**4.2 Theories behind L.S.s: complexity science**

L.S.s have been developed from the founders' deep interests in complexity science theories [76]. They took close looks into living how those theories could inform the nature and functioning of human organizations. Quo and McCandless (2020) explained the organizational life using metaphors (**Figure 3**). They argue that we need to take an ecological metaphor rather than a machine metaphor to understand the organization's life. The machine metaphor is the one we have believed since we got machines in the time of the industrial revolution. It explains that a good organization is supposed to work like a clock. A system is made of interconnected reliable parts (people, functions, and systems), directed and controlled from the top, and designed to produce predictable results. However, organizations are not machines but complex living systems that behave and evolve like ecosystems.

**Figure 4**, which was modified based on the idea by the complexity science scholars [77], presents how to organize activities based on a more conventional machine metaphor and on a complexity-theory-based ecosystem metaphor [76].

#### **4.3 Microstructures**

While being easy to understand from the theoretical standpoint, it will pose a question in the practical aspect. That is how organizational members are supposed to manage their operations, make decisions, solve problems, manage people, and so on with such a worldview.

The L.S. founders originally collected methods that allowed people to routinely use to manage in a complex way rather than manage in a mechanistic way [76]. As they accumulated collections, they started simplifying the approach, not requiring the understanding of the complexity theory and terms to use the methods [76].

#### **Figure 2.**

*33 L.S. menus. (Source: Lipmanowicz and McCandless, 2020 [74]).*

Such processes of simplifying the methods yielded the aforementioned microstructural elements. There are five elements of microstructures, and they are the following [73].

1. *Invitations*: They are tightly connected to the purpose of each L.S., but they leave all participants fully in control to generate responses and contents.

*Communication Strategy for Organizational Leadership and Relationships: Liberating Structures DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105806*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Comparison of machine and ecosystem metaphors: Images. (Source: Fisher and McCandless, 2020 [76]).*


#### **Figure 4.**

*Comparison of the machine and ecosystem metaphors: how to organize activities. (Source: Fisher and McCandless, 2020 [76]).*


For example, one of the most basic L.S.s "1–2–4-All" is best designed to generate and exchange many ideas from group members in a short period of time. It can be used as an alternative to brainstorming and status reports and is often used within other L.S.s. Taking it as an example, micro-structural elements are like the following [76].


#### **4.4 Case study and examples**

This section, following the introduction to the essence of L.S.s, will exemplify its usages through a few case studies and actual use examples. You may not think that they are necessarily considered internal communication processes within an organization. However, I hope that they should give you better pictures of how to use particular L.S.s. I do not provide the readers with detailed descriptions of each L.S. while suggesting you refer to the available resources.

Four provided fictional and non-fictional examples are contextualized in Japan, and the settings are where Japanese social workers are working toward rebuilding the community.

#### *4.4.1 The setting*

The description here is fictionally based on the real situation where I was involved. Imagine the "center" is responsible for welfare services in a particular geographic area. The center chief who is a social worker himself leads the center, and the staff members include two social workers and a nurse, and two administrative staff

#### *Communication Strategy for Organizational Leadership and Relationships: Liberating Structures DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105806*

members who deal with paperwork for the public procedures. The center's responsibilities include 1) the management of the cases of individuals with long-term care needs, who usually use public services to some extent, and 2) the community organization work, which involves developing relationships with individual residents, community organizations, and other community resources such as medical clinics and hospitals, private or non-profit welfare service providers and so on. While staff members need to set and attend various meetings to develop collaborative relationships with outside organizations across the serving community, being understaffed is a chronic condition. The center chief does feel the lack of information sharing, but he does not want the staff members to sacrifice their roles in private life.

The following is a brief description of 4 possible issues of communication processes that the center face and the possible L.S.s use to resolve them.

#### **Example 1**

Issue: With the difference in professional backgrounds, there is a huge perception gap of community organization work among staff members. Because staff members actually do not know well what they are doing, particularly as community organization work done outside the office, some staff members feel that they take the uneven workload. Staff members need to first know and share what the other members are doing as part of their responsibilities, and to have time to think about how community organization work is really what they as the center need to do.

Possible L.S. use: In this case, for the first part of sharing what they do like the role in the center, one of the best fits is "Troika Consulting." It allows staff members to share their thoughts, feelings, and concerns about their own daily work. Using Troika Consulting, feelings and deep thoughts can be voiced with coaching-like support from colleagues. The invitation may be famed by questions like "How do you feel about your daily work and what is the burning issue recently?"

The second part of sharing the value and goal of community organization can be achievable by "Celebrity Interview." The social worker takes the celebrity role (interviewee), and the center chief can interview him/her. The interviewer (the center chief) asks a series of questions to reveal the value felt by the interviewee (the social worker). After finishing a "Celebrity Interview," the other staff members, as if they are press members, can ask additional questions. Then they can reflect on what they thought and felt about what was told by the social worker. This process can be done by "1-2-4-ALL" if the number of participants is large. The communication process is composed of a few L.S.s.

#### **Example 2.**

Issue: Some of the key individuals in younger generations who do not perceive the aging of the community as what they need to deal with are not motivated enough to participate in collaborative community works, and the social worker wants to get them involved.

Possible L.S. use: This is a non-fictional example. The L.S. actually used was "Experiential Fishbowl." Having the leaders from the local community and representatives from various related organizations gather together, we (the center staff members and I in the team) invited them with asking a question, "How would you like to spend your last days?"

As part of the half-day workshop, the social workers who led the "Experiential Fishbowl" session asked a neighborhood association leader, a daycare facility nurse, a doctor of the local clinic, a welfare commissioner, and the social worker to be in the fishbowl, and to them to discuss their own ideas regarding the question (invitation)

among them in the fishbowl while other participants surrounded them in the fishbowl. Diverse opinions were expressed, and the conversation did not stop, though, but after all of the individuals inside the fishbowl expressed their ideas and thoughts for about 15 minutes, the other participants surrounding them were given a chance to pose questions and express their ideas and thoughts. Talking about death is not usual, but no one can avoid it, and the communication dynamics were very energizing and promoted the community building for a good life and good death. A participating health care professional mentioned, "It was very good to hear real voices and an opportunity to get to know each other's thoughts. I realize the importance of having time to think together" (**Figures 5** and **6**).

#### **Example 3.**

Issue: The social workers think that there must be local resources that have not been captured in the community. They want to expand the list of local resources at various levels because they think recognizing even small-scaled activities by residents and making links will promote supporting systems in the community.

Possible L.S. use: "1-2-4-ALL" the simplest and most basic L.S. can be used with an invitation like "Please introduce each other's current activities." Pairs or foursomes of people who are not normally acquainted with each other are usually recommended for "1-2-4-ALL," and this is very applicable for this case. The invitation can be enhanced by an additional question like "Are there any similarities or similarities?" Foursomes might be asked to make a list of what they heard from each other, and those lists will be merged with the entire group.
