Introduction
The introduction of complexity to compliment or reimagine what was previously considered simple has the tendency to be presented as somewhat of an intense endeavor, beleaguering the audience with knowledge of feedback loops, open systems, boundaries, artifacts and agents, interaction, patterns, self-organization, adaptation, non-linearities, and the whole being in the part and the part being in the whole and then seeking integration of these concepts into daily or professional life (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Cilliers, 1998; Morin, 2008). This route to complexity communication in social or organizational contexts may introduce a considerable cognitive strain, as well as the demands of the array of associated actions, and result in incoherence and frustration. On the other hand, with certain audiences, such as those already familiar with systems thinking, for example, a highly technical approach may be suitable. This post points toward a different, much less technical way of introducing complexity that avoids the tangled mire of a terminology-centric approach focused on the experience of complexity and finding where understandings similar to, or embracing its essence, already exist. The goal is to dispose the audience toward the world in a complex way through a lightweight and clear approach that still has value.
In Context
Roughly, barely, situated in the context of the day, such as that in image one, a consultant communicating complexity, should begin by first seeking the pre-existence of complexity, or perhaps something like it, known and practiced in culturally specific ways. Searching for balances between order and disorder found in either work or daily life practices, as well as in understanding, may evince the presence of complexity or something similar that does not have to be grounded in the literature (Morin, 2008).
Another similarly coarse indicator of complexity, pre-existing efforts to have an audience adopt it by a consultant, is found in how people, places, things, and phenomena are related to and understood to relate to each other. Suppose interactions among entities are known to be fairly rich, meaning “any element in the system influences and is influenced by, quite a few other ones” (Cilliers, 1998, p.3). In that case, there may be a partial understanding comparable to complexity already held by the audience.
While the source may be non-linear causality, feedback loops, open systems, system history, and unpredictability of trajectory, these concepts may be lived as the experientially learned lesson that things do not always turn out as one would expect them to, a key characteristic of complexity. It is highly probable that complexity or a similar concept encountered in work or social contexts is found in lived experience and not in detached reasoning over the concepts involved.
As a consultant seeking to communicate and then ideally integrate complexity into an audience at the level of the whole or within aspects of it, perhaps finding its essence is equal to the initial success that is being sought. Complexity already exists, just not in the manner typically imagined.
It is very likely that a spirit of complexity found in the audience may be diffuse and not yet be established in a particular context, but still exists. As a consultant, the strategy would first attempt to scale existing complex manners of relating if they are found to be scalable.
If complexity-like understandings are not found throughout the audience, a consultant may elect to introduce complexity. Although potentially ethically questionable (you should relate to the world this way), if it is desired that the audience in question start to relate to the world in a complex way, then it is suggested that it mirror the relationality found in the above, where complexity is part of lived experience and not as much a matter of recalling and applying concepts.
For example, a consultant might teach about the rich interactions of the windmill in image two, such as with the farm that produces the grain that the windmill may grind, and the weather that makes production of grain possible and spins the windmill’s sails and moves the internal mechanisms and turns the grain into food products for a family. Of course, the grain must first be transported from the fields to the windmill in order for it to be ground by mechanisms powered by the wind over dirt roads and through variable weather. The windmill, the farm, the grain, the family, the weather, the transportation, the mechanical components, and the ground grain product are all affected by and affect other elements in this collective (Cilliers, 1998).
It should be taught that a high level of interactivity is not a reason for paralysis, but recognizing extensive interaction and deciding how to use that knowledge advantageously and carefully when intervening and making changes. This important interaction exercise may be repeated several times with elements familiar to the audience to offer an alternative perspective from isolated things to entangled components that are in a process of becoming exactly as they exist in the audience’s world (Holland, 1992). By using familiar elements, detachment is instead a continued immersion of the audience in their own context.
In an earlier post, Morin’s (2008) presentation of complexity as a mixture of order and disorder was central. Here, in the task of introducing complexity to others, it is relevant once again and must be taught. It is critical to communicate that the environment around the audience may be filled with areas of disorder, for example, the world around the windmill, that change constantly and unpredictably, that are difficult to distinguish, describe, and explain, and where the right answer emerges only in retrospect (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000). Immersed in these disordered areas, actions may not produce expected or even observable outcomes. Although it is impossible to determine the behavior of these areas over time, exploratively interacting with them may create information that can then be applied to subsequent interactions and form the basis of a strategy, however short-lived it might be as change continues.
It must also be understood that the world is filled with sections of order, for example, the windmill, characterized by certainty, stability, regularity, and actions that yield expected outcomes. Order is a platform for building and exploiting the current situation, such as using the wind to repeatedly grind grain (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000). At times, there can be more disorder than order in the world, and vice versa, and what was once orderly can become disorderly, and the other way around. It is best to teach adaptability and not to count on the world staying the way it is forever. Unexpected events are the rule and not the exception, and one must be prepared for them (Morin, 2008).
Conclusion
This post endeavored to provide an example of introducing complexity to others in a straightforward, lightweight manner that avoids what is perceived here as more technical, jargon-filled, and theoretically heavy methods, of which there are many exceptions. The focus was first on finding spots in an audience where an understanding similar to complexity existed before turning to how to impart complexity to others in an accessible way that is enough to act on, but hopefully not overwhelming. While incomplete, this post was a first attempt on this blog at communicating complexity to others in a clear, dispositional way with the intention of providing just enough information for others to act on. Interaction and a changing balance of order and disorder are central lessons to teach an audience that may be used to identify complexity and begin to act differently.
References
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity & postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17-30.
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. (R. Postel, Trans.) Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.