**5.1. Open systems**

Systems theory and systems thinking operate in closed systems, a change in one part of the system results in an expected and predictable change in another part of the system. Closed systems provide a level of predictability and are partially sheltered from external forces. In contrast, complexity theory or complexity thinking operates in open systems. Open systems are non-linear, unpredictable, in which changes in one part of the system could lead to predictable results just as easy as unpredictable results.

structures and new forms of behavior in open systems far from equilibrium", whereas Campbell-Hunt [25] identified it as "new structures around which organizational activity is reassembled". Operating in complex and open systems, teams must be free to self-organize as they adapt to external and internal forces, allowing team members to interact accordingly until the team emerges as a new entity to address the current environment. This process identifying teams

Complex Adaptive Systems: Adapting and Managing Teams and Team Conflict

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72344

75

*When provoked by either an unforeseen opportunity or threat, a CAS moves away from equilibrium or stability, toward instability or disequilibrium…. In doing so, a system experiences adaptive tensions that give rise to emergent self-organization, the ability to spontaneously arrange its components in a* 

Groups are best represented as being complex adaptive systems (CAS). McGrath et al. [7] highlighted this point by describing groups as: "complex entities embedded in a hierarchy of levels and characterized by multiple, bidirectional, and nonlinear causal relations". McGrath et al. [7] identified groups as "complex entities embedded in a hierarchy of levels and characterized by multiple, bidirectional, and nonlinear causal relations". Ramos-Villagrasa et al. [8] proposed that viewing teams as CAS was more than just a metaphor anymore, it has become a "change in the epistemology of teams". Ramos-Villagrasa et al. [8] highlighted this new epistemology as providing researchers to: "(a) adopt a different logic of inquiry, (b) to deal with temporal issues, (c) to raise the level of theoretical sophistication, and (d) thus to lead to better practical applications". One example of this is in [26] complex adaptive team systems model that utilizes naturally occurring team processes (see TELDE model [27]) to drive organizational interventions.

Conflict models can be classified as being either descriptive or normative in design. Lewicki et al. [28] identified the key identifier in differentiating between descriptive and normative conflict models as their origin of analysis. Descriptive conflict models tend to be built down from human behavior theories, mainly from academia [28]. In contrast, Lewicki et al. [28] differentiated normative conflict models as those that are built up from direct experience by

Six general approaches to conflict were identified by Lewicki et al. [28]: the micro-level approach, the macro-level approach, economic analysis, labor relations approach, bargaining and negotiation, and third party dispute resolution. These different approaches to conflict have been derived from both academia and practitioners, have evolved to address specific needs, have emerged to accompany specific industries, and have originated due to excessive

The micro-level approach best fits with the purpose of this review to identify cognitive conflicts in team settings. The micro-level approach is based in psychological theory concentrating

as complex adaptive systems is described best by Beck and Plowman [19]:

*purposeful way without the direction of a higher level coordinator.*

**5.7. Groups as complex adaptive systems**

**6. Traditional organizational conflict**

**6.1. Conflict models**

practitioners.

frequency of usage [28].
