Strategic Approaches to the Development of Complex Organisational Ecosystems: The Case of Lithuanian Clusters

Abstract

The development of complex organisational ecosystems that reflect complex adaptive systems (CASs) calls for radically different strategic approaches with respect to the case of classical, stable hierarchical systems. A need for such strategic approaches especially increases in the contexts that lack cooperation traditions and trust and often require an explicit or implicit leadership in order to encourage and maintain development. However, the scientific literature still gives limited attention to strategic approaches to development by emphasising the latter’s dynamism. In order to contribute to filling this research gap, a qualitative, multiple case study of nine Lithuanian clusters representing a variety of industrial settings was conducted to reveal the enablement of the development of complex organisational ecosystems. The performed research enabled to reveal different strategic approaches in two different stages of the development of complex organisational ecosystems. In the initial stage, the experimentation strategic approach, the external agent strategic approach and the strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals can be distinguished. In later stages, strategies that vary by the degree of involvement of the ecosystem members, such as the strategic approach of self-organisation, the strategic approach of coordinated self-organisation and the strategic approach of active coordination, are more explicit.

1. Introduction

The concept of an ecosystem is firstly met in the literature on biological sciences. From the perspective of complexity theory, a biological ecosystem is a complex adaptive system that consists of heterogeneous groups of individual agents (for example, trees and animals) closely interacting through the flows of goods and other ecosystem components and characterised by their level of regularity (fluctuation between complete order and complete disorder), self-organisation and non-linear behaviour [1].

In the management literature, the concept of an ecosystem is more and more widely explored and analysed. There are the concepts of business ecosystems, industrial ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems, knowledge ecosystems and related ones [2,3,4,5,6]. In this paper, the knowledge ecosystem is understood as a precondition of innovation and business ecosystems in order to deal with complex challenges [7].

In general, these types of ecosystems can be analysed as complex organisational ecosystems—extended systems of mutually supportive organisations, communities of customers, suppliers and other stakeholders [4,8].

Ecosystem-based and profit-oriented complex systems also play a significant role in promoting economic growth and competitiveness, because they function in a specific context and are able to adapt to the dynamically evolving competitive landscape without a need for continuous centralised coordination and control [9,10,11,12]. While such systems can be regarded as self-organising complex adaptive systems, where the role of leadership is not confined to the central figure of network coordinator but is dispersed across many agents of the system, the development of such systems cannot rely on traditional hierarchical, linear and reductionist management approaches. An increasingly complex environment, where such systems emerge, encourages the adoption of more open, decentralised and participative managerial approaches [13].

However, despite this complex and dynamic phenomenon of leadership and strategy implementation, the scientific literature still concentrates more on a static approach stemming from the research agenda of economic geography, its statistical indicators and concepts, such as path dependency or windows of local opportunity [14,15,16,17]. Furthermore, even less attention is given to actors that could be described as “complex adaptive leaders” [18,19] in developing complex organisational systems and to the different strategic approaches that they adopt to help the emergence of such systems.

Although the variations in complex adaptive leadership are presented in some scientific works, for example, those of Uhl-Bien and co-authors (for example, [20,21]), the development of complex organisational ecosystems requires much more depth and scope of analysis, especially in the contexts of limited cooperation traditions and trust, where a gradual switch from one development stage to another is needed. Scientific results that reveal different strategic approaches in different stages of development, especially in these contexts, would gain theoretic and practical significance.

Thus, this paper seeks to address the following research problem: what are the strategic approaches that enable the continuous development of complex organisational ecosystems? Accordingly, the paper aims to present and discuss different strategic approaches to the development of complex organisational systems.

In the first part of this paper, complex organisational ecosystems are presented from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. The second part highlights the main strategic approaches to the development of complex organisational ecosystems while analysing the cases of nine different industrial clusters in the context of Lithuania, where the manifestations of insufficiently developed traditions in industrial cooperation, limited institutional trust and the legacy of hierarchy-based governance are still observed [22,23]. The choice of industrial clusters as a form of complex organisational ecosystems was based on the approach whereby an industrial cluster, or a concentration of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field [24]), that is embedded in a particular context is often considered as a self-organising complex adaptive system (CAS).

2. Literature Review

A complex organisational ecosystem can be seen as a network of various interacting actors, which both cooperate and compete with each other; their interaction continuously produces a new order emerging without central control [8,25,26,27,28,29]. Due to continuous interactions taking place at the lower level of the system and their positive/negative feedback loops, this ecosystem fluctuates from the edge of order to the edge of chaos [10,18,30]. Thanks to its attractors—particular values, behavioural norms and models—the ecosystem does not become chaotic [31]. It is open, non-linear and dynamic; it is able to adapt to the environment in reactive and proactive ways, co-evolves at individual and systematic levels, and has a clear identity [32,33]. Ideally, it is also characterised by high levels of trust and responsive behaviour among the system actors [27,34].

So, a complex organisational ecosystem, as any complex adaptive system (CAS), is regarded as a collection of semi-autonomous agents that interact in unpredictable ways, leading to system-wide patterns that in turn reinforce (both positively and negatively) the behaviours of the agents in the system [35]. It always possesses the following attributes [19,35]:

• Self-organisation: A CAS is characterised by open feedback loops where the relationship between cause and effect is far from linear.
• Inter-relatedness: A CAS consists of a complex network of relationships. The level of complexity depends on the number of connections inside the system. Hierarchical managerial approaches are of a limited use in such networked environments.
• Adaptation: A CAS is adaptive to the environment. This adaptability depends on openness, feedback loops and learning capabilities.
• Emergence: A CAS emerges as an outcome of numerous simple interactions among different agents.

One should emphasise that complex organisational ecosystems, or CASs, call for very different strategic approaches from the ones applied in traditional hierarchical organisations. D. Snowden of “Cognitive Edge” identifies some major differences between complexity and system thinking approaches (for example, see [36]. These differences have direct implications for managing the CAS.

First, leaders addressing the development of complex systems cannot define an “ideal” future and “close the gap”. They can only identify the evolutionary potential of the existing complex system and take small steps in a positive direction. Any attempt for “ideality” risks restraining the dynamism and adaptability of the system and promoting the cynicism of the involved actors.

Second, complex systems have no clear causality; therefore, linear management methods are of very limited value. It is very hard to predict the future of complex systems due to their multiple linkages and interactions. Any managerial action in complex adaptive systems has to rely on non-linear logic. Otherwise, it risks producing the unintended consequences.

Third, managers in complex systems cannot rely on the extrinsic rewards, as they destroy intrinsic motivation. While anything explicit is gamed, leaders have to adopt indirect, oblique strategies for achieving their aims. It means that no functioning industrial cluster or inter-organisational trust can be achieved as part of the explicit plan with milestones and targets. More often than not, they emerge on an ad hoc basis as a result of social and economic interactions. The extrinsic motivators can achieve only limited effect in promoting the initial interactions, but the ultimate success of managerial action lies with mobilising the intrinsic motivators of the system actors.

Obolensky [19] presents the concept of complex adaptive leadership built on the notion that the more complex the situation and task are, the less directive traditional leadership is needed. These thoughts are closely related to the Taoist concept of wu wei or “effortless leadership”, which is “about knowing when to act and when not to act, and how to go with the flow, or when to swim against it”.

According to Obolensky [19], leadership in a complex system needs to make sure that its agents have a combination of shared implicit purpose and explicit individual objectives. This refers to the shared key values and principles, a common understanding of the mission, which eliminates the need for complex rules and helps to make dynamic decisions. At the same time, actors need to have a clear perception of individual interests and the way they are helped by following the shared implicit purpose. This observation is of a particular importance for the development of industrial clusters, where the diverse actors need to understand that their individual economic interests are better served by adopting the shared cooperative approach and trust-seeking behaviour.

Second, complex environments call for providing the system actors with freedom to act and at the same time setting the boundaries that confine their actions. The leaders of complex adaptive systems show no attempt at direct control, but promote the “self-empowerment” of actors, are willing “to let go”, and encourage followers to take initiative and self-organise. At the same time, leaders seek to stabilise the interactions of agents so that they do not cross the “edge of chaos” by creating invisible boundaries, introducing constraints (e.g., informal rules), promoting positive behavioural patterns and discouraging the negative ones. This duality is of great importance for any facilitator of industrial clusters. They face the challenge of both promoting the free actions of firms and at the same time creating the sets of shared rules that discourage firms from free riding.

Third, leadership under complexity needs both to ensure the presence of competent and motivated agents and to establish a few simple rules to be followed [21,37,38]. Defining and following simple rules are especially important in pursuing often unpredictable opportunities in a rapidly changing environment [39]. Thus, the effectively functioning complex organisational ecosystems consist of members that adhere to the core values and follow the simple code of ethics of the network.

Fourth, leaders have to make sure that there are both tolerance for ambiguity and chaos and at the same time unambiguous feedback. Tolerance for uncertainty is a crucial element for any innovative activity (especially in business systems). Feedback is based on clear and transparent metrics, and it is very important for tracking progress and enabling learning. On the other hand, the presence of feedback should not result in blame culture, which is detrimental to trust and long-term relations.

Leaders with such features are the greatest change agents [40] and enablers of CASs.

Since complex adaptive systems are often in the state of non-equilibrium, their emergence is associated with various tensions, which emerge spontaneously or are deliberately initiated by these change agents. Examples of lagging regions [41,42] reveal that these change agents quite often perform the role of a leader who encourages interactions, sets ups conditions for experimentation and innovation, promotes a shared vision, emphasises the sense of events, and last but not least, helps to create the feeling of belonging [43]. Such leaders act as network facilitators and boundary spanners, playing an important part in shaping the emerging ecosystems. However, to succeed, their strategies have to be far more sophisticated than the traditional, linear, top-down approaches.

Because of the non-equilibrium state in complex adaptive systems, the scientific literature emphasises the CAS emergence stages from disequilibrium to stabilisation [40,44]. However, in contexts with a scarcity of cooperation traditions and trust, there can be a push either to the more “organised” sphere, where processes are maintained through various formal rules and directions, or to an “unorganised” sphere, where many phenomena become random because of conflicting or individualistic behaviour of the system members [45]. In such environments, the importance of complex adaptive leaders [19,46]) who understand the essence of self-organising and the emergent nature of complex adaptive systems (CASs) becomes apparent.

In the cases of the development of complex adaptive systems, the scientific literature emphasises the balance between operational or administrative leadership and entrepreneurial leadership in creating a conflicting and connecting adaptive space for the generation of solutions, which have to be incorporated into the system [44]. However, such scientific research does not reveal the variety of strategic approaches in order to let those processes to happen. What are strategic approaches in letting CASs emerge? What could be the strategic approaches in further development stages? Thus, in the next chapter, we present the research methodology that helped to distinguish the main strategic approaches to the development of complex organisational ecosystems.

3. Research Methodology

The aim of this empirical research study was to reveal the enablement of the development of complex organisational ecosystems (CASs) in a context with insufficiently developed cooperation traditions and trust. The research tasks were as follows: (1) to identify the actors who initiate and ensure relationships, enabling the formation of complex organisational ecosystems; (2) to reveal the interactions and relationships that allow an organisational ecosystem to be viable, adaptive, co-evolving and characterised by learning, trust and responsible behaviour; (3) to reveal the resources necessary for the development of an organisational ecosystem; (4) to identify the values and behaviour patterns that support self-organisation and cooperation.

This research study was designed to cover the interval from the emerging of an organisational ecosystem to the development process until the date of the performed research study, covering the main stages of overall development: the emergence of a non-equilibrium, the strengthening of the non-equilibrium, the continuous two-way creation of a new order and stabilisation.

This study was carried out in Lithuania, which can be characterised as having relatively new industrial structures and insufficiently developed social capital and trust [22], where business cooperation initiatives are rather recent, with most of them not being older than 10 years. Our study covered nine industrial clusters that formed in a natural way without an artificial trial to form on the ground of European structural funds, namely, the Cinema cluster, the Game industry cluster, the Tourism cluster, the Machinery cluster, the ICT cluster, the Wellness cluster, the Cluster of medical innovations, the Photo electronics cluster and the Laser cluster, by adapting a multiple-case research strategy [47]. In this research study, the real clusters’ names were changed to put an emphasis on their activity. The chosen clusters had been active for more than three years and consisted of at least ten members, which cooperated and competed with each other, thus reflecting the essence of a complex organisational ecosystem Each of these clusters represents a unique case of emergence and development [48]. In this empirical research study, cluster development was analysed from the perspective of cluster coordinators—individuals who have a systemic view on the cluster, are acknowledged with its evolution and perform an important role in cluster development while acting as complex adaptive leaders. One should emphasise that the research study is not limited to the experiences of the current cluster coordinator and also analyses cluster formation, even until the current cluster coordinator; thus, the research case is the cluster itself and not the cluster coordinator.

Our research was based on a qualitative research strategy because of the complexity of the cluster development phenomenon and the different meanings that are given to this phenomenon by the participants of the development process. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which lasted from 40 to 60 min.

As it can be noticed from the research tasks, the research study was complex and analysed various areas in ecosystem development. In this paper, research results that reveal strategic approaches to enable the development of complex organisational systems are presented.

Defining the strategic approaches is based on an inductive thematic analysis of transcribed texts [49]. One set of strategic approaches represents the very beginning of industrial clusters, when the initiatives of change initiators lead to the emergence of clustering. The second set of strategic approaches comes from the further development of industrial clusters, which requires different approaches to maintain the involvement of cluster participants in cluster activities. These strategic approaches are presented in the next section.

4. Findings: Strategic Approaches to the Development of Complex Organizational Ecosystems

4.1. Strategic Approaches Leading to the Emergence of a Complex Organisational Ecosystem

Empirical research revealed the importance of leadership to enable cooperation processes and accordingly the development of complex organisational ecosystems. Explicit or implicit leaders rallied other actors to a cooperating whole, highlighted the common points for cooperation, helped to perform joint activities, showed personal examples of sharing and even performed activities that were unpleasant for others, such as time-consuming bureaucracy matters [50].

The research study allowed us to distinguish some patterns of emerging complex organisational ecosystem and related strategies in the different stages of cluster development. Using a classical definition, a strategy could be understood as a high-level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty [51]. Strategic approaches of experimentation, external agents or the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals were applied during the initial stage of cluster development, while strategic approaches of self-organisation, coordinated self-organisation and active coordination were in place to maintain cooperation in a developing cluster.

Strategic approach of experimentation. The main key words in the interviews that reflected this approach were trial(s) and trial–error method. The change agents may initiate cluster development by building on the existing tensions in a particular industry and invite others to make use of opportunities by adopting the “trial and error” approach. It was particularly evident in the case of the Cinema cluster. The origins of this cluster were related to negative events that occurred in the cinema industry, i.e., the bankruptcy of an anchor enterprise, the economic crisis and the non-existence of industry law: “There were no projects after the crisis and nobody came to us because the first question, when you talk with cinema producers is: “Is there cinema law in Lithuania?”. At that time, initiative actors emerged in the industry and invited other cinema industry actors to move to the building that belonged to that anchor enterprise: “there is a building, it can be obtained at a cheap price, in fact, we only had to pay for the heating, let’s move there, maybe something could be born out of this”. Although the actors who moved to that building did not previously cooperate, being in close physical proximity helped to create various informal interactions and great common products. The cluster coordinator said that the cluster itself is “a living organism, which is developing and changing continuously, and where continuous experimentation and adaptation is necessary”.

Strategic approach of the external agent. This strategic approach, which was represented by the cases of the Wellness cluster, the ICT cluster and the Machinery cluster, means that the change initiator (usually a bigger enterprise) who invites other actors to join an emerging cluster looks like an outsider to those actors because of the absence of prior common activities and common knowledge. Thus, the invitation to join the cluster may look unexpected to these actors and require additional discussions in regard to making a decision. In order to make the process of clustering easier and quicker, various experts from the outside are also involved. For example, in the case of the Machinery cluster, the expert role was performed by the cluster facilitator from a public organisation, “Enterprise Lithuania”. The ICT cluster was created on the basis of the initiative of a medium-sized Lithuanian enterprise and its subsidiaries, which invited an expert in coaching to moderate the meetings among the potential cluster members. The Wellness cluster also originated from the initiatives of a medium-sized enterprise that invited other enterprises to create innovative products. One should emphasise that contrary to the strategic approach of experimentation, change initiators who apply the strategic approach of the external agent expect a clear outcome—for example, performing projects and developing innovative products or enter world value chains, as in the case of Machinery cluster. Accordingly, a clear and orchestrated action plan is carried out in order to achieve these outcomes. For example, the cluster facilitator from public organisation “Enterprise Lithuania” adapted the most suitable cluster creation methodology, visited the enterprises of the machinery industry from the prepared list and shared the idea of clustering. The coaching expert, in the case of the ICT cluster, moderated the discussions regarding both the legitimation of the cluster and further projects in the cluster. One could also state that the development of clusters using the strategic approach of the external agent combines external and internal influences.

Strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals. This strategic approach, first of all, is characterised by a timely natural clustering of fellows that seek common business goals, without considering any formalised cooperation forms. In the case of the Tourism cluster, the community of tourism enterprises communicated with each other informally and “grew in order to improve particular questions of cooperation or marketing”. Later, a group of the most initiative enterprises of that community decided to have a bigger impact on the development of the region and naturally searched for ways to make this impact. In the case of the Cluster of medical innovations, the first initiator of cooperation was an individual who understood the importance of cooperation, and “a clustering of fellows was born naturally”. It was emphasised in the interview that cooperating actors “didn’t imagine what the cluster is” and simply performed common activities in order to reach common goals. A similar situation could be observed in both high-technology clusters, as the fellow professionals interested in a particular area started cooperating with each other in order to create new products or make use of other good opportunities without an explicit idea to create a cluster. Those initiatives emerged naturally among fellows in the same industry:

• “Individuals who designed the first innovative product did not think about the need for cluster or anything else... Both academic and non-academic community got involved in the creation of this product” (Laser cluster).
• “Professor who was one of the first in Lithuania to believe in a synergy of science and business, created with his fellows from the Institute of Applied Research for Prospective Technologies” (Photo electronics cluster).

The features of every type of strategic approach analysed above are presented in

Table 1. Strategic approaches leading to the emergence of a complex organisational ecosystem.

Type of Strategic Approach	Features	Examples of Clusters
Strategic approach of experimentation	Taking advantage of opportunities without a clear expected outcome	Cinema cluster
	Development on the grounds of trial and error
	Viewing the system as a constantly changing living organism
Strategic approach of the external agent	The actor who initiates the system is an outsider from the perspective of other system members	Wellness cluster ICT cluster Machinery cluster
	A clear expected outcome
	A clear and precisely defined action plan for system development
Strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals	A timely natural gathering of like-minded professionals	Tourism cluster Cluster of medical innovations Laser cluster Photo electronics cluster
	Achieving common business goals without thinking about formalised forms of cooperation

.

One should state that a switch from one strategic approach to another can be observed through the process of cluster emergence. For example, the representatives of the Cinema cluster adapted the strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals after they became fellows by adapting the strategic approach of experimentation and decided to realise the idea for an innovative product: “to build a laboratory, and there was an aim to create a service, which you won’t find, it is not there in the Baltic States until now, except at us”. The successfully achieved strategic approach of the external agent in the case of the Wellness cluster led to the creation of “a bunch of fellows” that resulted in the “organic” development of the cluster. The development of the Tourism cluster indicated the employment of the strategic approach of the external agent; the actor who initiated the legitimation of cluster—cluster facilitator at the national level—was an outsider (not a representative of the industry), and he highlighted a clear expected outcome—in order to “participate in particular exhibitions and contact fairs or simply represent a municipality, a legal form is needed”. Such an offer encouraged long-term discussions among informally cooperating enterprises: “we discussed in work groups for about half year whether we need this because we communicate anyway, and we don’t share any legal or monetary contact”.

Once the primary clusters have emerged, further cooperation is maintained through strategic approaches of self-organisation, coordinated self-organisation or active coordination.

4.2. Strategic Approaches to the Sustaining of the Development of Complex Organisational Ecosystems

After the clusters are initiated and legitimised among the industry actors, the cluster coordinator becomes an implicit or explicit leader who takes a responsibility for various financial, organisational and representation needs—a significant role for sustaining cluster development, which was stressed during the interviews. Different strategic approaches can be defined through the following criteria: remoteness of the cluster coordinator vs. active involvement of the cluster coordinator; lack of formalities vs. formalisation of activities; the active involvement of cluster members in cluster activities is a matter of the members themselves vs. the cluster coordinator feels responsible for the activity of the cluster members.

Strategic approach of self-organisation. This strategic approach means that the cluster coordinator acts remotely because he/she perceives the cluster as a naturally developing entity, where the participation of actors is driven by pure economic interest and there is no need for any extra support measures and formalities. Thus, a cluster coordinator who applies the strategic approach of self-organisation believes that an active involvement of cluster members in cluster activities is a matter of the members themselves. For example, in the case of the Laser cluster, there was no cluster authority or supervisory committee; they were only mentioned in the official project documents, but in the reality, “they had nothing to do”. During the interview, the cluster was called “a family” because cluster members helped and motivated each other. This cluster stood out due to its long historical background of mutual business and scientific cooperation, based on naturally evolved shared interests to develop innovative products.

The concept of natural development was also vivid in the interview with the coordinator of the Cluster of medical innovations. The word “natural” was used 22 times to describe the processes from its origins to today. It was emphasised that nothing was being performed artificially: “maybe we will die naturally too”. According to the coordinator of this cluster, natural development contradicts various formalities to maintain cluster development, including protocols, performance analyses, organising public representative events and all cluster activities that are based “on ruling and managing”. On the contrary, natural development is based on communication and voluntary initiatives of cluster members: “let’s have common goals and reach them”. In such case, there is no place for anger and conflicts: “if you don’t like or feel bad—go away from the cluster” because “You have to bring. You have to contribute. You have to want. And only from this the benefit will come”. This view was also shared by the coordinator of the Photo electronics cluster. He said that the “cluster exists till the moment when the interests of enterprises are in place. If there are no interests—nothing will work”. Thus, the invitations to meet together and search for solutions to problems and new opportunities is the prerogative of cluster members themselves, not of the cluster coordinator or the cluster council. Even enthusiasm to actively participate in cluster activities is a matter of the enterprises: “enthusiasm cannot be enhanced in artificial ways. If there are real reasons for enthusiasm, the enterprise is the one who feels it”.

However, some cluster coordinators see their clusters as projects that must be coordinated and activated in order to maintain their vitality. Thus, the strategic approach of active coordination can be found, characterised by the active involvement of the cluster coordinator. In the case of the Tourism cluster, the cluster coordinator even called himself a leader who “took entire work load to establish the association and to cluster actors more”. It was mentioned in the interview with the coordinator of the Game industry cluster that everyone performed the functions that were assigned to them and everyone was pressured to be active in the cluster. The impact of the cluster coordinator especially increases in the clusters that consist of individualistic actors. For example, the interview analysis revealed a more significant manifestation of individualism among the members of clusters acting in the creative industries (Cinema cluster and Game industry cluster). It is obvious that in case of “lonely stars”, the cluster coordinator takes their role as a mediator to find a solution to the problem and encourage consensus seeking. The coordinator of the Cinema cluster noted that he “is forced to use other trickeries in order to reach the goal somehow because you just cannot stop”. Cluster coordinators also feel the need to be more proactive due to the passiveness of cluster members (e.g., Game industry cluster). Thus, the cluster coordinator (sometimes with the cluster council) searches for new opportunities, initiates various activities in the cluster, provides a strict selection of future cluster members, offers suggestions to governmental institutions (“who else will do this?”) and pushes cluster members to be active. For example, the Tourism cluster coordinator initiated regular and frequent meetings of cluster members, and if one of them became passive, they were in danger to be removed from the cluster. Frequent meetings and activities were also organised by the coordinator of the ICT cluster. Of course, bottom-up initiatives are very welcomed in these clusters, but cluster coordinators also feel very responsible for the success of their clusters and do everything for them to develop.

The strategic approach of coordinated self-organisation represents the middle case between the two above-mentioned strategic approaches. It could be observed in the Machinery cluster and Wellness cluster. The cluster coordinators still played an important role in cluster development. As the coordinator of the Wellness cluster noted, “I think that there is a big contribution of the cluster manager—because I didn’t work as a cluster manager before, these activities weren’t planned and performed so actively”. The coordinator of the Machinery cluster said that sometimes the last word belonged to him. However, most cluster members were sufficiently mature and active. It depended a lot on how clear the identified goals were and how adequate the expectations from the cluster were. In the case of the Wellness cluster, it all evolved naturally (organically, as it was emphasised in the interview), while in the case of the Machinery cluster, these goals and interests were clarified during the sessions with an external expert in cluster promotion. There was also much flexibility in the choice to be an active or passive member at the time of the interview; in general, clusters possessed a good psychological atmosphere as the following representative quotes indicate: “all members are benevolent” (Wellness cluster), and “this is one of the healthiest atmospheres” (Machinery cluster). So, this approach seeks to balance self-organisation with active coordination depending on the maturity and situation in the specific cluster.

The features of every type of the strategic approaches analysed above are presented in

Table 2. Strategic approaches to the sustaining of the development of complex organisational ecosystems.

	Strategic Approach of Self-Organisation (Laser Cluster, Photo Electronics Cluster and Cluster of Medical Innovations)	Strategic Approach of Coordinated Self-Organisation (Wellness Cluster, Machinery Cluster and ICT Cluster)	Strategic Approach of Active Coordination (Tourism Cluster, Game Industry Cluster and Cinema Cluster)
Criteria
Seclusion of the cluster coordinator as a leader vs. active involvement	Seclusion of the cluster coordinator as a leader	Active involvement of the cluster coordinator as a leader	Active involvement of the cluster coordinator as a leader
Absence of formalities vs. formalisation of activities	Absence of formalities	Absence of formalities/A limited number of formalities	Formalisation of activities
Active involvement of cluster members in cluster activities is a matter of the members themselves vs. the cluster coordinator feels responsible for the activity of the cluster members	The activity and enthusiasm of the cluster members is the responsibility of the members themselves	The balance between the voluntary and active involvement of the cluster members themselves in the activities and the efforts of the cluster coordinator to maintain the activities of the members	The cluster coordinator feels responsible for the activity of the cluster members

.

One should emphasise that proactive leadership strategic approaches adopted by the cluster coordinator (as the change agent) are particularly important in the initial stages of cluster development. The role of facilitator weakens when the amount and quality of the relationships increases. The leaders should, therefore, understand the continuously evolving nature of the cluster, the importance of balancing self-organisation with the active coordination approach and the sense of common purpose with individual interests and objectives. The adopted strategic approaches must be dynamic and flexible enough to accommodate the evolving nature of the specific cluster environment.

5. Discussion

This paper was dedicated to solving the following research problem: what are the strategic approaches that enable the development of complex organisational ecosystems? Empirical research revealed two sets of strategic approaches leading to the emergence of a complex organisational ecosystem, in this research study presented as an industrial cluster, and maintaining the further development of a complex organizational ecosystem. Although the scientific literature presents the processes that lead to the emergence of self-organisation-based complex adaptive systems, there is a scientific research gap regarding the variety of strategic approaches related to the emergence of such systems. The scientific literature presents the top-down or bottom-up formation of industrial systems, while the initiatives can be explicit or inexplicit [52]), or somewhere between self-organisation and planning [53]. In general, much scientific research on the formation of industrial systems simply highlights the fact of enterprise clustering, without analysing the strategies to make this clustering happen. In some cases, such as in the paper of Arbuthnott and von Friedrichs [41], the manifestation of the clustering of fellow professionals who used to work on some common projects before and finally made the decision to expand their activities is vivid.

One should emphasise that the concept of complex organizational ecosystems may include various types of ecosystems, which are analysed in the scientific literature, including innovation or knowledge ecosystems.

This research study allowed us to expand the list of strategies presented by other authors, e.g., by Sakano and Atiq Ur Rahman [54]), who focused on the self-organisation strategic approach, the external agent strategic approach and the strategic approach of equitable partnerships. The findings of our empirical research study allowed us to concentrate more on self-organisation and its different expressions. Furthermore, this empirical research study revealed that after the adaptation of the strategic approach of experimentation, the strategic approach of the external agent or the strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow participants, strategic approaches of self-organisation, coordinated self-organisation or active coordination can be implemented.

The implementation of the strategic approach of experimentation, of the external agent or of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals has some prerequisites. For example, the strategic approach of experimentation in the case of the Cinema cluster was successfully implemented because of the peculiarities of the industry; the interdependency on each other‘s services and physical proximity encouraged the interactions among previously unrelated actors. When such interactions do not exist, additional efforts are needed to initiate these interactions, for example, even from the outside.

Development in later stages was observed to present various forms of coherence between coordination and self-organisation, from active coordination to self-organisation. The research results revealed that more active coordination was needed where there were more expressions of mutual agreement difficulties, individualism, intense competition and continuous passiveness. Although our empirical research study, which involved interviews with cluster coordinators, provided various insights into possible solutions towards self-organisation and to continue to a next stage of ecosystem development, questions for future research arise, such as what could be the preconditions to switch from one development stage to another to increase the self-organisation? What could be the means to adapt these changes?

6. Conclusions

From the complexity theory perspective, various cooperation structures may express the essence of a complex organizational ecosystem if during their development they get naturally embedded into a particular context, thus creating economic wealth to separate the actors in the ecosystem, defining the ecosystem as a whole and what is beyond its boundaries. Despite the self-organising nature of such ecosystems, their development may also require actors that could take an explicit or implicit role of leadership, especially in the contexts where cooperation traditions are underdeveloped. If these actors can be referred to as complex adaptive leaders who understand the essence of self-organisation, inter-relatedness, adaptation and emergence, they can become proactive change agents, especially in the initial stages of ecosystem development.

The empirical research results that are presented in this paper contribute to the reduction in the scientific gap related to the analysis of strategic approaches related to the emergence of various complex organisational ecosystems. Our empirical research study revealed the variety of strategic approaches adopted in the very beginning of the emergence of such ecosystems, such as the strategic approach of experimentation, the strategic approach of the external agent and the strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals. Leaders who adopted those strategic approaches accordingly applied the “trial and error” approach without having a clear outcome, had a clear action plan and defined the outcomes to initiate changes or simply naturally performed their common business activities.

The empirical findings also revealed that in later stages of ecosystem development, three different sets of strategic approaches were usually applied: the strategic approach of self-organisation, the strategic approach of coordinated self-organisation and the strategic approach of active coordination. The more mature the relationships were, the more oblique the role of the leader was. Thus, leaders need to understand the continuously evolving nature of a cluster and the importance of balancing self-organisation with active coordination, and they need to combine the sense of common purpose with individual interests and objectives. The adopted strategic approaches have to be dynamic and flexible enough to accommodate the evolving nature of the specific cluster environment.

Although the strategic approaches to the development of complex organizational ecosystems were here formulated based on a multiple-case study of nine clusters that emerged in a low-trust Lithuanian context, these strategic approaches can be applied in wider contexts because they reflect a wide range of cluster development from pure self-organisation to more coordinated development cases. From a practical point of view, the adaptation of different levels of self-organisation and coordination may help to move to different stages of the development of organisational ecosystems. Such experiments are already being implemented while developing contemporary organisational ecosystems in Lithuania, such as a creative industry project on the formation of a business ecosystem based on self-organisation.

However, further research is needed to assess the extent to which the different contexts shape the nature of strategic approaches to the development of complex organisational ecosystems. First, research can be developed into a truly comparative research study that includes more and different national and industrial settings, as well as a perspective of all the involved members of such ecosystems, because the research study presented in this paper was based on nine cases of Lithuanian clusters from the perspective of cluster coordinators, and that is a natural limitation. Second, a more detailed list of criteria and indicators could be created in order to define different strategic approaches, their preconditions and implementation methodologies. Finally, an expanded empirical research study in low- and high-trust contexts could be performed to confirm and probably extend the variety of strategic approaches.