The water in a saucepan on a heated stove will develop convection cells as it warms, an emergent phenomenon. But the emergent phenomenon of convection cells hasn’t created the saucepan, it is just contained within it.

Similarly, emergent phenomena may arise within an organisation, in terms of the cultures that arise across the organisation, departments and teams. But they have not caused the creation of the organisation, it was already in place.

Given the organisation is not an emergent phenomenon, then there are two possibilities: either it just exists, like a rock, or it was created, like a watch. It is fairly obvious that organisations don’t just randomly appear, which leads to the conclusion they must be created.

If they are created, then they are created with a purpose, a goal. And as this goal is the very reason for the organisation existing, that means it is intrinsic to the organisation. You appear to be suggesting that you accept this, but that because an organisation pulls in people other than the creator, the intrinsic goal is quickly removed because the new individuals all have separate and different goals. This means, you appear to argue, that any intrinsic goals are dropped, and only extrinsic goals (meaning either applied from outside the organisation, or not an inherent part of the organisation) apply.

But this isn’t the case. The creator of the organisation does pull in new people, but he ensures that the activities they perform help the organisation achieve its goal – the goal it began with. While it is true that the new individuals will not share the goal (let’s call it “make the company money”), it is possible to harness the different goals they do have. In essence, every employee shares one goal, because otherwise they wouldn’t be an employee: they want to get paid at the end of the month.

This means that the creator of the organisation can use the ‘dead’ asset he owns, that being capital, money, to incentivise the individuals to work towards a goal he has defined – the goal of the organisation. Because the employee has a goal of getting paid, he does the activities set out to him. If he does not, he doesn’t get paid, he ceases to be an employee.

Does this mean that there are no interactions within an organisation which give rise to unforeseen outcomes, to emergent phenomena? It absolutely doesn’t. Human beings are not automata. Does it mean that the aggregate of the activities in the organisation is aimed at achieving the original intrinsic goal of the organisation? It absolutely does.

Note that this isn’t arguing the organisation is only its ‘dead’ assets. But it also isn’t true to say the organisation is only the people within it, and their interactions. An organisation requires both – but the ‘dead’ assets are more important. The goal of gaining some of these assets, of getting paid, is what drives the employees – without the assets available, there would be no employees.

Yes, there will be emergent phenomena in an organisation. These will be under the original creator’s control only in a limited way (he can provide incentives to try and move behaviour into certain patterns). But these phenomena are in general irrelevant to the goals of the organisation. As long as the employees are carrying out activities to meet the goals set for them by the creator – set to help the organisation meet its goals – anything else is relatively unimportant to him.

These arguments are even more tightly focused when it comes to projects, because by definition projects are time-limited and goal-driven. A project is begun, employees are assigned, and they work towards the goal – because otherwise they don’t get paid. Their interactions may lead to a unique culture developing, an emergent phenomenon, but that doesn’t effect the goal. It may very well be irrelevant. At worst, it becomes an issue of managing the team. But the one thing it doesn’t do is lead to the project losing its original goal.

True, an organization is initiated because one stakeholder starts with a goal. But apparently he cannot achieve that goal by himself. So he needs to build *trade* relationships with other people, who have other goals. Those other people are employees, suppliers and customers.

All those parties have their own goals. And they all think they benefit from trading with each other. Some stakeholders invest money (customers), other stakeholders (employees) invest time.

The result is a very complex web of relationships and dependencies, the result of which is much, much more than what the first stakeholder started out with. A lot of those relationships have absolutely *nothing* to do with the goal of the first stakeholder.

Note: I have even seen *intimate* relationships being built between some stakeholders (between employees, and between employees and customers). If you think those relationships, and all other emergent properties of the organization, are all part of the goal and design of the original stakeholder, then I’m afraid you’re completely out of touch with reality.

The original stakeholder has a goal. But the organization is NOT owned by the stakeholder. Only its ASSETS are owned by the first stakeholder. Therefore only the dead assets of an organization may have the same goal. But the other (living) emergent properties are beyond his reach.

May I suggest that you read The Living Company, by Arie de Geus? A very interesting and famous book that also suggests that a company is a living system, something that emerges from its parts.