The Complexity Myth

For various reasons, I’ve spent some time recently wondering why in a business environment getting things done can be so hard. What is it that creates stalemates to progress? Is there some underlying quality that no matter how much we ‘grease the wheels of progress’ only acts to turn such grease into glue? I was once naive enough to think that all that was required to make change happen was determination and authority, but have increasingly realised that such qualities – whilst helpful in ensuring progress – are often far from sufficient.

Though there are people that resist change in all forms almost as a matter a principle, most people will recognise that if something is broken then it needs fixing. The first problem arises when one person sees something they believe is broken and another says it isn’t. The next problem is that even if they both agree something is broken, how best to fix it is often another matter. In organisational terms, both of these problems are a matter of perspective; depending on the job, something may hinder you (and therefore be broken), but help me (and therefore be working fine). Who’s right? The answer is probably both and neither, which highlights just how much of a mess these situations are and can become.

Who was right in the example above depends from whose perspective you chose to look. Both of them are right from their own perspective, and both could be wrong from someone else’s. If we all operated in the same environment and did similar jobs then this would probably happen a lot less, but this isn’t the case and we do work in often complex organisations, doing role-specific jobs in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world. This complexity is often the cause of the biggest problems we face and also, ironically, the biggest reason we find it so hard to solve them.

So having said that, how can this post be titled ‘the complexity myth’? I’m not suggesting the world isn’t complex, or indeed that the problems we face aren’t complex; the reason I say it’s a myth is because this complexity is what often prevents change, not because actions can’t be taken but because people are caught trying to understand a problem that often defies such understanding before they act. The myth is that complex problems are not simple.

One of the most useful things I’ve found in dealing with complexity comes from the field of Systems Thinking. Simply put, complexity doesn’t exist outside of our minds: nothing in and of itself is inherently complex, it just ‘is’. We perceive it as complex, and this labelling makes us think in a certain way. As I have a background in ICT, the inside of a PC are not complex to me; to many of my friends, the inside of a computer is extremely complex indeed! When computers go wrong, I’m often asked to take a look because I’m completely comfortable with this and my friends aren’t. There are two important points here: firstly, complexity is a matter of individual perspective and NOT a property of an object or situation, and secondly, that perceiving complexity alters how people react to and deal with it – it is a label that puts people in a certain mindset. Complexity is difficult; that is the underlying message. Complexity is not simple. Complexity is hard.

This has significant implications for business because it can lead people to produce overly complex solutions (as clearly no obvious solution would work or it would already have been done), or lead to no solution at all because the problem is too complicated. This might be just because they have reacted a certain way to complexity. Trying to solve a so-called complex problem can lead to a kind of paralysis as people struggle to get to grips with everything that might be related to a situation. There seem to be endless possible avenues to explore and consider, and these only increase exponentially as more people get involved and they see additional layers of complexity. At some point, problem solving simply drowns under the burden of over-thinking a situation. The resources expended in these kinds of situations can be truly staggering for remarkably little return; in fact, you might even find that after significant effort people can’t explain why the solution is so evasive. When asked, you might simply hear back “It’s complicated” (I know, I’ve said it like everyone else!)

There is, regrettably, no easy solution to this. Although complexity might not exist outside of our minds, that doesn’t really make that much difference to all of us who have to work with our minds! What can help, however, is not falling into the complexity myth trap: just because something looks complex, try thinking about how it might actually be simple. Ask someone who knows nothing about it to look at a problem or situation; their perspective might help break the myth. Don’t get a committee together, though – more than three people of leads to more complexity than it solves!

Above all else, just because something looks complex don’t accept that it really is; you might just miss out on a very simple solution.

The exponential damage of bad management

Most people can think of ‘bad managers’; the boss that didn’t know their job, couldn’t manage staff properly, never listened, didn’t communicate effectively and so on. The same goes for managers thinking of former (or even current) staff. These views can often be characteristic of the fact that some ‘manager – employee’ relationships simply don’t work. Recently I’ve started to wonder why, and perhaps more importantly reflect on the damage that oft results.

I’ve been fortunate to work for some brilliant managers. Over the years, they’ve helped me learn and grow, pushed me when I needed it, and yes also kicked me when I needed it. Fortunately, I’ve had very little direct exposure to ‘bad management’; I doubt this is down just to luck. Several of my former bosses have said I am actually easy to manage, whereas I’ve always had the feeling the opposite is true. So why the discrepancy, and why have I apparently been so lucky in my managers? Initially I thought it was because I’ve often had a relationship with my managers before they were my managers. This is because I’ve worked in my organisation a long time and am fairly well known. Getting to know each other this way I think helps, but I doubt is the reason. More likely, I think, is how I see that relationship. I’ve never seen my boss as ‘the boss stereotype’, someone who must be obeyed and whose word is law. Knowing them before them becoming my boss has helped me early on in my career see that when I work for someone I should see it as a partnership, and I now construct the relationship on those terms.

That relationships are constructed is important; they exist independently (mentally speaking) of the people within them. They have characteristics that are specific to that relationship, that are understood by everyone without explanation and they change based on actions and feedback from both parties. And this is related to bad management how, you ask? Since that type of relationship is also constructed, then it is a result of both participant’s view of the other, of their respective actions, the history, and what they see as the likely future of the relationship. The relationship is defined by both participants, regardless as to whether it is good or bad.

The problem with bad management relationships is that if my success is partly grounded in the success of the partnership I have with my boss, then a poor relationship makes success far more difficult and failure far more likely. This is not good for the people involved, or the business.

A bad relationship is also poorly placed to improve, as it is very much easier to allow it to stagnate or degrade further than to make the effort to correct – especially if the employee isn’t sure how to approach it or the manager doesn’t recognise there’s even a problem. This is where bad management is more than just inconvenient and poor practice: because the nature of relationships is to a large degree based on past interactions between participants (which people often view as a sound predictor of future interactions), it is possible for a bad one to damage the performance of the manager and the relevant member of staff, and for this damage to worsen as the relationship becomes increasingly ineffective.

At its worse, a previously successful manager or high-performing member of staff can suddenly appear very much the opposite as their management relationship deteriorates.

In a good relationship, if an employee (or manager) fails to do something or doesn’t do it in the way required, it is likely that both parties will put it down to an error, to a misunderstanding, to any number of things. In some cases, both parties may go so far as try to take responsibility for the failure from the other, sometimes attempting to ‘win’ responsibility so the other person doesn’t feel bad! In damaged relationships what happens is different. The reason attributed to the failure often takes on rather more sinister overtones: “nothing would have been right for my boss” or “I told him what to do, but he deliberately did it wrong”, or many other variations.

The important detail is that in good relationships, former experiences lead people to make positive judgements and attributions when possible sources of conflict arise, which tends to ‘damp down issues’; in deteriorating relationships, people make negative judgements, which tend only to reinforce underlying problems. Both of these carry forward to the next interaction, often further reinforcing belief in a virtuous or vicious circle that can be difficult to break.

Although I’ve written about good and bad relationships, I think, that there are three types of management relationship: the good, the bad, and the neutral. There may be little excuse for a bad management relationship, but it doesn’t mean the opposite is true and that all relationships should be good: some people simply aren’t going to ‘get on’ enough to form this, and this is where I believe ‘neutral’ relationships come in.

With two willing participants, two people who don’t get on can have a successful – and stress-free – management relationship. These relationships are based on shared professional respect for one another, and first and foremost to these is the need for clarity around expectations. It must be clear what a manager expects and what a subordinate will deliver, or vice versa. Ambiguity around this will be fatal to the relationship, but if there is task-based clarity that allows the basis of a relationship to form around “we agreed I would do this and here it is”, then respect should follow. They might still want to shove each other under the nearest bus, but the relationship will still be productive and less likely to damage everyone’s credibility, team morale, and – most importantly – the business. Both manager and employee are equally well placed to get this process starting, and Blanchard’s book “The One Minute Manager” remains an excellent reference for setting and agreeing tasks that would support this form of relationship.

And what if clarity about goals and expectations can’t be agreed between them? Then one – and potentially both – people in the relationship need to examine whether they are being honest about their approach and motivations and make a renewed effort, and if that proves impossible, well, in the words on Sir Alan Sugar, at the end of the exercise, one of you will be fired...

The only thing certain about a bad management relationship is it won’t be productive, and no business should allow that.