Leadership in a Networked world

by

Delia Pembrey MacNamara

BSc Information Systems (University of NSW)

MBA (University of Hull)

A formal assessment document submitted in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of

Masters of Philosophy
(Doctor of Philosophy)

University of Hull

2014

Supervisor: Professor Gerald Midgley

Centre for Systems Studies

Approved by: ________________________________________

Chairman of Supervisory Committee

Date : 14th July 2014 Word Count: 10,977

 Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on my continuing research

into Systemic Leadership in a Networked World. I originally proposed to investigate
how to maximize social media for open innovation and collective intelligence for
organizational competitiveness, and this paper details findings resulting from research
conducted to date; refinements to the original research question, with a specific focus on
Boundary; and the proposed methodology for Phase 2 of the research.
Aim The aim of the research is to investigate the concept of systemic leadership and to
develop an easily accessible and deployable transdisciplinary tool to develop critical
systemic leadership thinking skills at all levels.
Design/methodology/approach This paper builds on findings from my MBA
Dissertation (MacNamara, 2011b) into the barriers to implementing social media in
organizations. Using Midgleys (1992) Boundary Critique, a key finding from this research
was that an organizations leaders perception of social media and their personal
boundary judgments as to the application and usefulness in the workplace influenced the
adoption and implementation process systemically.
The design of this doctoral research initially took a generic systems approach to identify
key areas of overlap, interrelationships and interdependencies within the broad themes
of innovation, leadership and systems thinking, related to the technologically networked
world. The proposed research design for the fieldwork and analysis uses a Critical
Systems Thinking methodology.
Initial Findings Organizations (collectives) and individuals are operating in a digitally
connected world filled with multiple paradigms, philosophies and weltanshuung. Whilst
the concept of Boundary is a key concept in systems thinking and theory, Boundary (and
its synonyms) are also prevalent throughout the literatures on leadership, innovation and
networks from the concept of boundaryless organizations (Ashkenas, et al., 2008) to
the need for boundary spanning leadership (MacGillivray, 2009; Yip, et al., 2011) to
innovation being found at the edge (Stefik, 2000; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010). But where
is the edge in a network? Where is the Boundary? The questions became, What is (the
being of) a Boundary? What is the nature of Boundary? What is it made up of? How does
it work? A critical systems thinking methodology was used to enable a multi-
paradigmatic, multi-philosophical approach to the literature review which, in turn, led to
the development of a partial ontology and methodology of Boundary, the Boundary
Triage. I introduce the Boundary Triage as a potential systemic leadership tool to
navigate critical moments (or messy and wicked situations) using informal empirical
examples to date.
Originality/value This research develops a partial ontology and methodology of
boundary resulting in the Boundary Triage a practical leadership development tool
grounded in theory with potential to enable boundary critique and action for personal
transformation, improved communication and relations, and developing the concept of
systemic leadership through understanding the Boundary concept.
Keywords Leadership, Innovation, Collective Intelligence, Social Media, Critical Systems
Thinking, Boundary Critique, Ontology, Systemic Leadership, Boundary Triage
Paper type PhD Research Formal Assessment Report

2
 Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Tables.................................................................................................................................................. 5
Leadership in a Networked World.......................................................................................... 6
Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Background ............................................................................................................................... 6
Research Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 10
Research Methodology and Principles ........................................................................ 11
Significance and Contribution of the Research ....................................................... 12
Structure of the Paper ........................................................................................................ 13
Boundary: A Conceptual Minefield ...................................................................................... 15
Methodology and Rationale ............................................................................................ 15
Technology, Innovation, Leadership and Systems Thinking............................... 16
Boundary and Systems Thinking.................................................................................... 20
Towards an Ontology of Boundary............................................................................... 25
The Boundary Triage .................................................................................................................. 26
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 26
The Naming of the Boundary Triage ............................................................................ 26
The Boundary Triage (Simple Form) ............................................................................. 28
The Boundary Triage: A Theory or a Practical Tool? .............................................. 28
As Theory .......................................................................................................................... 28
The Boundary Triage as a Practical Tool .............................................................. 33
A New Direction .................................................................................................................... 37
The Boundary Triage as Systemic Intervention and Action Research .................. 39
The Research Questions Revisited ................................................................................ 39
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 39
Method ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Type of study, population and sampling............................................................. 40
Data collection methods and instruments.......................................................... 41
Data analysis methods ................................................................................................ 43
Quality assurance .......................................................................................................... 44
Limitations and delimitations ................................................................................... 45
Timetable .......................................................................................................................... 46
Ethical considerations and data protection ........................................................ 46
Dissemination ........................................................................................................................ 47
Moving Forward ........................................................................................................................... 48
Connecting the Research Agendas ............................................................................... 48

3
ANNEXES

Annex A ........................................................................................................................................... 51
Case Study 1: The Development of the Boundary Theory .................................. 51
Annex B ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Case Study 2: Boundary Triage in Practice .............................................................. 53
Annex C............................................................................................................................................ 56
Inquiry into Boundary and Boundary Dynamics...................................................... 56
Annex D ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Semantic Use of Words in Everyday Use That Define Objects and Events
(Boundary Terms) ................................................................................................................. 57
Annex E ............................................................................................................................................ 59
University of Hull Ethics Proforma ................................................................................. 59
Annex F ............................................................................................................................................ 64
University of Hull Data Management Plan ................................................................. 64
Annex G ........................................................................................................................................... 76
Ethics Approval ...................................................................................................................... 76

References ...................................................................................................................................... 77

4
 Figures

Figure 1: Midgley (1992) Boundary Critique applied to the Inner Self: Conflict Arising
from 'work' and 'personal' values ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: The Research Journey: Past, Present and Future .......................................................... 9
Figure 3: Research Methodology and Rationale............................................................................15
Figure 4: Characteristics of Boundary .................................................................................................23

Tables

Table 1 : Revised Research Questions and Objectives ........................................................................... 10

Table 2: Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 42

5
 Chapter 1

Leadership in a Networked World

Social media is misnamed. It should be called personal media.

Senior Researcher, R&D Consultancy (MacNamara, 2011b, p. 65)

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on my part-time Doctoral

Research Proposal, Social Media - Beyond the Fad: The development of

collective intelligence and implications for organisations (MacNamara, 2011a)

approved by the University of Hull on 20th June 2011. This paper details my

research conducted to date, building upon findings from my Masters

Research, Hull - A Digital City? A study into the adoption of social media and

web technologies in organisations and communities (MacNamara, 2011b). It

also reports subsequent findings and adjustments to the original research

focus and question, the philosophical foundations of the research to be

conducted and the proposed framework for Phase 2.

Background

Over the past eight years, the use of social technologies has seen improved

risk management; faster innovation cycles; access to extensive and diverse

internal and external global resources; on-demand pay-for-performance

and/or service; retained knowledge and knowledge management; and

improved business results, shareholder and stakeholder value (Bughin, 2009;

Kalapesi et.al., 2010; Johnson et.al., 2011).

Despite these reported benefits, in 2010, an IBM study of global CEOs reported

that CEOs were finding the new economic environment more volatile,

uncertain, complex and structurally different, with 49% not feeling prepared

6
for the expected complexity. Social technologies require a switch in

management mind set from command-and-control to connect-and-

collaborate (Collins, 2008; Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010; Hilberts, 2010), with

successful leaders being able to identify and span both horizontal and vertical

organisational boundaries (MacGillivray, 2009). Organisations have been

challenged to understand the potential opportunities and the risks of using

new social technologies that could be accessed on mobile, personal devices

such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn (McKinsey, 2007; Innocentive, 2011).

In response to this challenge, the initial proposal set out to explore:

the main challenges to organisations when implementing social media

to harness collective intelligence and open innovation;

the impact of social technologies on organisational performance,

structure and practices; and

how systems thinking could enable leaders to facilitate positive

participation using social technologies (MacNamara, 2011a).

To provide a basis for the proposed PhD research, I conducted preliminary

research investigating the barriers to adoption of social media by

organisations (MacNamara, 2011b). One of the key findings from this research

suggested that, within organisations, a leaders personal boundary judgments

(Churchman, 1968; Ulrich, 1987; Midgley, 1992) regarding the use and role of

social technologies is a main factor in the successful implementation of these

technologies. Social media either blurred or strengthened the distinctions

between the leaders professional and personal identities and the associated

beliefs which, in turn, affected the individuals perception and engagement

with social media.

7
 Figure 1: Midgley (1992) Boundary Critique applied to the Inner Self:
Conflict Arising from 'work' and 'personal' values Source: MacNamara, 2011b, p.61

Applying Midgleys (1992) Boundary Critique at the individual cognitive level

(Figure 1), I illustrated the delineation between the expected behaviours and

beliefs within the personal and professional spheres. Figure 1 shows the

distinct boundary judgements within an individual created by personal values

and work values toward the issue on social media adoption in the work place.

Social media were viewed as sacred or profane, leading to either a for or

against decision concerning the technology. The individual represented in

Figure 1, for example, regarded social media as fine for personal interactions,

but when it came to work, he saw these media as very risky and therefore

profane. This conflict within an individual based on internal boundary

judgements relating to work and personal identities needs to be recognised

as subsequent decisions often affected the whole organisation systemically in

various ways, not only with the implementation of technology but also the

successful adoption by its employees (MacNamara, 2011b).

8
My MBA (2011b) findings suggested further investigation into boundaries and

boundary critique at a personal, cognitive level could potentially enable

positive systemic leadership and participation in the use of, and deployment

of, social technologies (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The Research Journey: Past, Present and Future

With a competitive and uncertain business world becoming more reliant on

information and innovation for business success, requiring the ability to

identify and span boundaries, the main research question became:

Could a systemic leadership approach be the new model we

need to explore to enable leaders across business functions and
levels to lead, enable and transform in a dynamic, complex,
technologically networked, interrelated and interdependent
world which is redefining boundaries?

9
Research Aims and Objectives

Whilst there are several interpretations of systemic leadership (Campbell

et.al., 1991; Cavaleri & Obloj, 1993; Allen & Cherrey, 2000; Midgley, 2000;

Higham et.al., 2009; Tate, 2009; Taylor, 2010), arguably there is not, as yet, an

explicit definition of the concept, how one can learn or practise it, and how it

benefits the organisation as a whole (although Allen & Cherrey, 2000, and

Taylor, 2010, provide an excellent foundation to build on). 1 As there is no

explicit definition, I decided to refine the original research focus to develop

this idea of systemic leadership in a networked world using a critical systems

thinking (CST) approach concentrating on the concept of Boundary2, as this

was shown to be pivotal in my previous research on social media in

organisations (MacNamara, 2011b). As a result of this refinement, an initial

literature review produced a (partial) ontology of Boundary, requiring a

revision of the original research questions and aims (Table 1). For the purpose

of this research, this proposed partial ontology of Boundary will be referred to

as the Boundary Triage (detailed in Chapter 3).

Research Question Research Objective

1. What is the nature (ontology) of a. To determine the key elements of a Boundary
Boundary? through the synthesis of literature across
disciplines and systems thinking.
2. How can understanding the ontology a. To develop a simple formula (the Boundary
of Boundary underpin an evolved Triage) to critique boundaries on a personal
understanding of systemic leadership? (and collective) level, and observe systemic
changes in both the online and physical social
domains.
b. To investigate whether using the Boundary
Triage, and adjusting various components, can
have a personal transformational effect.
3. What impact does systemic leadership a. To determine if using the Boundary Triage has
have on developing a collective a positive systemic leadership effect on
intelligence (CI) and open developing a CI/OI culture.
innovation (OI) culture in an
organisational context?
Table 1 : Revised Research Questions and Objectives

1
My understanding of systemic leadership authors is that they usually identify generic key areas of
focus for systemic leadership rather than providing an explicit definition. My aim is to build upon the
foundational systemic leadership work of Allen & Cherrey (2000) and Taylor (2010).
2
I will be denoting the abstract concept of Boundary with a capital B to distinguish from general and
disciplinary definitions and meanings of boundary (which I am investigating).

10
Research Methodology and Principles

Investigating the concept of Boundary is a large undertaking within the

context of a techno-social world 3 . To maintain focus and purpose I took

inspiration from Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968), widely recognized as one of

the founding fathers of General System Theory (GST)4, where it is asserted that

the principles of GST can be integrated into all areas of human experience

(Davidson 1983). I aim for my research to:

1. facilitate thinking in the first instance, and critical thinking and

discourse in a holistic way in the second instance, to help us think more

clearly about whatever our goals happen to be, and about what

methods we should use to achieve them (Davidson, 1983, p. 25) and to

act on them (Midgley, 2000; Jackson, 2003; Cordoba-Pachon, 2010);

2. be practical and easily accessible to the general public (practitioners as

well as systems theorists), with the importance of accessibility to non-

academics being recognised as long ago as 1951 by Lewin, and

3. contribute towards the development of a transdisciplinary language (the

use of a common language) (von Bertalanffy, 1968; Kramer & de Smit,

1977; Davidson, 1983; Ing, 2011) and methodology that has the potential

to share meaning across disciplines and world views, with the purpose to

enable dialogue to identify and solve problems and develop humanity

3
I use the term techno-social to distinguish the behavioural impact technology has had on the human
activity system (that is, a reaction/adaption by humans as new technology is incorporated) instead of
the socio-technical system, where technology is a product of, and functions within, the human
activity system (that is, technology as a functional creation and object). The two are intricately
connected and complementary. My focus for this current paper is on how humans (and society) are
adapting to technology and not the other way around, which will then link to the concept of innovation
in the PhD.
4
According to Davidson (1983), there was a mistranslation of Bertalanffys original German language
proposal, Allgemeine Systemlehre, by which he meant general systems teaching. Also, for clarity, it
should be understood that Bertalanffy is not the founding father, and there is still debate as to who
was the founding father of General Systems Theory. However, as one of the founding fathers (plural)
of the systems movement, Bertalanffy is recognised in other disciplines; for example, media
(Weerakkody, 2009) and geography (Inkpen, 2005).

11
 collectively, critically and ethically (Churchman, 1968; Beer, 1975; Cavaleri

& Obloj, 1993; Ulrich, 1996; Midgley, 2000; Nicolescu, 2010).

Significance and Contribution of the Research

If you know the rule, then you know how to break it.
Peter Clark, Brahma Kumaris Brisbane, 2013

I borrow and adapt the reasons for my proposed contribution from Roy

Suddaby (2012)5, Editor of the Academy of Management Review. Currently,

the systems community is facing the challenge that research needs to:

enhance the value of theory,

better reflect the globalization of the research community,

raise the profile of systems theory in the broader community and

address the growing fragmentation and diversity of systems research.

The value of theory cannot be underestimated. In this paper I am focussing

on the theoretical concept of Boundary. However, like Lewins (1951)

assertion that there is nothing as practical as a good theory (p.169), I aim to

explicitly discuss the practical implications of my research as I investigate the

ontology of Boundary within the context of leadership in a networked world.

The value and the contribution of this research is that it aims to add to the

systems, leadership and organization literature using novel understandings of

Boundary Critique and systemic leadership. It will also have further

implications for learning, innovation and organisational behaviour.

Pragmatically, the proposed research endeavours to build upon existing

research on leadership in a complex and networked world using systemic

thinking and the adoption of interactive technologies. Based on the results, I

5
Roy Suddaby (2012), in turn, borrowed from Angelo DeNisi (2010).

12
aim to deliver an easily deployable and practical systemic tool for leaders and

managers to design, develop and implement sustainable interactive systems

that can be deployed across social and business functions.

Structure of the Paper

In Chapter 2, the concepts of Boundary, leadership and network are

explored within the broad paradigms of the natural, social and technological

sciences and their associated philosophical positions. The concept of network

in this paper is deployed within the context of social networks (both online

and offline), characterised by a plurality of technologies, technological

systems, and humans operating with different paradigms and

weltanschauung6. Philosophical foundations for the concepts of Boundary,

leadership and network range from hard to soft, depending on the paradigm

from which these terms are viewed. My transdisciplinary synthesis of the

literature on Boundary provides a summary of generic characteristics of

Boundary and establishes the philosophical viewpoint from which my partial

ontology of Boundary is created.

To understand how systemic leadership could be achieved in a networked

world using boundary management (empirically assessed with the most

appropriate research design), Chapter 2 critically investigates and resolves

multi-disciplinary, multi-paradigm and multi-methodological concerns and

establishes the mode of inquiry through the lens of systems thinking (e.g.,

Ackoff, 1999; Midgley, 2000; Jackson, 2003; Zhu, 2011).

The Boundary Triage is introduced in Chapter 3, a symbolic expression

abstracted from the literature, with the theoretical and practical application of

the Boundary Triage further discussed and critically evaluated. The critical

6
Weltanschauung: A German word meaning world image, a comprehensive conception or
apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (Merriam-Webster, n.d. ).

13
evaluation of the Boundary Triage identifies what is missing and points to a

new direction for Phase Two of the research.

Chapter 4 details the proposed framework to conduct Phase 2:

a. to test the Boundary Triage for its transformational and systemic value

within networks, and

b. to develop the Boundary Triage further in terms of completeness within

the context of individuals, groups, networks and hierarchies, and

decision-making within a critical systems thinking methodology

framework.

The paper is concluded with areas identified for further research.

14
 Chapter 2

Boundary: A Conceptual Minefield

Boundary: (noun) [baundri]:

An often imaginary line separating one thing from another.
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language, 2002

Methodology and Rationale

I followed a process of inquiry developed by Laszlo & Krippner (1998), which

builds systems theory into the traditional scientific method of analysis. I

investigated the concept of Boundary across the transdisciplinary literatures

of technology, innovation and leadership, looking for patterns and areas of

overlap in order to deconstruct the Boundary and describe its components;

formulate explanations that account for the behaviour or properties of

boundary components taken separately; synthesize these explanations into an

aggregate understanding of the whole; then synthesize through the lens of

systems theory (Figure 1).

Figure 3: Research Methodology and Rationale

15
I present the research findings about Boundary within and without the systems

thinking/science discipline, its relationship to technology, networks,

knowledge creation and management, innovation and leadership, and identify

generalizable characteristics and understandings of Boundary in order to

understand the nature of Boundary its being. In the spirit of the founding

fathers of systems science, the aim is to develop a meta-level theory and model

applicable to more than one of the traditional departments of knowledge

(Checkland, 1999, p. 59).

Technology, Innovation, Leadership and Systems Thinking

Even a single different opinion can make a group wiser.

Surowiecki in Slawsby & Rivera, 2007, p.25

The advent of mainstream social technologies such as Facebook, LinkedIn and

Twitter in the mid-2000s signalled the opportunity for individuals and

organisations to innovate as interconnectedness provided by the internet and

personal and portable mobile devices increased, transcending organisational

and national boundaries (Ashkenas et.al., 2002; Steers et.al., 2010). This

interconnectedness was also perceived as a threat for the very same reason

due to greater vulnerability and a heightened sensitivity to risk (Cisco

Systems, 2010, p.iii; Guy Carpenter, 2013) as business complexity and

uncertainty seemingly increased in an already dynamic business world

(Jackson, 2003; Carayannis & Sipp, 2006; Kotler et. al., 2009; Azua, 2010;

Buchanan & Huczynski, 2010; Cisco Systems, 2010; Cordoba-Pachon, 2010;

Slack et. al., 2010; Petrie, 2011; Yip et. al., 2011).

Organisations are still challenged to provide open and transparent services

and information as well as ensuring security and privacy (Cisco Systems, 2010).

Silo mentalities and approaches to information and knowledge management,

although providing some security benefits, have been shown to limit the

16
potential of social technologies for innovation, sharing and collaboration

(Tuomi, 2002; Cisco Systems, 2010; Hilberts, 2010; MacNamara, 2011b).

Innovation is systemic, in that it is interdependent spatial,

political and administrative borders are important factors
requiring attention among policy makers. Systems are as
networks a set of activities (or actors) that are interlinked, and
this leads naturally to a focus on the working on the linkages of
the system.
Fagerberg, 2005, p. 13

Designing and implementing the best business solution in the current climate

of connectedness, collaboration and complexity is neither an instantaneous

nor simple transformation (Cisco Systems, 2010).

The digitally connected world is described as being on the one hand

boundary-less (Ashkenas et.al., 2002; Accenture, 2014), and on the other it

appears to create explicit personal, generational and organisational barriers to

communication, ways of working and innovation (Ashkenas et.al., 2008;

Australian School of Business, 2011; MacNamara, 2011b). This distinction is

important, and the issue of what a boundary means in a networked world

needs to be clarified.

Within the field of knowledge management, Carlile (2002) describes the

boundary as having two properties. The first is that there is a difference

between individuals and/or groups, whether it be in skill, knowledge, or

experience. The second is dependence - a relationship that exists between

individuals or groups which may constrain or have consequences for the

others movement. Managing the boundary is straightforward when

differences and dependencies are known and the conditions surrounding them

are stable. The more difference and dependence there is at a given boundary,

the more challenging and complex it is to cross. The various and varying

17
conditions at the boundary (which affect the boundarys permeability and

fluidity) impact the complexity of the relations at the boundary. When new

differences and dependencies arise, managing the boundary becomes

progressively more challenging (Carlile, 2002, p.7).

Widely used in the information systems/technology domain is a sociological

concept and method called Boundary Objects. Created by Star & Griesemer

in 1989, the role of Boundary Objects is to reconcile the meanings of objects,

methods and concepts across multiple social worlds and to translate the

concerns of the non-scientist into those of the scientist (Star & Griesemer,

1989, p. 389). Boundary objects inhabit several intersecting social worlds and

are socially negotiated, constructed repositories, ideal types, geographic

spaces and standardized forms where an indeterminate number of coherent

sets of translations are possible (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 390), and they play

a critical role in developing and maintaining coherence (Star & Griesemer,

1989, p. 393). Star (2010, p. 602) adds that:

Boundary objects are a sort of arrangement that allow different

groups to work together without consensus. However, the forms
this may take are not arbitrary. They are essentially organic
infrastructures that have arisen due to what Jim Griesemer and
I called information needs in 1989.

Although the use of Boundary Objects is widespread in information systems

practice to span ideological boundaries, this use has been criticized for being

too flexible, with boundary objects potentially meaning all things to all people

(Fujimura, 1992); not flexible enough for hard to negotiate knowledge artefacts

(Lee, 2007); and research on sharing data reveals that the issue of trust has not

been considered sufficiently (Van House, 2003).

The techno-social world engages the individual, not only in the physical world,

but also in the online world of the social internet (Bughin, 2009;

18
Onlineschools.org, 2011), while the socio-technical world of programmers and

designers is based on the design and solution of real world problems (White,

2001; Edquist, 2005; Fagerberg, 2005; Doolin & McLeod, 2012). Collectively,

and networked, the technologically connected social world becomes filled with

multiple paradigms, worldviews, philosophies, purposes and practices,

interconnected and interrelated where the use of language creates a

boundary that defines the relationship in a way that has important behavioural

and psychological consequences (Duck, 1994, p. 29). Whilst not new, key

issues that are currently receiving recognition simultaneously across the

technology, innovation and leadership domains are the roles of the individual

and shared meanings across boundaries (boundary spanning), requiring a

focus on cognitive approaches (Tan & Gallupe, 2006); and communicative

interaction between experts and non-experts, such as users and other

stakeholders (Stacey, 2003; Lam, 2005; Steers et.al., 2010), with leadership as

the linchpin for success (Kodama, 2010).

With innovation being found at the edge of the network (Stefik, 2000;

Eisenstat et. al., 2001; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010), and social technologies

seemingly transcending or blurring boundaries (Carlile, 2002; Kotler et. al.,

2009), effective leaders need to be boundary spanners (MacGillivray, 2009). To

fully exploit the potential of social technologies for collective intelligence and

open innovation, leaders need to be boundary managers as well (Kotler, 2009;

Fullan, 2001; Slawsby & Rivera, 2007), in order to motivate innovation by

practising the effective management of boundary dynamics (Fagerberg, 2005;

Lam, 2005; Kodama, 2010; Gharajedaghi, 2011). Driven by evidence of the

growing complexity of society, Fullan (2001) suggests that leadership in all

areas needs to become quite sophisticated. Martin (2008) argues that the

focus on leadership should be on how leaders think, rather than what they do.

Martin maintains that successful leaders need to understand that many ideas

have conflicting elements in them, rather than being simple and certain, and

19
be able to tolerate this ambiguity. This requires Level 5 Leadership, with the

leader having a self-transforming mind, in that they recognize that their

ideology is limited or partial, and polarized thinking is not necessary (Petrie,

2011; Collins, 2008). Petrie (2011) identifies that this self-transforming mind

requires more complex and adaptive thinking skills than many of those in

common use.

Yet leadership is a complex, multi-level and socially constructed process

(Gardner et.al., 2010; Stentz et.al., 2012). Within leadership research it has

been recognized that leadership and leadership development must change

and adapt to be more effective in current and future business environments

(Senge, 1990; Petrie, 2011). Yet leadership development has changed little in

the past 30 years: the challenge is to grow bigger minds with the How? still

to be found (Petrie, 2011).

Boundary and Systems Thinking

The boundary concept is fundamental: it is the core idea of systems thinking.

Midgley, 2000, p. 33

In the previous section I presented how the boundary concept is being used

in the technology, innovation and leadership domains. What is clear is that

all three domains have been described as systemic in that, if a change

happens in one part, it affects the rest of the whole (Fagerberg, 2005; Collins,

2008; Accenture, 2014). Boundary is a key feature, mainly seen as a limitation

or barrier to cross, span or negotiate (Star & Griesemer, 1989; MacGillivray,

2009; Kimble et.al., 2010; Steers et.al., 2010). It is observed that opportunities

for innovation and knowledge creation come through the effective

management of boundary dynamics (Edquist, 2005; Kimble et.al., 2010;

Kodama, 2010; Gharajedaghi, 2011), where leaders with bigger and self-

20
transforming minds succeed. However, a key question is how can we develop

leaders with these attributes and skills? Could a systems approach enable this?7

The networked world is dominated by complexity and uncertainty, with

unpredictable wicked and messy problems (Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Ackoff,

1999; Jackson, 2003) characterized by interconnection; lack of clear purpose;

conflict; and environmental, economic and societal constraints. Here the hard

problems are soft and the soft problems are hard (White, 2001)! Todays

leader has their specialised knowledge and expertise, as well as an extensive

choice of leadership and management theories, models and methods aimed

at predict and prepare solutions to be applied to organizational problems

(Ackoff, 1999). The systems approach applied to management, viewing

problems holistically, has been developing since the 1940s. Senges The Fifth

Discipline (1990) made popular the idea of the learning organisation, with
systems thinking as a key skill for modern managers. Broadly, systems have

been categorised from hard to soft, and from simple to complex (Jackson,

2003), with basic systems ideas being exploited in three main areas:

the study of the wholes which Nature creates (often called

natural systems); the study of wholes designed and made
by human beings (design systems); and the study of
human affairs, including the subject areas of management
and, within that, information systems.

Checkland, 1999, pp. 50-51

7
Systems thinking/systems science is a discipline rich in philosophy, methodologies and practice. This
section will only present an overview of systems from a basic systems perspective. The Boundary
Triage, although intended to be used as a systems tool, still needs to be further developed (and this is
one of the objectives of the PhD thesis) and grounded theoretically within Critical Systems Thinking.

21
Viewing and analysing problems through the lens of systems thinking

facilitates the

exploration of boundaries of a system or problem situation.

appreciation of multiple perspectives and world views that may

contribute to the system or problem situation.

understanding the inter-relationships, interconnectedness and

interdependence within and across a particular system or systems.

thinking of the problem situation or system systemically and holistically,

in that the problem cannot be analysed by looking at one part in

isolation (Cabrera et. al., 2008).

Systems can be conceived of as existing out there in the world, or could be

defined as mental constructions that we can use to promote understanding

and collective action (Cordoba-Pachon, 2010, p. 6), with each system having

its own distinct boundary. In systems thinking, boundaries define a system

so that we can see the wholes and not just the parts (Churchman, 1968;

Senge, 1990; Jackson, 2003).

22
 Figure 4: Characteristics of Boundary

Although the characteristics of the boundary of a system illustrated in Figure

3 appear as if they apply to hard (real world) systems thinking only, I believe

they can be equally well applied to soft systems (individual or social

constructions) (see Chapter 3 for my argument). A general characteristic of

an open system is that it is separated from its environment by a distinct

boundary, but takes inputs from this environment and subjects them to a

transformation process either to sustain itself or to create outputs (Angyal,

1941; Bertalanffy, 1968). Systems have hierarchies 8 where the main system

contains sub-systems, and the main system itself is part of a larger system

(Boulding, 1956; Bertalanffy, 1968; Wilby, 1994; Jackson, 2003). The system

has an identity (name or form) associated with its boundary, and the latter

keeps the unwanted out and the wanted in; allows inputs into the system that

comply with the systems overall function or needs, and lets out artefacts that

need to be expelled from the system (transformed or not) (Kramer & de Smit,

8
Hierarchies are not discussed further here as the focus is on a single Boundary. This will be addressed
in the PhD.

23
1977). It follows that the boundaries of a system are permeable and constantly

engaged in interactions (Kirk, 2000; Harris, 2014). The boundary is Janus-

faced, in that it faces out to the environment and in towards its core, both at

the same time (Koestler, 1976); it is both in and out, dual in nature, and

conducting seemingly paradoxical functions in order to maintain the identity

of the whole. In essence, the boundary could be seen as a boundary layer,

rather than a simple line; the gate keeper of the system in focus; autonomous

like a border control, but nevertheless deploying the rules set by the main

system in order to maintain the identity of that system.

Checkland (1999, p. 51) points out that it is possible to forget that systems are

always, fundamentally, abstract concepts, and refer to systems as existing in

the world. Problems and barriers to change may have features that are

assumed by decision makers to be objective, but it is actually the decision-

makers own minds that are pivotal in problem-maintenance and the

obstruction of change (Ackoff, 1999; Jackson, 2003). This does not imply that

everything is in the mind, but recognises that the mind is an important focus

for intervention, given that changing minds can result in changed behaviours

as long as individuals do not feel entirely constrained by wider forces, in

which case the intervention needs to shift to the thinking of new stakeholders

who have agency in relation to those forces. Midgley (2000) asserts that the

boundary concept is the core idea of systems thinking, and this is significant

because boundaries are dependent on the world view of the observer of the

system, where values and ethics play a role in boundary decisions and are open

to debate (Churchman, 1961; Ulrich, 1983; Midgley, 2000; Cordoba-Pachon,

2010). Extended to the collective, differing agendas and philosophies, power

and politics will have a significant impact on the system (Ulrich, 1983; Midgley,

2000).

24
Towards an Ontology of Boundary

The Networked world has surfaced the multiplicity of disciplines, paradigms

and worldviews that exist, not only globally, but also locally. It has been

identified in the areas of technology, information systems, innovation and

knowledge management that successful leaders display boundary spanning

skills across personal as well as horizontal and vertical organizational

boundaries. Yet how does a leader develop boundary spanning skills?

Through the lens of systems thinking, the general characteristics of the

concept of Boundary can be identified. Nevertheless, I have been confronted

by difficult epistemological issues. Am I talking about a hard boundary or a

soft boundary? Epistemologically, a Boundary and its hardness, softness,

open-ness and closed-ness are strongly influenced by the paradigms and

worldviews, frameworks and contexts of the observer (Ulrich, 1983; Midgley,

2000). Star & Griesemers (1989) concept of Boundary Objects suggests that

the Boundary concept itself is socially constructed and socially maintained, and

therefore this must be regarded as an essential part of the ontology of

Boundary. However, the idea of permeability, and the concept of a boundary

as a gateway, has not, as far as I am aware, been explicitly deployed in systems

methodologies applied to management contexts.9 Chapter 3 introduces a

proposed partial ontology and methodology of Boundary, the Boundary

Triage, which incorporates the social aspect of Boundary creation and being,

and how its function as a gateway could potentially become a methodology

for self-transforming minds and boundary spanning, systemic leaders.

9
The idea of the boundary layer, or Boundary as a gateway, is prominent in family systems theory
(Beishon & Peters, 1976; Stamps, 1980) and in other disciplines. Although not always explicitly called
a Boundary, mechanisms such as a country border control (politics) or cell membrane (biology) are
well documented.

25
 Chapter 3

The Boundary Triage

The Ideal of scientific knowledge underlying basic research is concerned with universal
concepts, theories, models and methods.
Hirsch Hadorn, et al., 2008, p. 4

Introduction

In Chapter 2, the Boundary concept was discussed, along with its place in the

networked world and its multi-paradigmatic, multi-worldview, multi-

perspective and multi-contextual nature. I suggest that the resolution of

epistemological differences regarding how Boundary is conceptualised across

different disciplines can come from a systems theoretical framework.

In this chapter I explain both the social and individual onto-epistemological

(Fuenmayor, 1991; Barad, 2007; Bowers, 2011) construction of Boundary,

answering the questions, What makes a Boundary come into being? and What

is its Nature? First, the Boundary Triage will be presented and then the
individual components of the Triage, their relationships to one another, and

how they make up the conditions for the boundary will be explained. Through

a critical evaluation of how the Triage fits into systems theory and practice, I

will identify what is missing and how it points a new direction for Phase 2 of

the research into systemic leadership in a networked world.

The Naming of the Boundary Triage

Firstly, it is important to define what the equation I am about to present is, and

what it is not. The Boundary Triage is not a general theory of Boundary, and

is not an axiom, mathematical equation or algorithm. As such, whilst it

26
appears mathematical, it is not strictly so10. Presenting it in the form of an

equation is a representational device, as it would be if another form of

representation (such as a diagram) was used. The Boundary Triage may share

some of the characteristics of the other academic terms above, but it is

currently hypothetical and incomplete. It is not intended for prediction or

modelling, although I will be discussing in Section 3.4 how it may be used for

control.

The Boundary Triage is a proposition abstracted from the literature,

represented symbolically, and, importantly, it is a partial ontology and

methodology of Boundary that needs to be tested and further developed, both

as theory and as a practical tool. This is in line with Maturanas (1980)

approach to coining the term autopoiesis, which was initially advanced as a

proposition to be tested.

10
Whilst I studied first year physics at tertiary level, I do not profess to be a mathematician. The
Boundary Triage emerged and made sense to me in the form presented. I am keeping it in this form
until it can be represented graphically or a better alternative is developed. I am hoping that someone
with a mathematical background will adopt the Boundary Triage and correct the mathematics
accordingly (if there is any value in it being mathematically correct).

27
The Boundary Triage (Simple Form)

= + +
where:

B = A singular Boundary. The denotes the dual and paradoxical nature

of Boundary

C= the Creator of the boundary

A= the Acceptor of the boundary

RF = Reinforcing Factors

The Boundary Triage: A Theory or a Practical Tool?

As Theory

Any Boundary consists of the Creator (C), supported by internal and/or external

Acceptor(s) (A), and maintained (or destroyed) by either internal or external

factors (RF).

The sign denotes the dual and paradoxical nature of Boundary (B). What

is contained within the boundary (+) and what is outside the boundary (-),

exists concurrently whether explicit, implicit, identified (or not), dismissed (or

not) it is proposed that Boundary is a both/and concept. It is when we

communicate these ideas (to ourselves as well as to others), that the limits of

our language, thought and communication processes (which force an

either/or situation) become apparent.

It is proposed that, in order for a Boundary to exist, there must be at least one

Creator (C) and at least one other Acceptor (A). The Acceptor can be an

individual or a number of individuals in the real world, or another aspect of

28
our internal selves. The internal Self can be either an internal voice 11 (or

voices) and/or a personal mental construction of another person or persons 12

(Mead, 1934; Aboulafia, 2009; Midgley 2013). This is a constructivist view of

the mental learning and knowledge generating process which, if not critically

reflected upon, can lead to the self-justification of worldviews, beliefs and

paradigms (Burr, 2003).

Once a Boundary has been created psychologically (by a single individual), I

call this personal construction a Bounded Object13, which is distinguished

from Star & Griesemers (1989) plural, collective and socially constructed

Boundary Objects. This Bounded Object then forms part of the RF in future

Boundary creation in the form of memory and past experience.

Boundary creation is always subjective, with the Creators perspective at the

forefront. Even when we inherit a system of significant symbols, knowledge

and meaning, such as a rule, paradigm, policy, concept or idea (Boundary

Object) (Star & Griesemer, 1989; Crotty, 1998), once accepted, the Acceptor

also becomes the Creator within their own minds, recreating the Boundary as

a mentally constructed and psychologically bound Bounded Object. This

constructivist perspective emphasizes

the active role by the individual in the construction of

knowledge, the primacy of social and individual experience in the

process of learning and the realization that the knowledge attained

11
I am going to use the phenomenological term voice here as the private self-talk or creation of
others within the mind that only the individual is privy to. The term Self and what it constitutes is
highly debated in consciousness and cognitive studies (philosophically, psychologically and
physiologically). It is too complex to adequately cover in this paper, but offers an opportunity for a
future paper.
12
Mental constructions of others are highly personalised and often constitute more of the individual
making the construction, rather than the real and existing person (personal meeting with Professor
Gerald Midgley, September 2013).
13
The Bounded Object is created by an individual (constructivism). I use the term Bounded as it is
the final state of binding, which also suggests the potential for unbinding an object. This is different
from the notion of a boundary object which is a socially agreed concept, idea, rule, etc.

29
 by the [individual] may vary in its accuracy as a representation of
an objective reality.

(Doolittle, 2001, p. online)

Individual mental models based on different contexts and experience

(Bounded Objects) give rise to knowledge boundaries which can either act

as barriers to innovation and reform management or, alternatively, as

opportunities to trigger and create new knowledge and competences

(Kodama, 2010).

Finally, the Reinforcing Factors (RF) are to be viewed as plural (there must be

at least one, but in reality there will almost always be more) and they are a

combination of environmental, physical, mental, social and cultural factors, or

other Bounded Objects that impact on the Boundary in focus. While this

explanation of RFs superficially appears to portray them as purely objective,

actually they can only be distinguished by an individual, or individuals, who are

creating/accepting/observing the Boundary. Importantly, RFs are made up of

constructing (+) and deconstructing14 (-) factors, the hierarchy and importance

of which are determined by the individual, and judgements on these things

influence the psychological hardness (perceived objectivity), softness

(perceived subjectivity or inter-subjectivity), closed-ness (perceived lack of

interaction between what is within and outside) and/or open-ness (perceived

interactions between what is inside and outside) of a given Boundary.

The key idea here is that, pragmatically, whilst these Bounded Objects may not

initially be explicit (that is they are subliminal or subconscious), with critical

reflection, one can surface them and gain the agency to assess and

deconstruct, reconstruct, or ultimately destroy from within factors that are

potentially limiting self-progress and/or collective engagement. Further still,

14
Deconstruction, here, is meant literally, rather than in the sense of Derridas (1967) post-modern
philosophy.

30
and looking towards more creative uses of the Boundary Triage in the future,

people may be able to flip personal boundaries to see the opposite

viewpoint and potentially gain insights from a different perspective. This

technique could also be used for innovation management.

A more complex version of the Boundary Triage, incorporating multiple

Acceptors and multiple Reinforcing Factors, is shown below:

THE BOUNDARY TRIAGE (COMPLEX FORM )

= + () + (1 : +1 )
=1

where:

B = A singular Boundary. The denotes the dual and

paradoxical nature of Boundary

C= the Creator of the Boundary

n= the number of Acceptors of the Boundary (must be at least

one)

A= the Acceptor of the Boundary

=1(1 : +1 ) = The Sum of Reinforcing Factors (RF) and their interactions

to create an emergent effect on the boundary, where the

number (n) of RFs is at least one to infinity, as defined by

the Observer

However, the Boundary Triage is a relatively simplistic model, and represents

only a single Boundary taken at one point in time. Like all models, including

other models of boundaries (e.g., Midgley, 1992), it simplifies for explanatory

effect. Whilst the Boundary Triage shows the relationships between the

components that make up the coming into Being of a Boundary, it does not

31
show the dynamic nature of a singular Boundary which changes over time; the

intensity (force or hierarchical) aspects of the RF which will influence the

permeability, the open-ness or closed-ness, of the Boundary; the detailed

emergent effects of the RF interactions on the boundary; or the boundary

dynamics of multiple boundaries interacting on different levels occurring at

the same time15.

It is important to note here a difference between my representation and

previous writings in CST on the subject of boundaries (e.g. Churchman, 1961;

Ulrich, 1983; Midgley, 2000; Borgatti & Molina, 2003; Jackson, 2003). In CST,

the roles of values, ethics and morality are regarded as central. They are not

explicit in the Triage; rather, they are looked upon as RFs. In practice, the

Boundary Triage needs to examine personal values and beliefs, how and when

they came about (were they created or were they accepted?), and their role

and importance in personal thinking, action and social interaction. This is

especially important in social contexts where messes (Ackoff, 1999) arise due

to justification break-offs beyond rationality (Ulrich, 1987), and where

marginalisation can occur as Bounded Objects become sacred or profane

(Midgley, 1992; Midgley, 2000; Cordoba-Pachon, 2010).

15
I have delimited my critique to these aspects due to word limit constraints. The Boundary Triage is
partial as there are many factors beyond those presented.

32
The Boundary Triage as a Practical Tool

The complex of relational interdependencies arises, in part, through

the transaction of shared meanings based on the two original sets of
mental foundations provided by the two individual minds.
Duck, 1994, p.21

As set out in the introduction, the aim of this paper is to develop an easily

deployable, theoretically grounded, transdisciplinary tool based on the

concept of Boundary, to develop systemic leadership thinking and skills for the

networked world. The Boundary Triage is aimed at an audience that has little

or no knowledge of systems thinking philosophy, principles and

methodologies, but understands the basic concept of a system in everyday life

(for example, the financial system, the education system, the weather system).

Following Fullans (2001, p.2) suggestion to concentrate on a small number of

key dimensions, it is hoped that the Boundary Triage correctly identifies these

key dimensions for leaders to focus on to deal more effectively with the

complex and often apparently chaotic society in which they lead. The simple

form of the Boundary Triage is the one that will be initially presented to

workshop participants. The intention is for the Boundary Triage to be

remembered as an ABC when either coming across a critical moment (that

is, when a personal Boundary is crossed) or when using it as a

reflective/reflexive heuristic.

This work on the Boundary Triage builds on Churchmans (1970), Ulrichs (1983)

and Midgleys (2000) thesis that boundaries are social or personal constructs

that define the limits of the knowledge that is to be taken as pertinent in an

analysis (Midgley, 2000, p.35). I argue that, by understanding the

construction of the Boundary being analysed (or experienced), the individual

can better see their role in the generation of the personal knowledge or belief

33
that makes the boundary meaningful, and can attempt to improve (or

deconstruct) their own mental system as required or desired. The Boundary

Triage can be used as an immediate diagnostic in the present moment, or as

a reflexive heuristic concerning a moment in the past or future (or to address

a problem situation that may be understood as having past, present and future

dimensions). It is intended to be both an introvertive16 tool (critiquing why we

have a particular construct and how it came about) and as an extrovertive17

tool (surfacing and managing sub-conscious personal boundaries whilst at the

same time understanding and enabling dialogue between the self and others

who also create/accept boundaries in a social context).

In the first instance, the Boundary Triage is to be used like a medical triage

when confronted by a critical boundary moment, sorting out what can be

negotiated from a personal stand point to come to a progressive resolution.

It is an immediate and practical analysis tool for systems and non-systems

practitioners when a critical boundary moment occurs; that is, when a

boundary has been crossed. From an individuals perspective, these

moments can be identified by the language being used (I dont like , I hate

), or by a physiological and/or psychological feeling of discomfort. In a

social situation these moments can often be identified with a sense of tension

in the air.

Before making a Boundary Judgment (as per Ulrichs, 1983, understanding),

the Boundary Triage is used to quickly identify the immediate Boundary

crossing:

16
Introvertive directed inward; marked by interest in yourself or concerned with inner feelings
(Princeton University, 2012)
17
Extrovertive being concerned with the social and physical environment (Princeton University,
2012)

34
 1. Who is the Creator of the boundary being crossed? (Is it your boundary

or the other persons boundary that is being crossed, or a boundary

being set by a third party and accepted by you or the other person?);

2. Who is the Acceptor of the boundary? (Acceptance of boundary = no

injury; non-acceptance of boundary = varying levels of discomfort with

the most extreme being attributions of sacredness and/or profanity.

Investigate RF; no boundary/boundary not pertinent = discard); and

3. What are the Reinforcing Factors? (These can be observed and/or

experienced, remembered, or hypothesised to be subconscious).

The person using the Boundary Triage can then determine which factors can

and must be changed first, and respond accordingly at critical moments.

It may appear that Ulrichs Boundary Judgements are a similar concept to the

Bounded Object. My distinction here is that Bounded Objects are either the

created or accepted (often sub-consciously) psychological artefacts that

emerge at critical boundary moments 18 which, if we can become aware of

them, we can also deconstruct, adjust, and reconstruct at those moments. If a

justification break-off occurs (that is, one party imposes his or her boundary

judgement on another without further dialogue), one can at least use the

Boundary Triage as a heuristic to understand why.

I apply Kornwachss (1998, p.6) philosophy of a system to the system of the

human mind:

If a system is a description of a section of reality or

of a process we would like to control, observe, or
manipulate, the system is something that has be

18
In the PhD, these will be called bounded events and work with bounded objects and the Boundary
Triage.

35
 produced, not discovered. A system is never
discovered, but it can be invented or designed. Thus
each system has an author and this author is
pursuing such goals as describing, observing,
controlling, changing, or mastering just the section
or reality he or she has in mind.

The Boundary Triage aims to enable leaders to understand more about their

beliefs and knowledge; who generates this knowledge; who has a stake in

changing (or not changing) the system; why they act or react in certain ways;

and then how, and if, they want to change.

The Boundary Triage embraces the three themes of CST, summarised by Flood

& Jackson (1991): critical awareness, which is about examining and re-

examining assumptions; emancipation, which is about liberation from

restrictive power relations, including those that are self-imposed; and

methodological pluralism, in that the Boundary Triage is one amongst many

other potentially useful systems approaches, and is not meant to replace the

latter, but could potentially be used in partnership with them.

Initial informal empirical tests to date (Annex A) have shown that, from an

individuals perspective, the Boundary Triage can have positive results in

improving a persons understanding of their personal boundaries, which can

lead to better performance. It can also assist in seeing through the eyes of

another (Churchman, 1971) when reflecting upon problem situations at work

(Annex B). In these scenarios, self-talk, being aware of the language being

used and changing that language in dialogue, has had a beneficial effect for

the individuals concerned. However, what these initial tests have also shown

is that the Boundary Triage is not so effective in setting boundaries. This needs

further investigation. There is also a question about how power and ideology

36
(concepts explored by CST writers such as Oliga, 1996) factor into the

Boundary Triage.

I hope that the Boundary Triage will be a practical tool that, either by itself or

combined with other methodologies, can satisfy the needs identified in the

leadership development research highlighted in Chapter 2. It will support

leaders in developing a self-transforming mind, recognizing that their

ideology is limited or partial and that polarized thinking is not necessary

(Collins, 2008; Martin, 2008; Petrie, 2011).

A New Direction

My research was initially focussed on the hard, technological aspect of open

innovation and collective intelligence. The findings from my MBA research

(MacNamara, 2011b) suggested that the successful adoption and

implementation of social technologies is dependent on leadership, and that

personal boundaries have a systemic impact. Shifting the focus from the

technological aspect, this paper aims to include and understand the concept

of Boundary as both personal and transdisciplinary. I have presented a

proposition, a partial ontology of Boundary, the Boundary Triage, which is also

intended to be used as a practical leadership tool. Yet it is partial and, at this

stage, quite simplistic. It only accounts for one Boundary and has yet to be

tested in a collective scenario where multiple boundaries exist and interact.

There are many facets to explore, and I have delimited the research to address

these questions:

1. Can the Boundary Triage aid in the development of Systemic Leadership

thinking, skills and practice?

37
2. Can the development of Systemic Leadership skills using the Boundary
Triage have a systemic impact to better enable collective intelligence
and open innovation in a networked world?

38
 Chapter 4

The Boundary Triage as

Systemic Intervention and Action Research

The challenge of our time is to think without certainties and to accept diversity in the
ways of thinking and in the styles of producing meaning . It is necessary to jump the
cognitive walls built up by the way of approaching the knowledge of modernity and its
methodological restrictions, and open our minds and our practices to a
multidimensional thinking capable of producing rich and fertile, but not absolute or
guaranteed, knowledge.
(Najmanovich, 2002, pp. 91-92)

The Research Questions Revisited

In Chapter 2, general characteristics of Boundary were identified from across

the disciplinary literatures. I then addressed the first research question, as to

what is the nature of boundary, with the objective of determining its key

elements and the relationship between them. This resulted in the formulation

of the Boundary Triage, which was explained and critiqued in Chapter 3. The

current chapter describes the framework which will be used to test the

Boundary Triage for its transformational and systemic value within online

networks, and to develop the Boundary Triage further in terms of its onto-

epistemological completeness using critical systems thinking methodology

and action research.

Methodology

Leadership is a complex, multi-level and socially constructed process (Gardner

et.al., 2010; Stentz et.al., 2012), yet despite this, over 80% of leadership research

papers written between 2000 and 2009 utilise a quantitative approach

(Gardner et.al., 2010). Recommendations for the conduct of future leadership

39
research include using a more broadly conceived approach (Wren, 1995) that

involves the deployment and assessment of multiple disciplinary theories,

models and approaches (using both objectivist and subjectivist views to

understand this complex phenomenon), and the creative use of technology

(Bass, 2008; Gardner et.al., 2010). In Chapter 3, given the research focus on

the complex, multi-level, multi-methodology, multi-paradigm and socially

constructed nature of Boundary, I justified using a CST approach as the

research methodology, which enabled me to move critically through the

spectrum of paradigms from the social to the technological, the hard to the

soft, the practical to the theoretical. I will use a CST approach for the

remainder of the study.

Method

Type of study, population and sampling

A case study of intervention will be conducted over 9 months with an

Australian, national, not-for-profit voluntary organisation to study the pattern

of systemic leadership over a period of time with repeated observations,

collecting both qualitative and quantitative data.

The organisation (which will be kept anonymous for the purposes of this

research) has been chosen because I have a direct relationship with them and

they are investigating the implementation of a social intranet:

to connect and develop their existing community,

to provide a more personal relationship with their members and

to grow the organisation.

Whilst the organisation does not have a formal hierarchical structure, it does

have a distinct operational core. The fit with my study is that the organisation

40
operates using an organised flat, networked structure, with project teams at

both the local and national levels. Also, the organisation is values-driven,

delivering personal development courses and support to the public and its

community. Twenty participants for the intervention (yet to be identified) will

come from across the organisation, primarily from the State Centres, their

Integrated Media Group (AIM) and Executive Board, aiming to ensure a

diversity of age, gender, background and organisational role.

Data collection methods and instruments

I will be taking a multi-modal approach, with the research being conducted

face-to-face, via telephone (or Skype) interviews and the analysis of an online

social network. The two main instruments will be the intervention using a

Boundary Triage workshop focussing on leadership development of the

participants (both personal and organisational), which will be conducted face-

to-face, and the development and implementation of the social network. The

interactive workshop, with 20 participants, will incorporate Boundary concepts

and introduce the Boundary Triage and how it can be used. It will then explore

their understandings to deepen the learning. After the workshop, I will work

closely with the participants to determine what is working and what is not in

relation to their implementation of the Boundary Triage, which will then be

developed and tested further for its effectiveness within the online

environment. I will be collecting both qualitative and quantitative data.

The workshop participants will have their online interactions observed before

and after the workshops, with up to three periodic follow-up interviews at 8

week intervals over the 6 month research period. The interviews will be

conducted in a semi-structured manner with set questions (as recommended

by Price-Mitchell, 2009, Appendix C) to qualitatively investigate boundary

dynamics, but with the flexibility to explore views and issues that are beyond

41
the initial scope of the interview questions. A semi-structured interview

format has been chosen because, whilst a structured interview will provide

consistency in topics and format, I do not want to miss the opportunity of

exploring other issues if they arise. Where permitted by the participant, Skype

and telephone interviews will be recorded, transcribed and analysed.

I will be asking the participants to provide, not only reflections on their

experiences with the Boundary Triage, but also examples of online interactions

(with the names blacked out) where the Boundary Triage was used, had an

impact or where there were issues. The focus here initially is on developing

systemic leadership skills that will transpire, and hopefully be seen, online. I

will use online analytics to obtain quantitative data, with interviews and surveys

with the workshop participants to gain qualitative insights into what is being

observed (Table 2).

Qualitative Quantitative
Interviews (3 per participant) Online Analytics

Surveys (2) Interactions

Workshops (1-3) Contributions

Primary source documents Visits

Workshops and meetings Leavers

Social Media Policy Demographics

Online blogs Polls

Comments

Researchers Diary
Table 2: Data Sources

Two surveys will be conducted: an initial survey of the participants attitudes

and perceptions towards leadership, the organisation, and social technologies

and a survey conducted with those who are part of the wider organisation to

42
determine if there has been any noticeable change in leadership style and how

that has influenced them.

Physical attendance numbers at centres for courses and public programs will

also be collected (if permitted) to see if there is correlation between the

introduction of the Boundary Triage and its systemic impacts, both online and

offline.

I also recognize that I am a key research instrument, and that I am not a

completely detached, objective observer (Wilby, 1997; McNiff & Whitehead,

2006; Ison, 2008; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). A reflexive diary will be

maintained to monitor the observations, activities, feelings, thoughts and

insights (Steedman, 1991; Holland, 1999) that could potentially influence my

interpretation of observations and data (as would be expected if my Boundary

Triage has any validity). This reflexive process will provide learning

(understanding how I am constructing what I know) and meaning

throughout the research process, as well as informing the identification of

positionality as I am conducting the research (Holland, 1999; Fisher et.al.,

2007; Gilbert, 2008; Weerakkody, 2009). Positionality is sometimes called

bias, but the latter term implies the possibility of an objective, unbiased

position. If such a position is actually achievable, we can never know for sure

when we have got there (Popper, 1972). A sceptical stance is important for

critical systems research (Ulrich, 1983).

Data analysis methods

In Chapter 2 and 3, the role of language and symbols emerged as an important

factor in leadership, both in empowering and disempowering. NVivo will be

the software program used to code and to critically analyse both online and

offline discourse, and other forms of communication such as audio (music),

images and video. Textual analysis of media (both online and offline) will be

43
the main research method using systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1985)

to attempt to understand how meaning moves systemically from the author

(or speaker) to the audience, and how it is then reciprocated throughout a

network (Halliday, 1985; Frey et.al., 1991). The analysis of data will include the

coding of key words within conversations (Annex D), images (and the words, if

quotes, and who said them), music and attributes, sound files and attributes,

videos and attributes; who shared which media, when, where, and the context;

and interactions such as likes and shares to measure systemic reach. Only the

key participants will be observed daily to see whether changes in boundary

understandings have led to changes in communications, and the wider effects

of these. General statistics will be used to measure the growth of the

community using Google analytics as well as using social media analytic tools

such as Facebook Insights and Tweetreach to measure reach on external sites.

Whilst there is continuing debate regarding informed consent and privacy

when using big data or conducting online research (Borgatti & Molina, 2003;

Weerakkody, 2009; Leonard, 2013), the current guidance is that informed

consent is not required if the data cannot, and is not, linked back to an

individual. The website analytics (big data) are provided by Google Analytics

in an anonymous, general format (frequency over time) and cannot be used to

identify a specific individual or group. These analytics will be used to analyse

the health of the website activity (not of specific individuals) and key word

frequency. Informed consent will be acquired from the workshop participants

only, as their interactions will be observed and discussed throughout the

intervention period.

Quality assurance

To assure the quality of the study, participants will be invited to review the data

and analysis for accuracy and interpretation. My researchers critical self-

44
reflection diary will act as a learning tool to expose elements of positionality,

as described earlier. In addition, regular meetings with my supervisors will

help to identify problems of interpretation that are not picked up by me during

this process. Any issues that arise and influence the direction of the research

will be commented upon in my PhD Thesis.

Limitations and delimitations

The intervention aims to test the Boundary Triage for its utility in developing

systemic leadership online. Therefore it will be delimited to the participants of

the intervention, their interactions both online and off, and the statistical data

related to their social networks. This limits my observations of other activities

or potential grass-roots emergent activity within the social network. Social

Network Analysis (SNA)19 will not be conducted, as the focus is on meaning

making and transferrable meaning on an individual and collective basis. SNA

is more useful when the focus is the simple fact of whether a particular

communication has happened or not, or when frequency of communications

is at issue. SNA does not help explore meaning, which is necessary for my

study.

Working on a case study with only one organisation, and a not-for-profit

voluntary organisation at that, may potentially limit the perceived applicability

to larger for-profit organisations. It may be perceived that for-profit

organisations have to face greater risks, and operate in a more volatile and

uncertain environment where viability is measured by profit and driven by

shareholders. Nevertheless, it is only possible to undertake one in-depth case

study in the time limits of a PhD, so use of the Boundary Triage in profit making

organisations will have to be the subject of future research.

19
SNA also brings into the study ethical issues, such as privacy, as data can be linked directly back to
an individual (Borgatti & Molina, 2003; Weerakkody, 2009).

45
Timetable

A 9 month period of intervention and data collection will commence on the 1st

of August 2014, completing on the 28th February 2015. The planned date for

the submission of the completed PhD is the 28th September 2015.

Ethical considerations and data protection

The research will be conducted in accordance with the University of Hulls Ethical

Approval Policy and the Ethical Principles for Researchers and Lecturers in the

Hull Business School (Appendix D). At this stage there is no perceived risk or

harm to any participants or to the researcher. The identity of participants will

be kept confidential and protected, with potentially identifying information

being omitted. Interviewees will not be named unless prior written consent

has been received. I will securely store data for a period of five years in line

with the Data Management Plan (Appendix E).

Interviewees will be briefed in person in addition to the provision of an

information and consent sheet. If screenshots are used, identities will be

protected (names and photos will be omitted) and permission to use the text

or images obtained prior to publication.

The whole social network will not be informed that it is under observation, as

I am only interested in observing the direct interactions and behaviours of the

workshop participants and the effects upon the development of the

community (which I will measure quantitatively using web analytics). If the

online community is informed of the research, the behaviour of the community

may potentially be influenced unintentionally, thereby affecting the results of

the research20.

20
Although, conversely, this could become another form of intervention in the future, as it would be
interesting to see if the intervention is implemented more effectively if the full social network is aware
that it is under study.

46
I will provide all contact details, including social network websites, should the

participants require follow-up support.

Dissemination

A 100,000 word thesis will be published and deposited in the University of

Hull PhD Repository and on my personal, professional online social network

sites. Journal articles and book chapters may also be produced during, and

as a result of, the research.

47
 Chapter 5

Moving Forward

Connecting the Research Agendas

This research journey started after I had served over 20 years within the IT,

learning and managing organizational change arenas, internationally and

across several sectors. There is a wealth of opportunities provided by IT

infrastructures and mobile technologies that enable individuals to connect,

share and collaborate, through the harnessing of collective creativity,

knowledge and innovation. Entrepreneurs, teachers and other information

and knowledge innovators have used social media in creative and innovative

ways to communicate, sell, create and learn more effectively and efficiently.

My initial assumptions were that organizational silos, generational differences

and the digital divide would be the barriers that would prevent realisation of

all the potential of social technologies. However, the issues ran deeper than

that. My previous research (MacNamara, 2011b) showed that, whilst

leadership was highlighted as a key factor in successful organisational social

media implementation, it was the personal boundary judgments of the leaders

that influenced implementation, with varying degrees of systemic impact.

My current research focuses on the concept of an individual Boundary, the

nature of Boundary in the social world and the Boundary Triage. As a partial

ontology, the Boundary Triage reveals the social nature of Boundary creation

and other factors that reinforce that boundary. As a practical tool, its aim in

the first instance is to make explicit critical boundary moments and associated

boundary judgments, boundary dynamics and interactions, and the potential

systemic effect of these moments and judgments.

48
Empirical evidence, starting to be gathered through my research (Annex A),

already suggests that the Triage holds potential for personal transformation

by enabling different ways to see, think, analyse and respond to problems and

decisions very quickly. Phase 2 of my empirical research aims to observe

whether the Boundary Triage has the potential to develop more open, yet

critical, discourse and interaction both online and offline, within a collective

situation, and if it has a systemic effect one that encourages a culture of

openness and innovation.

Yet the Boundary Triage is still flawed. Boundaries are value-full (Churchman,

1971; Ulrich, 1983; Midgley, 2000). The role of ethics and morals has not yet

been taken into account sufficiently. Components such as time, distance and

intensity (not an exclusive list) need to be explored and included as boundary

conditions within the ontological model.

On reflection, I find that there seems to be an issue over what systemic

leadership is: is it an intervention (Midgley, 2000; Richardson & Midgley, 2007)

or is it a feature of a system that already exists (as in its structure) and needs

to be activated (Cavaleri & Obloj, 1993)? Is it just about thinking in systems,

using systems methodologies (Jackson, 2003; Higham et.al., 2009), or is it a

more reflexive form of critical systems thinking (Taylor, 2010) than the simple

application of standard methodologies might suggest? I struggled to pin-

point what the term systemic leadership meant in the literature, and what

practitioners or leaders need to do in order to practice it. I aim to clarify, in

the next phase of my research, what Systemic Leadership means and how it

needs to be defined so that it can be explained and disseminated to leaders

and the managers of the future - to adopt not only the concept, but also to

guide future researchers in methods, methodology, and theory creation and

development.

49
I appreciate that there is a significant amount of theory that I have consciously

excluded due to the limitations of the word count, and which I intend to

address in subsequent research. There are also several areas for further

exploration with the Boundary Triage in terms of looking within (for example,

the self, morality and ethics, spiritual intelligence), and broader application

to organisation strategy, organisational behaviour, and learning theory.

Midgley (2000, p. 274) states that all theories are partial (they are ways of

seeing that assume particular boundary judgments). Recognizing this, and

in the spirit of collective intelligence and open innovation, I extend an

invitation to others, particularly in the systems community, who will hopefully

find the Boundary Triage either interesting, or irritating, enough to engage

with through critiques, suggestions, applications and building the narratives to

develop the Boundary ontology further with the purpose of systemically

embedding systems thinking and practice within the global community.

50
 ANNEXES

Annex A

Case Study 1: The Development of the Boundary Theory

1. Development of the Nature of Boundary factors

Results: Performance Increase

Situation: At the age of 42, I wanted to get my fitness level to the level I was when

I was 24 years old and in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Up until this point, my

fitness consisted of doing a 5km walk every second day. The RAN fitness

requirement for 45-54 year olds was to run 2.4 km in 17 minutes or under.

Source: http://www.navy.gov.au/join-navy/recruit-school/fitness

51
This table outlines the progress of my running goal. At the time, I was researching boundaries and trying to determine what the components

of a boundary were. Each time I went for a run, a new insight would be realised most importantly that boundaries are created and

accepted, that boundary conditions change over time and that I, the Agent, was able to adjust these boundary conditions. I was surprised

by these results as in 14 days the time was reduced from 19:38 minutes to 11:55 minutes, an improvement of 7:43 minutes.

Objective Actual Boundary Result Boundary condition realised

condition
adjustment
Run 1: 14 mins or 19:38 min Goal or objective is a boundary condition that is set and
08.02.2012 under need to be agreed to.
-Creator / Acceptor components
Run 2: 19 mins or 17:55 min Agree to age group Achieved under goal for age Goal or objective is a boundary condition that is set and
12.02.2012 under time group but not satisfied. need to be agreed to.
-Creator / Acceptor components
Run 3: 15 mins or 16:23 min Fixed goal in mind 16:23 minutes so within my age Physical pain when running
15.02.2012 under group. Disappointed that I didnt -Physical component as a reinforcing factor
reach goal.
Run 4: 15 mins or 14:35 min Accept physical Broke through pain barrier and Discovered that I slowed down because of a hill before
19.02.2012 under pain as condition also broke the under 15 min the end
goal. Still not satisfied. Want to -Natural environment as a reinforcing factor
achieve result that I did when I
was 24 years old
Run 5: 12 mins or 11:55 min Pre-knowledge of Went beyond goal set Requires motivation, focus and intent. Knowing and
22.02.2012 under hill and knowing its understanding the personal boundary conditions meant
distance that I could anticipate and address them during the run.

52
 Annex B

Case Study 2: Boundary Triage in Practice

2. Organizational Politics
Results: Permanent role, promotion, pay increase

The problem situation: X received a job transfer from the UK to Australia in September

2011 to cover As maternity leave for one year. The transfer was created by the Sales

Director and the HR Director of his company due to his expertise in Key Account

Management. On the first day of working in Australia, Xs line manager resigned and the

Regional Sales Manager became Xs line manager.

The Regional Sales Manager (Y) had originally come from a teaching background and had

been with the company for many years. He had developed and implemented the

companys leadership development program which managed the secondment and

mentoring program. He had not been involved in the recruitment of X and it was reported

that there was some tension between the Sales Director and the RSM, with conflicting views

on the strategic management of the Sales team and Key Account Management.

X applied for the management role left vacant by his line manager, but the RSM would not

process the application to HR with inexperience and unqualified as reasons. After 6

months in the role, the RSM told X that he would understand if X started looking for a new

job outside the company. X understood that this meant that he should start looking for a

job. X does not like uncertainty and this situation left him feeling frustrated and not

valued.

The Boundary Triage was employed to initially determine Xs boundary conditions. Initially,

X had been an Acceptor of the RSMs politics and these were reinforced by the factor of

Authority. Then we looked at the other boundary conditions, those of the RSM and the

Sales Director. It became obvious that X was a pawn in a game of organizational politics

between Executive management and Senior management.

53
Firstly, the Sales Director had a higher authority (RF) than the RSM and it was the Sales

Director and the HR Director that recruited X therefore the intensity of Xs RF factors

started to decrease against the authority RF created by the RSM. The next factor was for

X not to be an Acceptor of the RSMs viewpoint. By not accepting the RSMs viewpoint

and looking at other boundaries within the system (all of which are networked) this

diminished the RSMs Power RF within X psychologically (although it was still there).

X (after getting permission from the RSM) then approached the HR Director to ask for

assistance in job hunting. The HR director was unaware of what had transpired, and within

four weeks had a role for X within the company dealing with Key Account Management

and in the region he wanted to work in. As X is a transparent, honest employee he

contacted the RSM to ask for permission to apply for the role. Unfortunately, the RSM

once again had not been involved in this job creation and found organisational legislation

(another RF factor) to stop the recruitment.

The RSM then proceeded to promote the person who X was initially covering for, A, without

interview to the Line Managers role. The RSM suggested that the existing role X was

doing was being made available to X as a permanent role. However, A had less experience

and fewer qualifications than X. This unpopular action made it clear that there was a

political issue at hand and the Executive managers stepped in and reposted the permanent

key account management job.

Throughout this whole period, X was able to manage his personal feelings of uncertainty

and anxiety, and respond in a proactive and positive way to achieve the outcome that he

(and Executive management) wanted as he was able to understand the dynamics of the

problem situation and knew that these dynamics would change over time. In performance

reviews by several managers, X has been commended on his resilience, his ability to identify

gaps in his performance, listen to other perspectives and manage difficult situations in a

positive, progressive way. X attributes the ability to manage this uncertainty to the

Boundary Triage as it helped him to think about the situation systemically, and in a very

simple way.

54
Conversely, an almost identical scenario occurred over the same period of time in the UK

with another colleague (Y) in that Executive Management recruited him without

consultation with the Senior Manager. No Boundary Triage was used as it was not known

at the time. The result was that Y had such a difficult time with the senior manager that Y

left the company and was unemployed for three months before finding a new role

elsewhere.

These are only two examples of the development, use and outcome of the boundary

theory. However, the simplicity of the theory seems to appeal to people operating within

complex environments and who are trying to make sense of the world.

55
 Annex C

Inquiry into Boundary and Boundary Dynamics

Boundary dynamics has the potential to lead to messy and wicked problems. Once the
Boundary workshop has been conducted, further inquiry into boundary dynamics and
how the Boundary Triage has been used, and how it transpired, using the questions below
to guide a semi-structured interview:
What is the nature of boundary conflicts between agents?

How do individuals construct identity boundaries?

How do they perceive boundaries within different systems?

Under what conditions is permeability of their identity boundaries allowed to be

influenced by others, and vice versa?

How does permeability change under stressful conditions?

How do members of the learning community negotiate or balance their own

identity and the collective identity?

What systems of engagement are most effective over time, allowing for flexibility

and change?

Adapted from Price-Mitchell, M. (2009 p.21). Boundary Dynamics: Implications for Building Parent-
School Partnerships. The School Community Journal (Fall/Winter 2009), 19(2), 9-26.

56
 Annex D

Semantic Use of Words in Everyday Use That Define Objects and

Events (Boundary Terms)

This list of words is a collation of terms identified during conversations and in the literature

which describe, to varying extents, a boundary or a binding term. This is a preliminary

categorisation of terms. It is anticipated that Stage 2 of the research with reveal more

boundary terms, their meaning to the individual and the collective and the significance of

word use in adjusting boundary conditions.

Synonyms Related Enabling/Goal Activity

settiing
barrier Constraint Aim Blurring
Bind Culture Architecture Breaking
Border Define Categorise Bridging
border Divide Goal Build
Bounds Duration Objective Changing
brink History Plan Crossing
confines
Illustrate Project Extending
edge
Limit Scope Measure
extent
Maximum Vision Pushing
extremities
Meaning Transcending
fringes
Minimum Transforming
frontier
march Models Facilitate
margin Power Explore
margins Society Researching
outer limits Levels Analyzing
pale Stages
parameters Core
perimeter Framing
precinct Symbol
threshold Language
verges Signs
line
Gestures
lip
Interpretation
constraints

57
Structural Business Personal Natural
Affirmations
Box Agreement Age Brink
Brink Company Beliefs Frontier
Fence Belong Horizon
Contract
Fortress Cant Margin
Department
Gate keeper Class Periphery
House Discipline
Culture Rim
Line Group
Facts Threshold
Property Guidelines Ideology Verge
Room
Hierarchy Nightmare Area
Shape
Space Horizontal Numbers Region
Surround Industry Ownership Suburb
Verge Laws Privacy Borderline
Wall Protect Environment land
Organization
Framework Religion Environment sea
Party Shant Environment outer
Apartheids
Ghettos Policy Expectation space
Barrios Regulations Status Country
Reservations Rules Time
Colonies Values
Section
Fortresses Wont
Sector
Judgement
Citadels Security
Decision
Team Identity
Treaty Role
Vertical Fear
Certainty Choice
Model Like / Dislike
Perspective
conditions
World View
Pain

58
Data Management Plan

Annex F

University of Hull Data Management Plan

(NB: This form should be completed at the start of all projects where data management

is not dealt with otherwise). Shaded areas are considered essential, particularly when a

data management plan is required for a grant application.

Date 10 January 2014

Researcher(s) Delia P. MacNamara

Project title
Leadership in a Networked World

Brief description
Investigating the use of boundary critique and
management as a systemic leadership tool to
encourage open innovation and collective
intelligence in a networked world.

For detailed, updated explanations of the various parts of the document that
require completion, please refer to the accompanying Appendices.

This University of Hull History Data Management Plan (HDMP) applies the DCC
Checklist for Data Management (v3.0 17 March 2011).

64
Data Management Plan

Contents

Section 1: Project Information 3

Section 2: Data, Materials, Resource Collection Information 4

Section 3: Ethics, Intellectual Property, Citation 5

Section 4: Access and Use of Information 6

Section 5: Storage and Backup of Data 7

Section 6: Archiving and Future Proofing of Information 8

Section 7: Resourcing of Data Management 9

Section 8: Review of Data Management process 10

Section 9: Statements and Personnel Details 11

9.1 Statement of Agreement 11

9.2 Expertise of Researchers 13

65
Data Management Plan

Section 1: Project Information

A summary of the project details and associated data management

requirements
1.1 Project title: Leadership in a Networked World: A Focus on Boundary

1.2 Project duration (aa/bb/cc-xx/yy/zz) 26/09/2011-26/09/2016

1.3 Partners (if applicable)
N/A

1.4 Brief description

A systemic intervention using boundary critique and management to enable systemic
leadership in delivering collective intelligence and open innovation in a networked
world.

1.5 Faculty or University requirements for data management

Securely stored for 5 years

1.6 Funding body(ies) N/A

1.7 Budget (estimate if necessary) N/A

1.8 Funding body requirements for data management N/A

66
Data Management Plan

Section 2: Data, Materials, Resource Collection Information

This section is used to more fully describe the data

2.1 Brief description of data being created or compiled
Demographics, Interviews (audio recorded), participant diaries and web analytics.
Computer-mediated interactions.

2.2 Data collection process

Workshops, interviews, questionnaires with selected participants
Web analytics of website and social network, including demographic information
NVivo to collect social network interactions and coding.

2.3 Are there existing forms of the data that will be used within this research project, or
which will be used as the basis for the research? If so, provide a brief description and
citation
No.

2.3 Will data be available in electronic format (if so then state format(s))?
No.

2.4 Will the data be available in non-digital form (if so then state format(s))?

No.

2.5 Will the data stand alone and be comprehensible to a third party or be accompanied
by explanatory documentation (e.g., a data dictionary)?

The data will be stand alone and comprehensible to a third party (eg. Interviews). Where
this is not the case, or if myself and supervisors feel that the data is (or may be)
incomprehensible (eg. Coding of semantics and emoticons), explanatory documentation
will accompany the data.

2.6 Describe the quality assurance process for data management

During the project, the data will be securely stored on a private secure cloud storage drive
(not USB) or locally held on the researchers Password protected PC.

Data will be saved onto a password protected blu-ray disk and held securely for storage.
Data on computers or laptop will be deleted.

67
Data Management Plan

Section 3: Ethics, Intellectual Property

This section is used to address issues surrounding relevant ethical and

intellectual property issues the research will encounter
3.1 How will the ethical aspects of data storage and subsequent access be addressed?

Access to a numerical data set will be by an approved request. For interview recordings
and transcriptions, participant (including the researchers diaries), access will be granted
only if the consent of the participant has been provided and that the data is anonymous.

During the project, the data will be securely stored on a private secure cloud storage drive
(not USB) or locally held on the researchers Password protected PC.

Data will be saved onto a password protected blu-ray disk and held securely for storage.
Data on computers or laptop will be deleted.

3.2 Will the data comply with relevant legislation such as Data Protection Act, Copyright,
Design and Patents Act, Freedom of Information Act, etc.?

Yes.

3.3 If several partners are involved how will compliance with 3.1 and 3.2 be assured?

N/A

68
Data Management Plan

Section 4: Access and Use of Information

This section is used to consider if and how you will share the data once it has
been created/compiled
4.1 Are you required, or do you intend, to share the data, and with whom? If so, when?

No. In the event that Examiners will need to see the data, consent must be freely given
by the participants with sufficient information provided on all aspects of participation and
data use. There will be active communication between the parties. Consent will never be
inferred from a non-response to a communication such as a letter.

4.2 If yes to 4.1, in what format will data be shared?

N/A

4.3 Will the data have to be stored and/or made accessible for a specific period (if so, how
long)?

5 years

4.4 Who may need or wish to have access to the data?

Examiners

4.5 How do you anticipate the data being used subsequent to the project?
The data will be held for the researchers archive only. It is not anticipated to be used in
subsequent research.

69
Data Management Plan

Section 5: Storage and Backup of Data

This section is used to clarify details of how the data will be stored
5.1 Where and how will the data be stored during the lifespan of the project?

During the project, the data will be securely stored on a private secure password protected
cloud storage drive (not USB) or locally held on the researchers Password protected PC.

5.2 Where and how will the data be stored on completion of the project?

Data will be saved onto a password protected blu-ray disk and held securely for storage.
Data on computers or laptop will be deleted.

5.3 What provision is being made for backup of the data?

Data held on the PC will be backed up each night onto the private secure password
protected cloud storage drive. Each week the data will be saved onto a password
protected CD.

5.4 Will different versions of the data be stored? If so, what frequency of versioning will
be appropriate?

No.

70
Data Management Plan

Section 6: Archiving and Future Proofing of Information

This section is used to describe long-term, post-project aspects of managing

the data
6.1 What is the long-term strategy for future proofing of the data?

The data will be held in an RTF format. The data will be destroyed after 5 years.

6.2 How will the data be managed after the life of the project, for how long and in what
format (NB this section refers to the detail of preservation and archiving actions, not just
how it will be stored this is addressed in section 5.2)?

The data is not intended to be used after the life of the project unless the Examiners
require it to substantiate claims made in the research. It will be stored in Blu-ray DVD
format securely with the Researcher.
The data will be destroyed after 5 years.

6.3 If the data include confidential or sensitive information, how will these data be
managed to prevent possible future breaches?

The data will not include confidential or sensitive information as this will not be collected
(ie. Data collection, including demographic data, will be anonymous to protect the
identities and confidentiality of the participants).

6.4 If metadata or explanatory information is to be archived, how will this be linked to the
data?

This will be in an RTF document format on the Bluray DVD. It will be destroyed with the
data after 5 years.

6.5 How will the data be cited?

I will need to provide quotations in my thesis. However, the identities of individuals will
not be revealed. A system will be developed and agreed with the participants in terms of
citations. Interactions cited with other members will be converted to a number system
eg. If Participant 1 interacts with 5 members (who are not direct participants of the study,
the data will remove the names and identities and Members will be assigned a number to
identify their interactions.

71
Data Management Plan

Section 7: Resourcing of Data Management

This section is used to outline the staffing and financial details of the data
management
7.1 List the specific staff who will have access to the data and denote who will have the
responsibility for data management.

Delia MacNamara

7.2 How will the data management described in this document be funded?

N/A

7.3 How will data storage be funded?

Delia MacNamara (personally funded)

72
Data Management Plan

Section 8: Review of Data Management process

This section is used to clarify how data management will be an embedded part
of the research project
8.1 How will the data management plan be adhered to?

Regular reviews, reports and assessments of the data management plan will be provided
every 3 months as to how the commitment and processes discussed have been
implemented and adhered to. Any incidents or changes to the Data Management
process will be reported and documented for approval by the appropriate authorities.

8.2 Who will review the data management plan? What is the schedule for this review?

Professor Gerald Midgley, Director, Centre for Systems Studies, Associate Dean for
Research and Enterprise will review the data management plan prior to the
commencement of data collection.

73
Data Management Plan

Section 9: Statements and Personnel Details

9.1 Statement of agreement

I/we agree to the specific elements of the plan as outlined:

Principal investigator or PhD supervisor

Title Professor

Designation
Supervisor
Name Gerald Midgley

Date

Signature

Researcher

Title Ms

Designation Researcher

Name
Delia P. MacNamara
Date
Signature DWPMacNamara

74
Data Management Plan

9.2 Expertise of Researchers

Title
Ms
Name
Delia P. MacNamara
Contact delia.p.macnamara@gmail.com
Details d.macnamara@2010.hull.ac.uk

Expertise
Bachelor of Information Systems
Masters of Business Administration

Title

Name

Contact
Details

Expertise

** More than one Researcher may be involved. Continue on a separate page if

necessary.

75
 References

Aboulafia, M. (2009). "George Herbert Mead". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer 2009 Edition). (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) Retrieved May 1st, 2012, from The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition):
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/mead/
Accenture. (2014). Accenture Technology Vision 2014: From Digitally Disrupted to Digital
Disrupter. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from Accenture.ocm:
http://www.accenture.com/microsite/it-technology-trends-
2014/Documents/TechVision/Downloads/Accenture_Technology_Vision_2014.pdf
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the Corporation: A design for organizations in the 21st
century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic Leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work.
Maryland: University Press of America.
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a Science of Personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund,
1941
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2002). The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking
the Chains of Organization Structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2008). The Boundaryless Organization: Rising to
the Challenges of Global Leadership. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business Leadership (2nd ed., pp.
199-220). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Australian School of Business. (2011). Age Diversity at Work: Talking 'Bout My Generation - 5
July 2011. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from Knowledge@Australian School of Business,
University of New South Wales: http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleid=1431
Azua, M (2010). The Social Factor: Innovate, Ignite and Win through Mass Collaboration and
Social Networking. Upper Saddle River: IBM Press.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Beer, S. (1975). Platform for Change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Borgatti, S. P., & Molina, J. L. (2003). Ethical and Strategic Issues in Organizational Social
Network Analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 39(3), 337-349.
Boulding, K. E., (1956). General systems theory - the skeleton of science. Management
Science 2: 197-208.
Bowers, T. D., (2011). Towards a Framework for Multiparadigm Multimethodologies. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 28, 537-552.
Buchanan, D. A., & Huczynski, A. A. (2010). Organizational Behaviour (7th ed.). Essex: Prentice
Hull.
Beishon, R .J. & Peters, G. (1976) Systems behavior. London : Harper & Row.
Bughin, J. (2009). How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0: Selected McKinsey Global
Survey Results. McKinsey Quarterly (December 2009), 4 , 84-85.
Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., & Lobdell, C. (2008). Systems thinking. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 31(3), pp. 299310Campbell, D., Draper, R., & Huffington, C. (1991). Systemic

77
Thinking and Practice Series: A Systemic Approach to Consultation. (D. Campbell, & R.
Draper, Eds.) London: Karnac Books.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). Transferring, Translating and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for
Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Massachusetts: Sloan School of Management, MIT.
Carayannis, E. & Sipp, C. (2006). E-development toward the knowledge economy: leveraging
technology, innovation and entrepreneurship for "smart" development. Basingstoke,
Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cavaleri, S., & Obloj, K. (1993). Management Systems: A global perspective. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publiching Company.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking. In W. Currie, & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking
Management Information Systems (pp. 45-56). USA: Oxford University Press.
Churchman, C. W. (1961). Prediction and Optimal Decision: Philosophical issues of a Science
of Values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The Systems Approach. New York: Dell.
Churchman, C. W (1971). The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and
organization. New York: Basic Books.
Cisco Systems. (2010). Cloud: Powered by the Network: What a Business Leader Must Know.
USA: Cisco Systems Inc.
Collins, J. (2008). Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. In J. V.
Gallos (Ed.), Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader (2nd ed., pp. 99-114). San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons.
Cordoba-Pachon, J.-R. (2010). Systems Practice in the Information Society. New York:
Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Davidson, M. (1983). Uncommon Sense: The Life and Thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy
(1901-1972), Father of General Systems Theory. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
DeNisi, A. (2010). Presidential Address - Challenges and opportunities for the Academy in the
next decade. Academy of Management Review, 35, 190-201.
Derrida, J. (1997, [1967]). Of Grammatology. (Translated by Spivak, G.C.). Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Doolin, B., & McLeod, L. (2012). Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information
systems development. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 570586.
Doolittle, P. E. (2001). The need to leverage theory in the development of guidelines for
using technology in social studies teacher preparation: A reply to Crocco and Mason et al.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(4).
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful Relationships: Talking, Sense and Relating. Thousand Oacks, CA.:
Sage.
Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C.
Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 181-208). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Eisenstat, R., Foote, N., Galbraith, J., & Miller, D. (2001). Beyond the Business Unit. McKinsey ,
pp. 54-63.
Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R.
R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

78
Fisher, C., Buglear, J., Lowry, D., Mutch, A., & Tansley, C. (2007). Researching and Writing a
Dissertation: A Guidebook for Business Students (2nd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems Intervention.
Chichester: Wiley.
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., & Kreps, G. L. (1991). Investigating Communication:
An Introduction to Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fuenmayor, R. L. (1991). The Roots of Reductionism: A Counter-ontoepistemology for a
systems approach. Systems Practice, 4, 449-472.
Fujimura, J. H. (1992). Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and
"Translation". In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 168-212). USA:
University of Chicago Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly
leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly's second decade,
20002009. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 922-958.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity : a platform for
designing business architecture (3rd ed.). USA: MK Publications.
Gilbert, N. (Ed.). (2008). Researching Social Life (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Gregory, W. (1996). Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking.
Systems Practice, 9(6), 605-625.
Guy Carpenter. (2013). Emerging Risks Report - September 2013. USA: Marsh & MecLennan.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Dimensions of Discourse Analysis: Grammar. In The Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, Vol 2: Dimensions of Discourse. London: Academic Press.
Harris, T. E. (2014). Applied Organizational Communication: Principles and Pragmatics for
Future Practice. New York: Psychology Press.
Higham, R., Hopkins, D., & Matthews, P. (2009). System Leadership in Practice. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill.
Hilberts, B. J. (2010). The Connected Company - dealing with Complexity - 17 October 2010.
Retrieved Apr 15, 2011, from Iconoclast: http://iconoclast.typepad.com/blog/etenen-drinken/
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D.,
Pohl, C., et al. (2008). Idea of the Handbook. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S.
Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 3-18). Springer Science.
Holland, R. (1999). Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52(4), 463-484.
Ing, D. (2011, February 14). Progress on the emerging science of service systems.
(Unpublished lecture). Hull: IBM.
Inkpen, R. (2005). Science, Philosophy and Pysical Geography. London: Routledge.
Innocentive. (2011). Executive White Paper: Out-Innovating the Competition Through
Challenge Driven Innovation. Waltham: InnoCentive, Inc.
Ison, R. L. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. In The Sage Handbook of
Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 139158). London, UK: Sage.
Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Hull: University of
Hull.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., & Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy: Text and Cases (9th
ed.). Essex: Prentice Hall.

79
Kalapesi, C., Willersdorf, S., & Zwillenberg, P. (2010). The Connected Kingdom: How the
internet is transforming the UK economy. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group.
Kimble, C., Grenier, C., & Goglio-Primard, K. (2010). Innovation and knowledge sharing across
professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers.
International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 437-444.
Kirk, P. (2000). Corporate evolution and the chaos advantage. The Systems Thinker
December 1999/January 2000. 10(10), 1-5
Kodama, M. (2010). Boundary Management: Developing Business Architectures for
Innovation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Koestler, A. (1976). The ghost in the machine. London: Hutchinson.
Kornwachs, K. (1998). A Formal Theory of Technology? Philosophy and Technology - Fall
1998, 4(1).
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Brady, M., Goodman, M., & Hansen, T (2009). Marketing Management.
Essex: Pearson.
Kramer, N. J., & de Smit, J. (1977). Systems thinking: Concepts and notions. Leiden: Martinus
Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.
Lam, A. (2005). Organizational Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson
(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 115-147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laszlo, A., & Krippner, S. (1998). Systems Theories: Their Origins, Foundations, and
Development. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception (pp.
47-74). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Leadbeater, C., & Wong, A. (2010). Learning from the Extremes. San Jose: Cisco Systems Inc.
Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects
and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16,
307-339.
Leonard, P. (2013, September). Doing Big Data business: evolving business models and
privacy regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 1-16.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. (D. Cartwright,
Ed.) New York: Harper & Row.
MacGillivray, A. E. (2009). Perceptions and Uses of Boundaries by Respected Leaders: A
transdisciplinary enquiry. Santa Barbara, CA: Fielding Graduate University.
MacNamara, D. (2011a). PhD Proposal: Social Media - Beyond the Fad: The development of
collective intelligence and implications for organisations (unpublished). Hull: University of
Hull.
MacNamara, D. (2011b). Hull - A Digital City? A study into the adoption of social media and
web technologies in organisations and communities. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from
http://www.scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82393381/Hull-%E2%80%93-A-Digital-
City-A-study-into-the-adoption-of-social-media-and-web-technologies-in-organisations-
and-communities
Martin, R. (2008). How successful leaders think. Harvard Business Review - June , 1-8.
Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Maturana, H. R. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrech,
Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.
McKinsey. (2007). How Businesses are using Web 2.0. San Francisco: McKinsey Report on
Information Technologies.

80
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about Action Research. London:
Sage Publications.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society: From the Perspective of a Social Behaviorist. (C.
W. Morris, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d. ). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from
"Weltanschauung.": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung
Midgley, G. (1992). The Sacred and Profane in Critical Systems Thinking. Systems Practice,
5(1), 5-16.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, methodology and practice. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Midgley, G. (2013). Personal Communication. Hull.
Najmanovich, D. (2002). From Paradigms to Figures of Thought. Emergence, 4(1/2), 85-93.
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity - levels of reality, logic of the
included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19-
38.
Oliga, J. C. (1996). Power, Ideology and Control. New York: Plenum Press.
Onlineschools.org. (2011). Obsessed with Facebook - 1 Feb 2011. Retrieved February 14,
2011, from Onlineschools.org: http://www.onlineschools.org/blog/facebook-obsession/
Petrie, N. (2011). Future Trends in Leadership Development. USA: Centre for Creative
Leadership.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Price-Mitchell, M. (2009). Boundary Dynamics: Implications for Building Parent-School
Partnerships. The School Community Journal (Fall/Winter 2009), 19(2), 9-26.
Princeton University. (2012). Extrovertive. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from FreeDictionary.com:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extrovertive
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Operations Management (6th ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education Ltd.
Slawsby, A., & Rivera, C (2007). Collective Innovation. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Stacey, R. (2003). Learning as an activity of interdependent people. The Learning
Organization, 325-331.
Stamps, J. (1980). Holonomy: A Human Systems Theory. USA: Intersystems Publications.
Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social
Studies of Science, 19(3), 387420.
Steedman, P. H. (1991). On the Relations between Seeing, Interpreting and Knowing. In F.
Steier (Ed.), Research and Reflexivity (pp. 53-75). London: Sage Publications.
Steers, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C. J., & Nardon, L. (2010). Management across cultures:
Challenges and Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

81
Stefik, M. (2000). The Internet Edge: Social, Technical and Legal Challenges for a Networked
World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership
research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1173-1183.
Suddaby, R. (2012). Editor's Comments. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 6-8.
Tan, F. B., & Gallupe, R. B. (2006). Aligning Business and Information Systems Thinking: A
Cognitive Approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management - May 2006, 53(2), 223-
237.
Tate, W. (2009). The Search for Leadership: An organisational perspective. Axminster: Triarchy
Press.
Taylor, C. (2010). Systemic Leadership. Retrieved Jan 17, 2013, from
http://www.theknowledge.biz
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet.
USA: Oxford University Press.
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical
Philosophy. Bern: Haupt.
Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design. European Journal of
Operational Research, 31, 276-283.
Ulrich, W. (1996). Critical systems thinking for citizens. In R. L. Flood, & N. R. Romm (Eds.),
Chapter 9 in Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice (pp. 165-178). New
York: Plenum.
Van House, N. A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In A. P.
Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in
design and evaluation (pp. 271-295). Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1928). Kritische Theorie der Formbuildung. Berlin: Borntraeger.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. New York: Braziller.
Weerakkody, N. (2009). Research Methods for Media and Communication. South Melbourne,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
White, T. (2001). Reinventing the IT Department. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Wilby, J. (1997). The observer's role and the process of critical review. Systems practice, 10(4),
409-419.
Wilby, J. (1994), A Critique of Hierarchy Theory. Systems Practice. 7 (6) pp.653-670.
Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader's companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New
York: The Free Press.
Yip, J., Ernst, C., & Campbell, M. (2011). Boundary Spanning Leadership. USA: Centre for
Creative Leadership.
Zhu, Z. (2011). After paradigm why mixing methodology theorising fails and how to make it
work again. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, pp.784-798.

82