Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Andrei Stefan Nestian
environment. The direct contact with <strong>the</strong>se realities, which have a strange character in <strong>the</strong>
environment, is highly recommended in order to differ between accidental evolutions and early signals
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> a strange attractor.
7. Conclusions
In chaotic environments, organizations act as holons, <strong>the</strong>ir evolution being influenced by <strong>the</strong>
appearance <strong>of</strong> attractors in <strong>the</strong> environment. The knowledge dynamics system in its turn is a holon.
The key process which characterizes <strong>the</strong> chaotic environments is that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appearance and
disappearance <strong>of</strong> attractors with a magnitude which cannot be predicted. In order to survive in this
medium, <strong>the</strong>se evolutional dynamic systems must possess <strong>the</strong> ability to successfully accomplish <strong>the</strong>
passing through different areas <strong>of</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> attractors. The easy passing through can be
defined as maintaining <strong>the</strong> integrity and identity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system, on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> its adaptation to <strong>the</strong>
attractors’ influence.
The function that <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics system has is <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> holonic capacity <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> organization. An organization will be <strong>the</strong> less vulnerable to ”strange attractors” which appeared in
<strong>the</strong> environment, <strong>the</strong> more it can maintain on a broader distance surrounding it a higher intensity <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> attraction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ba produced <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization itself. More precisely, this is viewed as two
tendencies: to influence <strong>the</strong> market, and not to be influenced by it, respectively involving <strong>the</strong>
customers and suppliers in <strong>the</strong> dynamic process <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation at a level similar to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
employees.
The resilience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics system is its capacity <strong>of</strong> absorbing adaptive tensions
generated by <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> new attractors in <strong>the</strong> environment, preserving its integrity and
identity, in order to generate new knowledge and behaviors after getting in contact with <strong>the</strong>se
attractors.
Because <strong>the</strong> change in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong> thinking and behaving <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system takes place due to <strong>the</strong> passing
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system through <strong>the</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> new attractors, we can state that new knowledge production is
related to <strong>the</strong> contact with new attractors. They represent development factors, so <strong>the</strong> rhythm <strong>of</strong>
knowledge production will be influenced by <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> new attractors.
In chaotic environments <strong>the</strong> main role in survival and adaptation is held by tacit knowledge because
<strong>the</strong>y are more easily transferable in new contexts.
References
Avallone, E., Baumeister, Th., Sadegh, A. (2007) Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers 11 th
Edition, Mc-Graw Hill, New York.
Bechtold, B. (1997) ‘Chaos <strong>the</strong>ory as a model for strategy development’, Empowerment in Organizations, vol. 5,
no. 4, pp. 193-201.
Bennet, D., Bennet, A. (2008) ‘Engaging tacit knowledge in support <strong>of</strong> organizational learning’, VINE, vol. 38, no.
1, pp.72 – 94.
Bratianu, C. (2010) ‘A Critical Analysis <strong>of</strong> Nonaka‟s Model <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Dynamics’, Electronic Journal <strong>of</strong>
Knowledge Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 193 – 200.
Chen, C. (2008) ‘Linking <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation process to organizational <strong>the</strong>ories. A macro view <strong>of</strong>
organization-environment change’, Journal <strong>of</strong> Organizational Change Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 259-
279.
van Eijnatten, F.(2004) ‘Chaordic systems thinking. Some suggestions for a complexity framework to inform a
learning organization’, The Learning Organization, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 430-449.
Fitzgerald, L., (2002) ‘Chaos: <strong>the</strong> lens that transcends’, Journal <strong>of</strong> Organizational Change Management, vol. 15,
no. 4, pp.339 – 358.
Fitzgerald, L., van Eijnatten, F. (2002) ‘Chaos speak: a glossary <strong>of</strong> chaordic terms and phrases’, Journal <strong>of</strong>
Organizational Change Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp.412 – 423.
Nonaka, I., Konno, N. (1998) ‘The concept <strong>of</strong> „Ba‟: building a foundation for knowledge creation’, California
Management Review, vol.40, no.3, Spring, pp.40-54.
Marchall, I., Zohar, D. (1997), Who’s Afraid <strong>of</strong> Schrodinger’s Cat? The New Science Revealed:
Quantum Theory, Relativity, Chaos and <strong>the</strong> New Cosmology, Bloomsbury, London.
OuYang, S., Lin, Y. (1998) ‘Some problems on “classical chaos’, Kybernetes, vol. 27, no. 6/7, pp. 691 – 700.
Pearson, C.M., Clair, J.A. (1998), ‘Reframing crisis management’, Academy <strong>of</strong> Management Review, vol. 23, no.
1, pp. 59-76.
Polley, D. (1997), ‘Turbulence in organizations: new metaphors for organizational research’, Organization
Science, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 445-57.
301