Great article and I totally agree - the world is not linear, therefore no solution to a complex problem will be linear either, regardless of what we try and do. I learned that many years ago when trying to install the same solutions in different environments - one always worked, the other took a lot more coaxing. Yeah, so things are like that, and always will be.
If only there would be some framework allowing for inspection and adaptation. On a funny note, we all know the right answer to the rabbit issue - fighting rabbits with rabbits. CRISPR and rabbit killing rabbits (R+). Of course, after a successful RvR+ encounter would play out, R+ would self-destruct in a celebratory manner (lots of product potential there). After inspection, we could adapt the kill count needed for self-destruction. Also, A-B testing..
Could not agree with this more. Despite overwhelming evidence showing us that systems scale asymmetrically and irrationally, we persist in trying out linear solutions. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry.
This one resonates with me. I’m towards the end of a super complex/delayed project that - due to missing some aspects you’ve listed - really struggled to get to the finish line. I think our biggest challenge in retrospect was that some technical hurdles may just be too hard to achieve at scale with pre-determined timelines.
Any change big or small will always attract resistance and there will always be friction. Human nature. Good leaders with empathy and willingness to engage those elements is the only logical solution. And time.
Clever post :) Thinking aloud here... Complex change usually (perhaps always) fails because the leaders of the change want to make it simple—they produce linear models, and big, upfront plans of action. Then they impose these on the workforce. It is the imposition that causes the failure. Change of any kind, complex or otherwise, needs to emerge, and those affected by the change must be involved, by invitation, not coercion or threat, not by compliance. It seems the further people move up the leadership hierarchy the more they grow deaf to actual human needs, and the more hubris they acquire. Accepting the Peter Principle, we have layer upon layer of incompetent people attempting to manage the competent. Perhaps then, the solution to all this is to turn the organisational hierarchy upside down, and let the competent people lead it.
Nice post about an often underestimated issue that change is hard for so many reasons.
I think an underlying problem is, that you need to be _aware_ of the fact that a change is complex. We're very bad at that; given that evolutionary our brains survived by reducing complexity to its bare minimum (a good thing when deciding to run from a tiger in a very complex looking jungle). So how do you know up front that a change is/will become complex?
In your rabbit example, the Australians might very well have thought: lot's of rabbits here; you can eat rabbits; just kill them and eat them; problem solved.
Given that you can determine a change is complex, what would your suggestions be for organizations that want to make complex changes?
- Forget it, let’s look for another problem;
- Reduce complexity first by reducing the number of of moving parts/variables;
- Reduce complexity by reducing the scope of the change;
- Change the goal of a change to a direction, i.e. don't make a new year resolution goal to loose 5 kilos of weight, but set a year theme to ‘live a healthier live’;
Great article and I totally agree - the world is not linear, therefore no solution to a complex problem will be linear either, regardless of what we try and do. I learned that many years ago when trying to install the same solutions in different environments - one always worked, the other took a lot more coaxing. Yeah, so things are like that, and always will be.
If only there would be some framework allowing for inspection and adaptation. On a funny note, we all know the right answer to the rabbit issue - fighting rabbits with rabbits. CRISPR and rabbit killing rabbits (R+). Of course, after a successful RvR+ encounter would play out, R+ would self-destruct in a celebratory manner (lots of product potential there). After inspection, we could adapt the kill count needed for self-destruction. Also, A-B testing..
Could not agree with this more. Despite overwhelming evidence showing us that systems scale asymmetrically and irrationally, we persist in trying out linear solutions. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry.
This one resonates with me. I’m towards the end of a super complex/delayed project that - due to missing some aspects you’ve listed - really struggled to get to the finish line. I think our biggest challenge in retrospect was that some technical hurdles may just be too hard to achieve at scale with pre-determined timelines.
Any change big or small will always attract resistance and there will always be friction. Human nature. Good leaders with empathy and willingness to engage those elements is the only logical solution. And time.
Clever post :) Thinking aloud here... Complex change usually (perhaps always) fails because the leaders of the change want to make it simple—they produce linear models, and big, upfront plans of action. Then they impose these on the workforce. It is the imposition that causes the failure. Change of any kind, complex or otherwise, needs to emerge, and those affected by the change must be involved, by invitation, not coercion or threat, not by compliance. It seems the further people move up the leadership hierarchy the more they grow deaf to actual human needs, and the more hubris they acquire. Accepting the Peter Principle, we have layer upon layer of incompetent people attempting to manage the competent. Perhaps then, the solution to all this is to turn the organisational hierarchy upside down, and let the competent people lead it.
Communicating simple and false certainty is much easier than communicating complex and true uncertainty.
The first looks like you know what you're doing, the second looks like you don't know what you're doing.
Ha Maarten,
Nice post about an often underestimated issue that change is hard for so many reasons.
I think an underlying problem is, that you need to be _aware_ of the fact that a change is complex. We're very bad at that; given that evolutionary our brains survived by reducing complexity to its bare minimum (a good thing when deciding to run from a tiger in a very complex looking jungle). So how do you know up front that a change is/will become complex?
In your rabbit example, the Australians might very well have thought: lot's of rabbits here; you can eat rabbits; just kill them and eat them; problem solved.
Given that you can determine a change is complex, what would your suggestions be for organizations that want to make complex changes?
- Forget it, let’s look for another problem;
- Reduce complexity first by reducing the number of of moving parts/variables;
- Reduce complexity by reducing the scope of the change;
- Change the goal of a change to a direction, i.e. don't make a new year resolution goal to loose 5 kilos of weight, but set a year theme to ‘live a healthier live’;
- [your suggestions here].
I‘m curious to your thoughts.
Eerk Hofmeester
Hi Eerk,
Some indicators you might have a complex problem on your hands:
- If you talk to different experts, they will give you wildly different ways of solving the problem
- If you implement a change, the outcome is very different than you expected
I believe in fixing the problem in a smaller area first. And then trying to expand that working solution.
If you have something that works, then you try to scale it up, and you'll likely bump into novel problems.
This (sad) rabbit analogy also reinforces the point that most human problems are of our own making.