Let’s start with a simple test: What is the answer to this formula: 2 + 3 = _________
Most of us will quickly answer 5. Now, the answer is not 5.
Why? Your biases from schooling and past experience simplified the problem to something you already understood using a Mode-1 operation. You probably have difficulty accepting that 5 is not the correct answer, so read on.
2 + 3 = Does Not Equal 5?
The answer lies in the environment and context that framed the formula. In short, without knowing the context, your answer should have been “it depends”. It is dependent on understanding the problem setting before allowing your biases to drive a quick response. Some potential contexts will show how the answer depends on the context:
- What if we’re talking about the temperature of a two glasses of water being mixed together? If you have a half glass full of 2 °C water and a second half glass that is 3 °C. If I pour the 2 °C glass into the 3 °C glass, the new temperature will not be 5 °C.
- What if we’re using a different base? Imagine using base four, which means that the numbers are only go up to four and not base 10. The answer is going to be 11.
- What if we take 2 drops of a fluid and put it into a beaker with 3 drops of another fluid. We will not have five drops.
Context is not enough, you also need to see the problem in a non-linear fashion
The next aspect of the problem is how you view potential solutions. Looking at solutions will generally result in a decomposed view or interdependent systems view. This video from Deming.org quickly outlines how linear and system thinking changes the approach to problem solving in a salmon fishery.
After seeing this video, you should ask yourself “how shall I sense and respond when I detect a problem?” Because The lens you use to see your problem will affect your problem solving stance.
Context and Problem Solving Stance Affect Your Response
The two factors, context and problem-solving, will drastically affect how you approach complexity in your problem solving. Organizations that lean towards linear views want solutions to be very pragmatic that can result in unintended consequences building, like in the fishery. In linear mode-1 organizations, experts are incentivized to see problems from their domain as a linear solution set. For example, a Quality expert will see problems as a lack of quality. A 6Sigma expert will try to use 6Sigma methods to solve all problems. An Agile coach will see the problem as a lack of agility. You, an individual, will look at the problems in front of you based on your existing biases. This is an evolutionary trick by brain to save energy resources based off of your existing skill called Mode-1 thinking. Evaluating and evolving your knowledge requires reflection and integration using Mode-2. Systemic observation uses integration and interrogation to gather a new perspective that requires Agility. Ackoff illustrates how specialization also becomes a set of blinders at 37:22 in this video.
In a system view, we look at problems understanding inter-dependency cannot be ignored. We embrace living in a world where we are both dependent on each other and independent to choose our own destiny. Therefore, complexity requires an integrated problem solving model for us to work within. This is the first step in understanding how to simplify your complexity. By embracing that the problems you have are complex in nature and cannot be solved with prescriptive best practices or processes, you are simplifying your options. The solutions to your complex problems can be assisted by ideas like using teams and reflective learning loops. But pre-defined solution with clear ROI and schedules are less likely as answers will often come from an unexpected person or domain.
The Paradox to Simplify
The Paradox to Simplify: We must embrace complexity in an interdependent world.
An example of simplifying complexity from the animal kingdom.
John R. Turner and Nigel Thurlow created a simple way to look at complexity in the Cynefin book (page 320). They divide the world of problems into ones that you can tame (like training an Elephant) and wild problems that you cannot tame (like a Hippopotamus), even with all of the best practices and tools.
Elephant problems can be decomposed and solved by an expert like a methodical taming of an elephant. Wild problems, the ones where solutions keep causing different problems are wild, like a hippopotamus. Elephants can be tamed by training them to be tied to a tree, whereas hippos cannot be domesticated as they are territorial and violent. By embracing that problems cannot have the same response, we are simplifying the potential responses to problems based on the context and environment.
Hippo problems are more prevalent in a connected world where the interactions of systems, environments and people are multiplying. In spite of the rise of Chat-GPT, DALL E2 (which was used for some images in this post) and generative AI for simple responses, our organizations are going to face increasingly difficultly to produce and maintain products, solutions and decision making structures in a digital environment.
Add contextual specific changes like cyber security, country specific data residence regulations and human psychological standards for psychological safety and you have an issue exponential increase in system actors and interactions. Therefore, creating a scaled team framework approach is not sufficient. Frameworks are optimized for faster delivery which is not the problem for a better customer experience. Building a better customer experience needs an organization around a customer outcome.
Getting back to basics of language use
Our world view is defined by our language. Therefore, the difference between Adjectives and Nouns gives a permanence on our world view. Sonia Blignaut gives an expansive outline on how language defines our world view in this talk. So let’s explore by defining the words complexity and complex to further understand.
Complexity noun:
- the state or quality of being complex; intricacy: the complexity of urban life.
- something complex: the complexities of foreign policy.
Complex
adjective
- composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
- characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
noun
https://www.dictionary.com
- an intricate or complicated association or assemblage of related things, parts, units, etc.
- Psychology. a system of interrelated, emotion-charged ideas, feelings, memories, and impulses that is usually repressed and that gives rise to abnormal or pathological behavior.
- a fixed idea; an obsessive notion.
Nouns and adjectives define our world view
First, let’s look at Complexity defined as a noun. The noun brings you into the linear view of Mode-1 thinking. Complexity as a noun is a state of being or linear way of looking at the world. As a noun, Mode-1 defines complexity as a state, wither existing or not. In a linear problem-solving world, we see complexity as a state that can be changed with planned actions through decomposition and transformation. In this world, a transformation is a goal to move from state A to B.
Whereas, if we look at the word complex as an adjective, it is an everlasting attribute of the problem. An adjective makes the word more affluent. The adjective becomes a quality or descriptor of the problem as a state. As a descriptor, it is in a flow of continuous change like the water that the salmon live in the example video. The complexity is ever present but in a state of flux. Viewing complex issues with an adjective perspective means that this is an ever-flowing change.
To link it to our example above, nouns are elephants (tame) and adjectives are wild (hippos).
Going into the world of Lean-Agile, the Agile Industrial Complex encourages surface level debates about choosing the correct framework or sets of methods like Scrum. Scrum is inherently designed to manage adjective-hippos. But if you organize your people around a noun-elephant management philosophy, you will come to a solution where a Scrum Product Owner is a decision maker for priority and maintaining a backlog. This elephant approach to a hippo problem leads to sub-optimization of the desired outcome.
In a world with linear problems, creating a role like a Product Owner who prioritizes the backlog is a good strategy. In a systems world with increased cognitive load, a Product Owner role shifts from deciding everything to one of orientation and guidance to becoming a coaching role. By accepting complexity, we move away from a PO who prioritizes a backlog, The shift is to someone who gives context, strategy and information to a group of people who can collectively problem solve with an overall increase in cognitive capability.
Our world view defines how we incentivize and organize people. Organizing around hippo problems means we need a team with a common problem. The orientation will create enabling constraints to deal with the hippo within those constraints and capabilities we have. Elephant problems can be given to a single trainer as the elephant can be tied up and managed if they need a break. In the age of digital, your innovation and flow of value problems are probably hippos.
In conclusion
It will be better to stop dressing up your hippo as an elephant because you know how to deal with elephants. It might be better to learn some new hippo thought patterns.
Lean-Agile with Paul 