In an era of complex systems, negotiating organisational complexity is front and center. Large, stratified hierarchies have traditionally relied upon the necessary – or at least (and arguably) inevitable – Manichaean historical certainties that both define and constrain growth, innovation and resilience in this context.
In some ways, traditional bureaucracy represents a logico-symbolic aspiration for total problem or knowledge definition and adaptive, agile organisational systems represent the emergent functional approximations of neural networks (that positively leverage and exploit probability and complexity). Just as with a neurosymbolic turn in AI theory and practice, this dichotomy invokes a hybridisation that is often cognitively and culturally unpalatable but remains existentially mandatory for a contemporary context in which adaptation must forever remain the flip-side of directed momentum, ordered force or certainty.
Most dichotomies eventually unveil themselves as symptoms of deeper unity and (a) substrate symmetry. In this sense, the problem is ontological and belongs solely to neither organisations or technology but gestures towards unacknowledged logical depth and endlessly self-inflecting apertures of opportunity.
Daedelus Kite 