I read a lot about “complex adaptive systems“, and so a lot about “complexity science”. I think this gives me a set of concepts to create a framework for myself which helps me understand life. I think it gives me a language with which to think and communicate, but the trouble is the word “complex”. When people hear that word they think of “complicated” – which isn’t the same thing at all.
What’s the difference?
A machine can be complicated. A machine is constructed from parts, each of which can be understood separately. A machine can be understood by examining the parts and how they interact with each other. You can take it to pieces and build it back up to be the same machine. You can predict how the machine will behave….what it will do. The more parts a machine has, and the more connections there are between the parts, the more complicated it is. That means it is harder to understand. But it can be understood.
A living organism is not complicated. It’s complex. A living organism might have billions of parts (cells, for example), but there are two distinct features about how they interact – they are all “agents” – that is every single part affects, and is affected by, other parts; and the nature of the interaction is “non-linear” – that means you can’t add one part to another and predict what the result will be…..a small change at the beginning, can produce enormous differences in how the organism as a whole changes – think of the “butterfly effect”.
Once you grasp the basically simple concepts which underpin this idea of “complex systems”, then you can look at everything from living organisms, to ecosystems, forests, organisations, communities or institutions from this perspective. I think it’s amazing what such a perspective reveals.
One paper I read recently looked at understanding leadership from the complex adaptive system perspective. The author, Kowch, highlights three characteristic of organisations which learn, adapt and grow. Each of these characteristics is worth thinking about because the less your organisation has of these, the less healthy it will be, the less likely it will thrive, or even survive in these rapidly changing times.
- Diversity – Nature loves diversity. The more conformity and uniformity in a system, the less adaptable it is. Monoculture might produce large quantities of something for a while, but, ultimately, it becomes vulnerable. Yet, command and control seems to be the preferred management method. Great effort is put into achieving conformity and uniformity. With globalisation, and the power of oligopolies, differences are often seen as problems to be removed.
- Specialisation – nobody can do everything. Although Darwinists have pushed the idea that evolution occurs through a “survival of the fittest”, with a perspective of continuous competition and warfare, in fact, others argue that its the ability to co-operate which has allowed human beings to develop as a species. Co-operation involves both good relationships (integrative relationships ie where the relationship is mutually enhancing for all the individuals involved), and specialisation – some develop a lot of skill in one area, whilst others in quite a separate area.
- Redundancy – this means duplication, or having “more” than it seems the organism “needs”. In organisational terms, if all the staff are fully employed, fully scheduled, each in their own specialist area, then when something changes (such as sickness, increase in demand etc) then there is no way to cope with that – there’s nobody to cover, and there’s no ability to meet the change in demand.
So, what does your organisation look like? How’s it doing in terms of diversity, specialisation and redundancy? How healthy and adaptable do you think your organisation is?
Read Full Post »
Heroes Not Zombies 