to image possible futures and with which to understand how possible futures can be imagined. It is about system transformation through multiple subjective experiences, and their accompanying diversity of interpretive, meaning-giving frameworks (Allen, 2001, pp ). We believe that an indigenous worldview contributes to the diversity of frameworks to which Allen refers. In particular we argue a Māori worldview offers a lens thorugh which to consider not only the matter of becoming, but also the question of belonging. We believe this relational dimension is an important aspect of complexity thinking to which indigenous perspectives can contribute. Theoretical Background: From a science perspective, Complexity theory (nonlinear dynamics) is a mathematical language and set of concepts for describing and modeling complex linear systems, and provides a way of developing a unified view of life by integrating life s biological, cognitive and social dimensions (Capra, 2005: 33). Whilst complexity science and the notion of dynamical systems originate in the natural world, researchers have argued that there is relevance and potential for useful insights to be applied in organizational dynamics. Journals such as Emergence and the International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management focus specifically on this suggestion. And recently, Allen, Maguire and McKelvey (2011) have brought together leading thinkers in this area to explore the current stage of research and the growing field emerging at the intersection of complexity theory and management. Relevant to our discussion is the suggestion that human interactions are analogous to those modeled by complex adaptive systems. As such they can inform our theoretical thinking about organisations as well as management, entrepreneurship and leadership within organisations. One of the leading thinkers in this area is Jim Hazy. He argues in Metaphor: complexity and the new rules of management (Hazy, 2011) that the complexity perspective is, as the title suggests, more than a metaphor that simply offers theoretical insights. Rather, complexity science can be applied directly to human organizing efforts and actively inform and shape what is happening within organisations. One of the specific strands within Hazy s work on complex adaptive systems is the dynamical systems perspective as it relates to the concept of attractors (Golstein, Hazy & Silberstang, 2010; Hazy & Backstrom 2011; Hazy & Ulbien, 2008; Hazy, 2011, 2012). Tapsell & Woods (2008: 32) make the suggestion that, drawing on Allen (2001), Marae may serve as a structural attractor in the flow of opportunity and heritage. We now turn to briefly introduce the notion of an attractor from a complexity perspective and then in consider how this applies to the Marae. We begin by assuming that organisations, enterprises and communities can be considered complex adaptive systems. A complex system comprises numerous agents, or actors, interacting according to particular rules. Agents learn through their interactions; the system is adaptive and coevolves through the dynamic interactions of interdependent agents who are bonded in a co-operative dynamic by common goals, outlook rules etc (Uhl Bient et al 2007: 229; see also Tapsell & Woods, 2008, Holland, 1995, McKelvey, 1999). A complex system is one where numerous actors interact and if such interactions are adaptive, in that agents

3 co-adapt, co-learn and coevolve, then the system can be considered a complex adaptive system (CAS) (Holland, 1995; Maguire & McKelvey, 1999; Uhl-Bien et al 2007). One of the central tasks of complexity theory is to explore how order emerges (McKelvey, 2001). From a CAS the emergence of order results from self-organisation. Self-organization is emergent as a result of the interdependent behavior of agents who act on local information (Surie & Hazy, 2006; 14). Such a system is dynamic and has a pattern of organization that is nonlinear small changes can produce large effects and vice versa. From a dynamical systems perspective, such patterns can be described mathematically by non linear equations. The equations are not represented as formulae, but rather as visual shapes. Given the variables of interest, assumptions are made about how they will change over time. The behavior of a system over time is portrayed as a continuous tracing of a line in three dimensional space (Capra, 2005; Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein & Schultz,). The total possible combinations of these variables are represented in a state space. As the system changes states over time, it traces a trajectory in its phase space landscape. Certain regions of the phase space are occupied more than others. These regions are known as attractors: attractors shape the trajectory of the phase space as it is pulled toward the attractors. Metaphorically speaking, the trajectory is attracted to this pattern whatever its starting point may have been. (Capra, 2005: 36). It is important to note that the attractor is not separate to the system. From a dynamical systems perspective the attractor is a mathematical representation of a system s long term behavior that is intrinsic to the system (Capra & Luisi, 2014). Attractors can disappear or change, or new attractors may suddenly emerge. This occurs when there is instability or bifurcation points: a fork appears and the system branches off into a new direction and new forms of order appear referred to as emergence (Capra & Luisi, 2014). There are several types of attractor with the most well known being the Lorenz attractor also known as the butterfly effect. Originally used to describe atmospheric change, this attractor highlights the importance of the sensitivity to initial conditions. It is also referred to as a strange attractor ; not only does it limit the possible states a system can reach, but any given trajectory within the bounded system will frequently return to roughly the same state, but never the exact same state. In addition to the strange attractor there are three other types that are typically described: point, periodic point and periodic. At the most basic level is the point attractor. This type of attractor works to move the system to a stable point of equilibrium. The periodic point attractor moves in a linear or orbital pattern that moves toward and away from a set point in a regular fashion, i.e. it follows a set pattern until it comes to rest. The periodic attractor, or cyclic attractor, is slightly more complex. Whilst it follows an orbital or linear trajectory towards a set point, the trajectory may change from iteration to iteration. The trajectory is predictable and dynamic at the same time. Peter Allen (2001) has suggested another type of attractor: a structural attractor is the emergence of a set of interacting factors that have mutually supportive, complementary attributes" (2001,?). Given this is the type of attractor that we wish to discuss in relation to Māori entrepreneurship and the Marae, we will provide a summary of the key points of this type of attractor. The structural attractor emerges from the shifting networks of interdependent people, things and ideas. The interactions are on the whole synergetic and provide better performance than single,

4 pure homogeneous behaviors but are less diverse than all possible behaviors (Allen, 2001?). Allen (2001) describes the implications of these structural attractors as follows: 1) development of the systems leads to much higher performance and one that decreases internal competition and increases synergy; 2) leads to the evolution of a complex, a community of agents whose activities feedback positively on themselves and the others present. It is an emergent team or community in which positive interaction are greater than negative ones; 3) structural attractor represents a reduced set of activities from all those possible in principle. Discovery of a subset of agents whose attributes and dimensions have properties that provide positive feedback - emergences of variables, dimensions and attribute sets that not only coexist but actually are synergistic; and 4) freedom and encouragement to explore. The self-organisation of our system leads to a highly cooperative system, where the competition per individual is low, but where loops of positive feedback and synergy are high - a system more cooperative than competitive. What emerges are structural attractors, ecologies of behaviour, beliefs and strategies, clustered in a mutually consistent way, and characterised by a mixture of competition and symbiosis. Organisational dynamics and attractors In the context of organizational dynamics, an attractor is a subset of all organizational possibilities. Once an organization assumes a particular configuration it attracts other aspects of the organization and tends to stay there; the organization becomes in a sense stable bouncing around with the attractor configuration. When subject to this attractor, the system or organization will remain with given boundaries. These boundaries define an attractor cage, which guides or constrains the actions and choices of the individuals interacting with and within that organization (Hazy, 2011: 528). Whilst the organization is stable within the attractor cage movement does occur and bifurcation, yet the emergence of a new attractor is not necessarily the outcome. Goldstein et al (working paper) suggest three contexts that occur within an attractor cage. First there is the convergence context. Here stability is paramount, and activity is directed toward limiting any change. The second is where generative dynamics and divergence occur within attractors. Both divergent and convergent dynamics are taking place with new possibilities being discovered within the attractor cage. Sometimes these generative dynamics will give rise to bifurcation points and a new attractor emerges. However this is not always the situation and the existing attractor may alter to accommodate these generative dynamics. This may be the case when new possibilities or opportunities are directed toward constructive organizational change. And the third aspect to consider is the unifying dynamics in the system. Buckley (2008) rightly pointed out that social systems are more complex than other systems because actors change even as the system changes. As such the actor is able to reflect on their participation in the system. Here the actor is engaged in interactions directed toward a sense of unity and purpose. This unifying dynamic has been explored by considering the role of leadership (cf Hazy, 2012; Hazy & Uhlbien, 2013). We would extend this and suggest, in the spirit of the opening quote from Allen, that actors in a human system are seeking a sense of belonging and identity and that this may emerge from structural attractors as we will discuss below.

5 In summary, organizations and communities can be thought of as complex adaptive systems. As such they can be thought of as being influenced and bound by attractors. These attractors can take several forms. The one that we are specifically interested in is the structural attractor. Returning to Allen (2001), structural attractors can represent any group of humans but only if exploratory learning is permitted will the evolutionary emergence of structural attractors be possible. In addition the macro-structures that emerge spontaneously in complex systems constrain the choices of individuals and fashion their experience. Behaviours are being affected by knowledge and this is driven by the learning experience of individuals. The structural attractor is a physical artifact that shapes interaction patterns of complex systems of human interactions. Further to this, it is also suggested that three specific dynamics can be considered when exploring organizational dynamics and attractors: generative, convergence and unifying. We suggest that both the generative and convergent aspects are able to be explored within structural attractors. The unifying dynamic is also worth further exploration. We now return to the assertion made in Tapsell and Woods (2008) that the Marae is a structural attractor within a complex adaptive system. We do this by first describing the Marae and aspects of encounter engaged in on the Marae. We also discuss one framework for understanding Māori entrepreneurship, the Takarangi spiral which considers generative and divergent aspects of Māori tribal enterprise. We then draw this discussion back to the notion of structural attractors and the generative, convergent and unifying dynamic that can be found in the Marae.