The Problem With Complexity
More and more these days, leaders are dealing with paradoxical complexities. This happens when a new solution is created because of an external shift in market conditions. This solution then impacts a particular internal system, thereby generating more complexity rather than less complexity within the system. As a result, leaders struggle with the contradictory forces of wanting stability within the system vs needing to create adaptability within the system. They also are struggling with how to let these two factors co-exist in order to survive these inevitable external changes.
For example, leaders often choose to expand a business in order to meet an increase in market demand for the goods and/or services that the business offers. However, as part of doing this, they introduce highly complex internal processes within a particular system, which ultimately stifles the innovation and speed needed to meet the increased market demand. In short, they create a paradoxical complexity.
The Impact of Complexity
Over time, three things happen when this takes place. First, complexity ends up being framed as a threat rather than an opportunity to redesign internal systems. This results in leaders defaulting to technical solutions that don’t actually solve the current and emerging adaptive problems normal within complexity.
Second, leaders over-complicate simple technical problems, and avoid dealing with difficult, adaptive problems. They choose to do this, because they want to lower the level of disequilibrium within the company, preserve some form of status quo, or reduce the feeling of chaos created by complexity. They also do this because they want to reduce any questions that may arise in the problem solving process. Rather than applying existing skills, resources, and process to a clearly defined, technical problem, leaders feel obligated to come up with a “new and better” solution, thereby increasing the potential for a greater degree of complexity within internal systems.
Third, when a difficult, adaptive problem occurs within a known system, many leaders avoid solving the problem, because they want to maintain institutional norms rather than let them be challenged. They themselves also don’t want to engage in new ways of thinking, and to deal with any conflicts that may surface during problem solving. They particularly do not want to call into question any past strategic choices. Thus, by defaulting to technical solutions, they can circumvent actually having to deal with the root of the problem, and instead solve the symptoms that surface because of the problem. In short, the cumulative effect of these three choices is the degradation of the capacity within a system to be reliable, thereby reducing the overall performance of the company.
A Necessary Shift In Perspective
So, how do we deal with paradoxical complexities?
In the beginning, we must recognize that many front line supervisors and middle managers tend to think the world and it’s related problems into pieces. They break things down, analyze the parts, and come up with a solution. Then, they execute the solution. This reflects a fix it mentality.
On the other hand, experienced leaders tend to think the world and it’s related problems into pieces, and then they think it all back together again. The goal is to create something that is greater than just the solution to the problem within a particular system.
The late Stephen Covey called this whole-parts-whole thinking. As he wrote, “Whole-parts-whole thinking empowers us to see relationships and create the connections that lead to growth, contribution, and fulfillment instead of fragmentation, discouragement, and self-focus. It becomes a subconscious way of thinking that empowers us to integrate our lives and weave elements together in a beautiful pattern.”
I believe experienced leaders do whole-parts-whole thinking by managing the tension between stability and reliability vs flexibility and adaptability. And in order to do that they need to comprehend and embrace the “Genius of the And,” which is the opposite of the “Tyranny of the OR.”
On October 26, 1994, the book Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies was published by HarperBusiness. It was written by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, and it outlined the results of a six-year research project conducted at the Stanford Business School in the early 1990’s. The book focused on the question: “What does it take to start and build an enduring great company from the ground up?” The two primary objectives of the research published in this book were to identify the underlying characteristics that were common to highly visionary companies, and to effectively communicate these findings so that they could influence management. Currently, it is considered to be one of the most influential business books of our era.
In the book, Collins and Porras wrote: “.. a key aspect of highly visionary companies: They do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” - the rationale view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The “Tyranny of the OR” pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both.” For example, a leader can focus on change or stability, being bold or conservative, high quality or low cost.
However, as they continue: “Instead of being oppressed by the “Tyranny of the OR,” highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the “Genius of the AND” - the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” For example, a leader can focus on purpose and profit, a fixed core ideology and vigorous change, a conservative core and opportunistic experimentation. The authors also note the following: “We’re not talking about mere balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty, half and half. It seeks to do very well in the short-term and very well in the long-term. A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.”
To be continued on Tuesday.
© Geery Howe 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment