Why Leaders Need to Embrace Complexity Science - Part I
By Virginia Lacayo, Ph.D.
Issac Newton died in 1727, but his ideas live on - often in subtle and systemic ways. The Newtonian scientific paradigm and the metaphor of the machine still dominate most leadership models in both the business and public sectors.
Newton explained that the world is akin to a machine, where the whole is the sum of its parts, and by dissecting and understanding discrete parts, we will understand the basic external and universal rules or laws that will determine how the parts (and the whole) will behave.
The machine metaphor is so attractive to leaders because machines are simple and predictable. It provides leaders with a sense of control, stability, and security. The machine metaphor assumes that through enough careful planning and detailed instructions, and supervision, we can predict and control the outcomes according to our original goals.
The machine metaphor creates the worldview that an organization is an inanimate thing and therefore behaves like a machine. And for many years, the assumptions of the machine metaphor worked well when addressing problems in which there is a high level of predictability and control over the outcomes. However, we have all experienced the failure of this approach when it comes to addressing social and organizational change issues that are unpredictable and uncontrollable.
To many, the ability to predict the future and control outcomes is the primary role of leadership. It’s a common belief that effective leadership will produce better planning and control over people, over nature, and over things, and this will lead us to better processes, more efficient and effective organizations, and improvement of the quality of life of all societies.
Most of the challenges faced today by social and organizational leaders have no precedent and therefore we have no known solution for them. Moreover, most of them are unpredictable, paradoxical, highly context and history-dependent, and constantly evolving. These characteristics make those challenges highly complex which means that the linear, top-down approach used for centuries to address social and organizational issues, only creates the illusion of temporary effectiveness.
To ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of cultural transformation initiatives, leaders must first overcome three main challenges:
Clearly identify the level of complexity of the problem they are trying to address.
Complexity scientist Brenda Zimmerman helps us to understand the difference between simple, complicated, and complex problems: Simple problems are like following a recipe and complicated problems are like sending a rocket to the moon. Both problems are knowable; even if they are unknown to us or at the moment, we can figure them out a priori by either following an existing blueprint or by hiring a multidisciplinary team of experts. Complex problems, however, are like raising a child. No matter how many children you have raised before or how many books on parenting you have read, each child is different and unique. There is no way to know in advance what the result will be and planning details is not of much help. By definition, this is a picture of a “sifting landscape”, where every step you make changes the environment to the point that the rock you plan to put your next foot on is not there anymore. In a shifting landscape, continual analysis and reaction to the changes in the environment are more important than blueprints or manuals.
Adam Kahane, a noted system thinker, explains that social and organizational issues can have three kinds of complexities: 1) they can be dynamically complex, meaning that the cause and effect are apart in time and space and therefore are difficult to grasp from firsthand experience; 2) they can be generatively complex, meaning that the situations unfold in unfamiliar and unpredictable ways and 3) they can be socially complex, meaning that the people involved in the issue have different opinions, values, and perspectives and thus the problems become polarized and stuck.
If we pay attention to the characteristics of the problem we are trying to change or solve, we can identify if we are facing a simple, complicated, or complex problem. Only then we can move forward to the second challenge.
Match the level of complexity to the solution to the level of complexity of the problem.
Traditional approaches to social and organizational change are based on traditional organizational structures, where control is exerted through hierarchy. In hierarchical structures, one person (the CEO or President) ultimately controls the whole system.
Hierarchy amplifies the potential performance of that single individual, but it doesn’t add complexity to the system. A typical example of this approach is the original Ford assembly line - a single individual controls many individuals performing simple tasks. The level of complexity of the tasks at the low level of the system is limited; therefore, a large scale of control is possible.
But let’s think of a different example. When the complexity of the problem requires multiple, different approaches, with different levels of complexities that require some level of freedom to react to the environmental changes and to be able to try different strategies and self-organize with others, then the complexity of the solution is far higher than the complexity of any individual (CEO, President or expert) or even a few groups of individuals. In this case, scale and complexity trade-off again. Only decentralized control and a few simple rules can give coherence to a highly complex system across scales.
A good example of this situation is the case of Brazil’s approach to the HIV/AIDS crisis: The World Bank, and the world at large, approached the epidemic as a complicated problem. A complicated approach assumes that the resources available in the system are fixed and predetermined. In the case of Brazil, the income per capita is $5,000, and the cost of anti-retroviral treatment per person is $12,000, so the logical conclusion was that the treatment of the infected was not affordable and the only solution was to focus the existing resources in prevention efforts. Brazil challenged that conclusion and implemented one of the most efficient and effective strategies known so far. The key to their success was a change in perspective and an understanding of the resources available as those that already existed in the system PLUS those that could be perceived and/or created in the interactions between Brazil’s social capital. The question was then changed. It was not any more a matter of who will receive help, but how will help be provided to everyone. Few simple rules were established, and a flood of creativity and self-organizing processes were freed across Brazil. More than 600 NGOS, hospitals, generic drug companies, governments, churches, and community leaders participate in this process. All played a role. All were followers and leaders at turns. This strategy was not top-down, but it was not entirely bottom-up either. Scale and complexity traded off again; the level of freedom required by the multiple initiatives happening on the ground forced the system to let go of control and lead the whole process by establishing a few simple rules.
Make sure they are not only doing things right, but they are also doing the right things.
Traditional ways to evaluate social and organizational change endeavors work well in situations where there is a high level of predictability and control over the outcomes. And even then, it is well accepted in the evaluation field, that when we focus our efforts on observing exclusively the existence or absence of those outcomes, we risk missing many positive unexpected outcomes that will not only provide better explanations to the findings but also contribute to the improvement of the strategy.
A nice illustration of this is the well-known story of the man under the street lamp:
A person was walking home on a dark and foggy night when she sees a man crawling around by a lamp post. The traveler stops and asks: “What are you doing?”
“I am looking for my keys”, responds the man.
“Are you sure you lost them here?” asked the traveler.
“No, I lost them over there”, came the reply, “but here I have a better light!”
Traditional research and evaluation models are like the lamp post. They provide assuring scientific methods according to internationally approved standards and guide us through the processes of inquiry, analysis, and so on. But there is much more to find out and understand about the system beyond that narrowed (yet comfortable and convenient) circle of light.
For the most part, leaders are trained erroneously in believing that organizational and social change phenomena (much like “raising a child”) can be predicted, controlled, and achieved in linear steps, and that too with a high degree of certainty. This problematic prevailing mindset -- “that if we do this to people, they will behave in this way” – is a result of the overwhelming dominance of Newtonian science thinking which spilled over to leadership models and was reified over decades without much questioning.
In today's fast-paced and interconnected world, leadership has become a complex and challenging endeavor.
Traditional top-down approaches to decision-making are often insufficient to address the dynamic and unpredictable nature of modern challenges. In today's fast-paced and interconnected world, in which technology and easy access to communication and information are favoring the constant and rapid changes in markets, distribution of power, and innovation, we are in urgent need of a framework that could explain the certainty and uncertainty associated with outcomes, the agreement and disagreement about how those outcomes could be achieved, why small inputs in a social system could result in surprisingly big outcomes; and why often big, expensive interventions yielded small, dismal outcomes. Complexity science provides that framework.
What is complexity science and how can it help?
Leaders who embrace complexity science can gain a deeper understanding of the systems they operate within and make more informed, adaptable, and successful decisions.
Complexity science is an interdisciplinary field that studies complex systems characterized by non-linear relationships, interconnectedness, and emergent behaviors. It is a combination of various theories and concepts from different disciplines (biology, anthropology, economy, sociology, management, and others) to comprehend and analyze intricate systems, including ecosystems, economies, social networks, and organizations.
According to complexity theorists, all complex adaptive systems, such as organizations or communities, are governed by a few basic principles and share a number of associated proprieties. Understanding these principles could provide clues to design and implement interventions that evoke the natural quality of living systems to change and re-create themselves.
The hallmark of complexity science is its focus on understanding how interactions between individual components lead to collective behaviors and patterns. These systems are often described as "complex adaptive systems," meaning they can self-organize and adapt in response to changes in their environment or internal dynamics. So instead of describing how systems should behave, complexity science focuses the analysis on the interdependencies and interrelationships among their elements to describe how systems actually behave.
Why do leaders need to embrace complexity science?
The holistic and more realistic perspective of a complexity-based approach provides leaders with the information, tools, skills, and insights to:
Embrace uncertainty and ambiguity
One of the key reasons leaders should embrace complexity science is its acknowledgment of uncertainty and ambiguity. Traditional management models tend to seek predictability and control, assuming that the future will resemble the past. However, in a world where disruption is the norm, this approach becomes inadequate.
Complexity science teaches leaders to embrace uncertainty as an inherent feature of the systems they operate in. Rather than seeking to predict the future, leaders learn to navigate uncertainty by focusing on understanding underlying patterns, feedback loops, and interdependencies. This allows for more flexible and adaptive strategies that can respond effectively to unexpected changes.
Holistic decision-making
In complex systems, isolated decisions can have unintended consequences throughout the entire system. Complexity science emphasizes the interconnectedness of elements and encourages a holistic approach to decision-making. Leaders who adopt this perspective consider the broader implications of their choices on various stakeholders and aspects of the organization.
By understanding the interconnected nature of different factors, leaders can avoid suboptimal solutions that may produce favorable outcomes in one area but negatively impact others. Holistic decision-making reduces the risk of unintended consequences and helps foster a more sustainable and resilient organization.
Promote innovation and creativity
Complexity science highlights the importance of diversity and creativity within a system. In complex adaptive systems, diversity enables resilience, as different perspectives and approaches can respond to change in unique ways. Leaders who embrace complexity science encourage inclusivity and openness to new ideas, allowing for a more innovative and dynamic organization.
Moreover, complexity science provides a fresh perspective on problem-solving. Instead of relying solely on hierarchical decision-making, leaders can harness collective intelligence and decentralized problem-solving mechanisms. This approach empowers individuals at all levels to contribute ideas, fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement.
Navigate change and turbulence
Change is constant in complex systems, and organizations must adapt continuously to remain successful. Leaders who understand complexity science are better equipped to navigate change and turbulence effectively.
Rather than resisting change, complexity-aware leaders anticipate and embrace it as an opportunity for growth. They monitor and analyze feedback from the environment, employees, and customers to detect early signs of change and respond proactively. This ability to adapt quickly and decisively allows organizations to stay ahead of the curve and capitalize on emerging opportunities.
Make a deep and down-to-earth analysis of what works and what doesn’t to be able to quickly invest or relocate available resources to create the most desired results.
Traditional approaches to problem-solving assume there is a linear cause-effect relation between what seems to be the problem and its most obvious solution. In most cases, those assumptions are wrong.
Complexity science recognizes the difficulty to plan everything in detail, especially when working within an unpredictable and constantly changing environment. It suggests that the best way to plan is by establishing minimum specifications and a general sense of direction, that is, to describe the mission the organization is pursuing and a few basic principles on how the organization should get there. Allowing the flexibility of multiple approaches by trying several small experiments, reflecting carefully on what happens and gradually shifting time and attention toward those things that seem to be working the best. Once the minimum specifications have been set, the organizational leadership should then allow appropriate autonomy for individuals to self-organize and adapt as time goes by to a continually changing context.
In part 2 of this article, I will explore in detail how a complexity science approach to leadership increases the leader’s capacity to achieve the results and skills described above.
In the work we do at Massive we focus on what we call Systemic Consciousness which means to help leaders unleash the powerful blend of Systems Thinking, Human Dynamics, and the social values of the organization in order to evolve their approach to the management of social capital, decision-making, and problem-solving.
Complexity science offers a valuable framework for understanding the intricacies of modern systems and embracing uncertainty. By adopting a complexity-aware mindset, leaders can make better decisions, foster innovation, and navigate change effectively, creating more resilient and successful organizations in the process. Embracing complexity science is not a mere option; it's an imperative for the leaders of today and tomorrow.
Want to learn how to apply complexity science principles in your organization? Schedule a discovery call with Virginia and Justin.
 | A guest post by
|