Complexity and Complication
I was very struck a year ago hearing Brenda Zimmerman (author of Getting to Maybe) make the distinctions between simple, complicated and complex. Making a soup is simple-you follow a recipe. Building a rocket is complicated; there are lots of interrelated recipes so there is a lot to manage, but the outcome is predictable if the recipes are followed. Raising a child is complex; there are no guaranteed recipes; there are lots of factors involved beyond your control or even knowledge; the results of actions may not be evident for a long time, and your own actions shift the situation. This is true of the living elements of any situation.
When complicated or complex situations are deviating from our plan for them, the emotional reaction can be similar--overwhelm with perhaps fear and and/or anger. The default is to try to reestablish control or narrow the focus down to those bits you can control to begin. Maybe the right instinct for complicated situations; dead wrong for complex. Its seems to me that ignorance about the distinction between the two is a key funnel into a host of counter-productive behaviours in leadership.
Is this as useful a distinction for others as it is for me?
When complicated or complex situations are deviating from our plan for them, the emotional reaction can be similar--overwhelm with perhaps fear and and/or anger. The default is to try to reestablish control or narrow the focus down to those bits you can control to begin. Maybe the right instinct for complicated situations; dead wrong for complex. Its seems to me that ignorance about the distinction between the two is a key funnel into a host of counter-productive behaviours in leadership.
Is this as useful a distinction for others as it is for me?
Views: 36
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Corrigan on
-
Just out on a limb here Michael...for me complex implies generative, life giving, interrelated, somehow deeply connected. Complex systems to me imply living systems, where there is no waste, where order is emergent. One faces the scale of the situation with awe and perhaps reverence.
Complicated implies messy, unconscious, not interdependant but wired willy-nilly. Complicated situation have no underlying pattern so it is difficult to see the generative source for the emergent order., You face the scale of the situation with despair rather than awe, with powerlessness and fear rather than amazement and curiosity. Somehow I see complicated problems as full of waste, whereas complex system have no waste at all. As William McDonough might say, everything is food for everything else.
The interrelationships in complex systems sustain life, and the interrelationships in complicated systems inhibit life.
Of course all of these are simply perceptions, and I'm willing to say that they are highly dependent on my own emotional state as I confront issues of massive scale, but in as much as such distinctions help to clarify a tone of quality, this is what comes up for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Grant on
-
Hmmmm.... I think that complication is as much a part of life as complexity ... at least, where we humans are concerned. Our emotional life ... our dream life ... our relationships .. all of these things could be seen as being complicated .. and as having components that could be labelled "waste" .. yet which, in some mysterious way, sustain us too.
I'm not saying that I don't find the distinction helpful (I do) ... nor that I disagree with your response Chris .. I just want to put in a good word for complication ..
By the way .. it's the most lovely thing to find the two of you here!
Bed time now in London
Gnite
Chris Corrigan said:Just out on a limb here Michael...for me complex implies generative, life giving, interrelated, somehow deeply connected. Complex systems to me imply living systems, where there is no waste, where order is emergent. One faces the scale of the situation with awe and perhaps reverence.
Complicated implies messy, unconscious, not interdependant but wired willy-nilly. Complicated situation have no underlying pattern so it is difficult to see the generative source for the emergent order., You face the scale of the situation with despair rather than awe, with powerlessness and fear rather than amazement and curiosity. Somehow I see complicated problems as full of waste, whereas complex system have no waste at all. As William McDonough might say, everything is food for everything else.
The interrelationships in complex systems sustain life, and the interrelationships in complicated systems inhibit life.
Of course all of these are simply perceptions, and I'm willing to say that they are highly dependent on my own emotional state as I confront issues of massive scale, but in as much as such distinctions help to clarify a tone of quality, this is what comes up for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Watson on -
I do find the distinction useful, and I have the sense that complicated/complex are essentially value neutral labels.
I would say that without doubt the global economy is a complex situation. That does not mean that there is no waste, in fact one of the major problems of this complex system is that there is so much waste.
Maybe that is a problem precisely because it is a complex system. Like Chris Corrigan I also have a sense of observing a living system when I consider "complex." When a living complex system creates wastes that are not re-absorbed, that is a problem. In fact, the whole concept of waste in a complex system is a fallacy because complexity means that "waste" cannot be discarded. Its effects live on in the system.
On the other hand, a complicated situation feels more linear to me. Many wastes can be externalized and dismissed.
Building a rocket may be a complicated. But the US-USSR space race was complex.
-
Permalink Reply by George Pór on -
Michael, thank you for opening this conversation. Distinctions give access to new possibilities in thought and action, and so could a disciplined inquiry into the two similar frameworks of complexity-related distinctions: Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework that differentiates the domain of simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and Otto Scharmer's complexity framework of dynamic, social, and generative complexity.
Snowden's complexity model goes like this:
Simple, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorise - Respond and we can apply best practice.
Complicated, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze - Respond and we can apply good practice.
Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe - Sense - Respond and we can sense emergent practice.
Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond and we can discover novel practice.
Scharmers' complexity model says:
In dynamic complexity, the uncertainty is usually caused by something long ago or far away. If it's high, we need a whole-system approach that deals with all the interdependencies. If it's low, we do a piece by piece approach.
[In] social complexity... different views, values and strategic interests are at play. When social complexity is low, we can work with expert solutions. If it's high, they don't work; we need to engage the stakeholders in problem-definition and solution-generating activities and apply scenario planning methodologies.
A third type of complexity that we call generative complexity deals with disruptive patterns of innovation and change. You don't know what the solution is and you may not even know exactly what the problem is, because it's still evolving. Most importantly, you don't know who the key players are with whom you need to get involved.
Senge and Scharmer also wrote, in Community Action Research:
In situations of low generative complexity we are dealing with problems and alternatives that are largely familiar and known -- wage negotiations between employers and unions are an example of high dynamic and behavioral complexity but low generative complexity (non-obvious causality, different interests, given alternatives). In situations of high generative complexity we are dealing with possible futures which are still emerging, largely unknown, non-determined, and not yet enacted (non-obvious causality, different views, not- yet-defined alternatives).In retrospect, throughout the 1990s, our research focus has steadily shifted from traditional "wicked messes" of medium or low generative complexity to wicked mess that are also high in generative complexity.
In the context of working with organizations and leaders, I found Scharmer's set of distinction more productive. I think the right choice of framework(s) does always depend on the context. Let's take that into account as sense into their respective strengths and limitations.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stilger on -
Huh, now five guys commenting. Is that simple, complex or complicated?
Just kidding...
Michael, then you mentioned this distinction last year I found it useful. But, frankly, I haven't been able to remember why! I'm very curious about this. I think there is something important here. George, the definitions you offer are helpful, but they don't seem to satisfy my curiosity.
I wonder if you might say a bit more, Michael. You say "it seems to me that ignorance about the distinction between the two is a key funnel into a host of counter-productive behaviours in leadership." Could you unpack that some? Could you give some examples?
For example, my gut instinct is that if we treat a complicated situation as complex, we'll get no-where. But why is that? How, as leaders, are we invited to show up differently in simple, complicated and complex sitiations?
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Stacey on -
Here's what it looks like to me: I find myself in conversations where we make the distinction between developmental (improvement), transitional (current to future state) and transformational (generative learning) change. I've noticed that many consultants try to force fit transitional change approaches in whatever context....so making distinctions between the kinds of change is a kind of literacy and is important for design integrity. Often these types of change are nested/interconnected/concurrent. In organizational lingo: a new process (improvement) within a multi-stream project (transitional) within a culture change strategy (transformation).
Could we think about simple, complicated, and complex in a similar way? Are we developing our systems sight/literacy when we make the distinctions between them and then see that they may be nested/interconnected? If I stay with the examples given by you Micheal I can see that within the 20 year complex situation of 'raising a child' there have been many simple and complicated ones....and in hindsight I may have saved myself from the experience of overwhelm more often if I'd been awake to the difference....
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Chender on
-
Bob and Mary,
Great to hear from both of you. I am in Chile, with a 20 minute gap between meetings, and about to do a workshop focusing on this question (complexity and authenticity) tommorrow. After I hear what I say I'll see if it makes any sense! Then I'll answer at length after I land in New York on Saturday.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stilger on
-
Golly, Michael -- you didn't have to leave the country to get some time to think about a reply! Hope you're having a great trip!
-
Permalink Reply by Stephan R. Sengupta on -
I remember John Grinder (co-founder of NLP) explaining :
"Take for example a ball, put it in front of you and give it a kick as if you were playing soccer. With a complicated ballistic calculation taking into account several parameters such as the wind, the angle and so on, it is possible to determine precisely where the ball will land. However, should you take a cat instead of a ball .... hum, some of you might be shocked. Well, better take a dog instead. Please it's just for the example... Well a dog then. Put the dog in front of you and give it a kick exactly as if you were playing soccer. Guest what ? The dog may certainly not comply to the ballistic law. And as complexity is hardly predictable, the dog could run away or bite your A..."
Interesting to notice that by treating the dog that way and by observing his reaction, we are opening a field of probability, which sounds quiet quantum.
An other distinction - made by Edgar Morin - is that the aim of complex systems are to get more complex, where as other complicated object are condemned to entropy.
I would like to add that from my point of view a complex systems carries sense... Isn't a Leader carrying sense too ?
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Goldsbury on -
Hi Michael and gang.
Somehow the world just sent me an email all the way to NZ pointing to this AILA discussion. Thanks for getting thinking going on this subject.
I am involved with a volunteer group that has put together The Tipu Ake Organic Leadership model www.tipuake.org.nz that tries to mimic how nature manages itself in a world of complexity and interdependence. I am not sure whether if she really understands the difference betwen complex, complicated, simple, or developmental (improvement), transitional (current to future state) and transformational (generative learning) change. etc, etc, etc. A we see it, nature is inherently complex and highly interdependent, but that complexity may give rise to many resultant actions some of which may to the observer at a specific place or time look constrained and linear; as befits our western mindset which likes to deconstruct and compartmentalise.
We play with this kind of thinking in the workshops I offer in NZ "Leading Innovative (Community) Programs using Living Systems Thinking" www.projectmanagement.co.nz where we reconsider the application of traditional Project Management / Change Processes
I attach a document that summarises Tipu Ake ki to Ora. We hope some of you find that this more indigenous / nature based worldview will add a new dimension to your thinking; with a form and authenticity that is unconstrainded by more complex academic lenses.
Regards
Peter - Attachments:
-
-
Nice video overview of the Cynefin framework that Ryan previously posted...this makes a lot of sense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqNcs8mp74
-
Permalink Reply by Augusto Cuginotti on -
Hello Michael and everyone,
That's a great topic. We used to have a 2-3 hour discussion in our meeting groups about the impacts of the decision maker not knowing what kind of "problem" s/he was facing and who to invite to the table to solve it. The conversation started always from the study of Deming (Out of Crisis, must read) in what makes a investigative error and a system error.
We would end defining the difference btw simple X easy and complex X difficult (what I believe you called complicated) and reaching something like this:
Counter-productive behavior arises when you think you can solve a complex problem one day and wake up the next day and use the same receipt (I wish I had a receipt to decide where to go on holidays - but if it's so easy to choose btw two! :). Or think you can get to a solution by yourself - or your board of directors.
What I've been looking at recently is that the "participatory boom" also creates counter-productive behavior when we ask the whole community to decide on an easy - even if difficult - matter.
Funny that I remember talking about this with the 2 Chris in this forum (and I don't believe you'd remember that) - it was a conversation in a table at the Institute (2003?) in the same table with Chris Grant - and I added a comment on Chris Corrigan's blog about how people treat simple problems as complex in community gatherings, something that requires consultancy.
© 2012 Created by ALIA Web Team.
