Developing Levels of Theory Complexity

Our task is to develop levels of theory complexity that will aid both organizational theory readers and researchers in assessing the level of complexity of a theoretical framework. In addition, we want to propose a process to help researchers climb such a ladder of theoretical complexity. In 1979 Pondy and Mitroff identified the limitations inherent in the then prevailing organizational framework of contingency theory. These authors suggested that researchers use the nine levels proposed by Boulding (1956) to shift from a primary focus on contingency theory toward approaches in which the more complex processes of cycles, language, and culture, as well as the enactment process, are recognized. Pondy and Mitroff proposed a "framework that describes varying types of organization along a scale of complexity" (1979: 5), and their descriptions of Boulding's level 6 (internal image systems), level 7 (symbolic processing systems), and level 8 (multicephalus systems) appear to be conceptual forerunners of some of the more recent conceptualizations of complexity and chaos.

These authors raised an important issue and appear to have significantly influenced organization theory because of then current and subsequent research on organizational culture (Kunda, 1992; Schein, 1985; Smircich, 1983), enactment (Smircich & Stubbart, 1985; Weick, 1979), and cycles (Cameron & Whetton. 1988; Kimberly & Miles, 1980; Miller & Friesen. 1984). The fact that the Boulding/Pondy/Mitroff model was developed well before the emergence of current studies on paradox and chaos makes this all the more remarkable. Furthermore, Boulding had added a ninth, open level to reflect the possibility that some new levels of system complexity not yet imagined might emerge (Source: Ofori-Dankwa and Jullian, AMR, 2001. Note the inherent criticism of contingency theory. Also see: Systematic Knowledge – Toward an Integrated Theory of Science, Mitroff and Kilman, Theory and Society, 4,103-129).