Those who occupy themselves with change cannot avoid engaging with the change process that changes the world. Since Darwin this process has been described as ‘evolution’. A phenomenon is described thus, when ‘something’ unplanned for arises, which has stability. A coincidence becomes a necessity, as expressed by Jacques Monod. Something which happens is re-utilised, gains structure, stabilises itself for as long as it can. Something comes about, it sustains, and it passes away and makes place for another.
It is particularly significant for a meta-theoretical examination of change that nobody can know, within living and social systems, what will prove itself in future. ‘Evolution’ tries it out. Most mutations do not survive. Which variation asserts itself and survives, depends upon so many variables and the context, so that a predetermination of the ‘correct’ coincidence must, theoretically, be described as illusory.
Rather than suffering from this, or, like many parts of many scientifically informed concepts, withdrawing to a plannable and calculable machine model, one could see something meaningful in coincidence, in trying out, in the evaluation of change, in identifying the proving oneself and in playing with variations. Another consequence would be that one would not have to unilaterally bring order into the chaos, but rather, one would see both poles as a necessity in the progress of a development. Ultimately, within the evolutionary process there is also no perspective which would allow a complete overview. Nobody can know the ‘truth’ of evolution and give universal validity to his own perspective. This, then, applies to (organisation) theory just as much as to organisational consultants and project leaders of change projects.