Red tape, bureaucracy, and fine print are all too familiar terms and concepts; but, I’m not certain they fully embody what many of us may agree has become a trend of increasing momentum – growing complexity in almost every direction and as far as the eye can see. You need look no further than your email account(s), your to-do list(s), your “pending” file(s), your hardcopy inbox(es), or your dining-room-table-turned-sorting-station. It’s relentless; it’s ubiquitous.
In the interest of citing some universal examples from a consumer perspective: how many times have you been in a store or on the phone with a merchant or a service provider who can’t readily explain the details of a sale/promotion, a service agreement, or a protection plan? And they’re the “experts.” Gone are the days when it was as simple as: “this is 20% off” or “your telephone service will cost X” or “this comes with a 1-year warranty.”
While we now rely heavily upon technology to quickly spit up and out answers on the spot, we are left with our proverbial pants down when there’s a glitch or when particular circumstances don’t fit an existing pre-programmed algorithm. Telephone/cable providers, insurance companies, banks, airlines, and credit card companies may be among some of the more notorious examples and easy targets these days; however, most enterprises and how they conduct their business have become and continue to become more complex. As we’ll explore, some complexity is imposed from the outside (e.g. regulation), some from customers/clients (e.g. demand for choice and options), but much comes from the inside (e.g. people doing what people do and watching what other people do).
Many variables have contributed to the complexity we now face in our day-to-day living and particularly in the business world. Competition, globalization, technology, innovation, diversification, specialization, customization, corruption, regulation-on-the-heels-of corruption, and any number of other factors have conspired to bring us to where we are. Whether or not complexity is a bad versus a good thing – or just a “thing” is one matter; the focus of this exploration is that competencies have not kept up with the pace at which complexity has grown.
Anyone who has bought or refinanced a home likely has a favorite war story. On the heels of the real estate bubble disaster, banks understandably imposed more stringent requirements and metrics. My own observations in attempting to navigate what was promised to be a very straightforward refinancing transaction even before the meltdown included:
- The bank’s own internal policies and procedures had become so complex that no one there knew how to interpret them let alone how to navigate through them.
- The bank employees didn’t know how to use their own technology, they didn’t understand their own policies and procedures, they didn’t understand how real estate recording processes work, and they didn’t know how to communicate internally among themselves or externally with other parties. I’m not alleging they were unintelligent people – it’s just that, collectively and individually, they were not skilled enough in the core competencies required to consummate a successful transaction in the complex environment they had created.
- The obvious price an organization pays when its competencies haven’t kept pace with its complexity is that things don’t get done correctly or efficiently - and sometimes not at all. But there can be an even steeper price. Ironically, the more the bank fumbled, the more poorly I was treated – digging the customer satisfaction hole even deeper. Banks, like other regulated institutions in particular, are not very good at admitting their mistakes and confessing their competency shortcomings – it’s just not in their DNA. A good stretch goal or a hearty challenge is one thing, but people are never at their best when they’re really in over their heads.
So what really drives the sprint to complexity? (I note some interdependencies and synergies among the following which may contribute even further to the momentum I suggest at play.)
Exploitation – it’s easier to take advantage of people if terms of agreement are complex – yes, a sinister angle. Most of us aren’t flush enough to engage an attorney to review everything to which we ultimately agree.
Illusion of value – There can be a tendency to equate complexity with value – the more complex something is, the more it must be worth? Surely?
Job security and opportunity – A classic easy-target example might be that of tax attorneys and accountants. I was one for a spell so I claim special permission and immunity in using this particular illustration. For years people have proposed – or perhaps sniped - that the reason they exist and make pretty decent money is because the IRS Tax Code is and continues to become more complex despite cries for simplification. There are indeed other and perhaps less legislative illustrations. For example, the more complex technology becomes, the more IT talent is required to maintain and support it.
Corruption – Complexity is a crook’s playground. The more complex something (e.g. a product, a service, or an environment) is, the easier it is to evade and wiggle out of having done something untoward and deceptive. The tall weeds of complexity provide good cover and hiding.
Government and regulation – Many of us are familiar with government forms and requirements in some way, shape, or form. They are particularly onerous and complex for highly regulated industries and public companies. The demand for increased regulation often follows a noticeable spike in corruption – the need to police.
Change – Mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations are typically complex by nature. Suddenly, multiple sets of objectives, policies, procedures, and systems must be rationalized in an effort to emerge with something that makes sense. What emerges is usually more complex than that which existed previously – often because some degree of negotiation is involved and some things (e.g. certain HR provisions) may be grandfathered for some period of time. Change comes in other forms and from other sources as well – new leaders, new competition, new service lines or products, and new operating environments are but a few examples.
Innovation? – Some innovation is specifically designed to simplify and make life easier, but sometimes it merely pretends to make life easier or does make life easier in one regard at the expense of giving us something new to worry about. By definition, it is something “new.” All that said, I would never argue that innovation is a bad thing. Rather, when it does catalyze complexity but truly adds value, it can be worth the price.
Growth – We live in a world where a “grow or die” mantra is perpetually nipping at our heels. Complexity typically accompanies growth unless it is artfully and diligently managed to the contrary.
Secrecy and mysticism – Healthy egos are often fed by some degree of awe and mysticism. We all have a basic human need to feel substantive. Some people go a little farther and are inspired to make what they do seem more complex than it really is or than it may need to be if for no other reason than to feed ego and a sense of self-importance.
Contagion: “Monkey See; Monkey Do” – Having worked for and with large organizations for many years, I have observed a tendency for complexity to breed and replicate itself – as if almost exponentially. Manager A observes Manager B doing something that appears more complex and feels a need to follow suit. It can be easy to feel inadequate in a meeting if what you and your department are doing doesn’t sound as involved as what someone else and his/her department are doing.
Technology – friend or foe? – Technology has of course revolutionized the way we work and communicate, what we are able to accomplish, how we entertain ourselves, and how we learn. As regards the latter, much has been written about the pros and cons of technology when it comes to how people learn and how they develop. Some argue it works its magic at the expense of developing certain fundamental competencies (e.g. mathematics, spelling/grammar, and research); others maintain it has taken learning to an entirely new level “times” 10. For purposes of this discussion, I would simply propose that technology has enabled the luxury of being able to be complex. The right questions to ask might include: does it always help us manage that which it enables and what is the real net gain all things considered? To be sure, we love our technology for its convenience factor almost no matter what.
A matter of choice? – It has become most fashionable to offer consumers and employees more and more choice. You can customize “your this” and you can customize “your that.” Menus and ala carte options abound. It usually sounds good and it often even is actually good, but there is generally a cost - somewhere. On the provider side and despite the magic of technology, choice translates into exceptions which translate into complexity. I won’t tackle in this forum the philosophical debate regarding how much value “choice” ultimately and collectively adds in the grand scheme of the Universe.
Flexibility and complexity: seductive illusion of a happy couple or arch enemies? - Perhaps a second cousin to choice, flexibility is also in high demand. I've learned the hard way that there can indeed be an inverse relationship between complexity and flexibility. I was sponsoring a team charged with developing and implementing a 360-degree feedback system - an often emotional topic riddled with multiple agendas and opinions. Attempting to identify and march toward a North Star proved a particularly challenging exercise. While people demanded flexibility, they also rushed to complexity at every turn and in every breath.
Collectively, I think we all fell into the trap of believing that the more complex we allowed the system to become, the more flexibility it might afford. While a top-notch world-class systems design expert may be able to pull that off in some carefully engineered circumstances, complexity was our own worst enemy. It is what ultimately prevented some of the very flexibility we so adamantly craved. It can be a little counterintuitive at first and even second blush - more "features" can "sound" like more flexibility, but beware outcomes and reality in practice. If it sounds too good to be true, it may be too good to be true. Despite whichever position you may choose to accept intellectually, sometimes it is wise to be an anti-complexity zealot of the highest order even if that means not everyone feels entirely accommodated.
Skepticism - For good reason, we are more and more skeptical. We want to be cautious and savvy in a world where scams seem to pepper the news almost every day. We demand more information and more protection - both of which result in greater complexity.
So why have competencies not kept pace with complexity? (It’s easy to say: “There’s just too much to know!” – so I will – but in the interest of digging a little deeper…)
The apprentice model – Competencies can be developed in a variety of ways. Learning on the job and from others is deemed by many to be one of the most effective and efficient ways to learn. However, the growing complexity trend by definition implies something “new” – something more complex than it was yesterday - and thus not readily developed under the apprentice model because no one else has yet faced it. It implies that people are blazing their own new trails in a quest to “keep up.” (My research article “Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence in the Workplace” may be of interest to those who want to further explore how learning how to do new things differs from accumulating and leveraging experiences.)
Span of control – Typically a headcount metric associated with how many people report to a particular individual, if we think about what those people do and how increasingly complex what they do becomes; it takes on something of an exponential flavor from a supervisor’s perspective. A manager may end up supervising the same number of people but many more activities/competencies collectively, and thus may not be able to devote as much time and attention to each individual competency in development, oversight, and assessment.
Rate of change and the stealth nature of complexity – Competency models are sometimes developed as one-off, one-time projects that are dusted off only occasionally as time and resources permit. Complexity has a way of weaving its way into day-to-day work and jobs at a steady drip without much, if any, notice. It is often more a bottom-up vs. top-down dynamic and doesn’t always show up on the radar screen until something blows up.
Organic and viral complexity - I’ve observed this phenomenon more than once and I share a specific IT project example: An analyst responsible for interfacing with a programmer says: “We need the system to be able to do X.” and the programmer says: “No prob. - I can make it do Y and Z too!?” and the analyst says: “Wow – really? Sounds good to me!” Problem is, Y and Z may not have been requirements or even on the “wish list” - but voila! – complexity ignites out of thin air! - perhaps cleverly disguised as “sexy features.” The programmer who inspired the complexity and the analyst who exuberantly agreed to it may not be aware of other implications Y and Z may yield down the road. They may not be the ones who ultimately have to live with the incremental complexity Y and Z may deliver, but maybe someone else(s) will?
Will Y and Z have resulted in a net gain or a net loss when all is said and done? Who knows – and therein lies the problem. Competencies may or may not exist within the organization to deal with all of the issues Y and Z may ultimately present. Y may even spawn Y.1, Y.2, Y.3… and thus it goes as if a virus.
The allure of simplification – do we really know how to do it or is it another illusion? - I can’t resist the temptation of sharing just one more perhaps unremarkable but illustrative consumer anecdote. I called my telephone company to report a problem I was experiencing accessing my voicemail. After a few transfers, I landed with a representative who said, “I’m sorry to hear of your inconvenience. Before we investigate that issue, I notice you receive two telephone bills for your four services – would you like me to consolidate them all into one to make your life easier and I think it will even save you some money?” I indicated I didn’t have time to address or consider that at the moment as my much more pressing matter was accessing my voicemail. The agent told me, “It will just take a second.”
My antennae kept twitching. Ever wary of changes the telephone company threatens to make to something that is already working, I still resisted despite my omnipresent interest in saving a buck where I can or whittling away at complexity in my own life. It was painful - tormenting even – I was trying to be so strong. But she was on a real mission – eventually convincing me that this particular "bundling" opportunity would be so incredibly simple and that I wouldn’t have to lift a finger - really. I caved - I fell for it – again. It took more than a second and…
They didn’t achieve consolidation but they did do something. Sure enough, months and multiple mind-numbing conversations later I’m still trying to figure out what that something was, sort it out, restart autopay, contest late fees because I didn’t realize autopay had stopped (despite the agent’s numerous assurances and promises to the contrary), analyze why my total charges have increased versus decreased, reconfigure my online account access, etc. “Not lifting a finger” sure has become complicated. I keep forgetting we have instincts for a reason.
What went wrong? Hard to tell. Was it a false choice to begin with? Was their technology not up to the task? Did the agent do everything right in initiating the process and someone else down the line messed up? Did it actually happen but then got kicked out as an exception for some reason? What was really in it for the phone company? Were they perchance interested in tackling complexity and simplifying life on their end too? Once again, it doesn’t appear the transaction was supported by the right competencies required in order for it to be successful.
“Rendering the complex simple”: popular consulting lingo or the real deal? - It is indeed a bold claim to make and requires something even beyond common sense and determination to really pull it off. While some may be leery it sounds a little consultant-ease-like, I do have great respect for people who do it well and deliver on the promise. When I reflect upon my own experiences and the times I think I’ve been particularly effective in achieving it, I’ve tapped into a number of competency families including analysis, prioritization, problem-solving, integration, leadership, communication, diplomacy, and organization by way of themes. It also requires some traits which might include things like energy, stamina, confidence, and judgment. Despite the endgame goal, the “getting there” part isn’t simple.
It’s true what they say: keeping things simple is more difficult than making them complex – and is even more difficult once they’ve already become complex. Then it’s particularly challenging. I think you really need to want it so much you can taste it. And without strong leadership support, I suspect it could be like opening up a massive electrical junction box and unwiring everything inside using only your teeth with your hands tied behind your back while people are calling you names and sticking you with pushpins.
“Rendering the complex simple” is what senior executives love to hear – it makes everyone around the table feel good and nod in violent agreement. But it’s also what people in the trenches often fear most – it’s threatening. It can imply that people are going to be told that what they’ve done or what they’re doing isn’t valuable.
Leadership can easily develop a false sense of satisfaction and security when it comes to simplification. Keen insight is one thing, but “devils are in the details” when it comes to execution and implementation – particularly when technology is involved. Said another way, talking about rendering the complex simple is not enough – some grit and real fortitude are required to ensure it actually occurs. Some of that grit typically involves the need to realign work and thus competencies. It’s not uncommon for ideas and initiatives to run out of steam before that critical effort is thoroughly and effectively completed. Followup to ensure simplification really "sticks" is time well spent.
Consensus-building – a dying art form? – If I had to choose a single competency that has grown more in importance, has become more critical in the quest to deal with complexity, yet lags behind many other skills; it would be the ability to develop and achieve consensus. Less consensus might mean ultimately accommodating more versus fewer points of view. Accommodating more points of view probably somehow translates into more complexity.
Complexity itself has made it more challenging because there are generally more and more interested parties with more and more diverse perspectives and concerns. The trend toward more virtual work and interaction is also a complicating variable. Technology has provided us access to more information and more tools to use in developing and delivering compelling cases; however, we have fewer opportunities to meet face-to-face, to walk down the hall with each other, and yes to grab a cup of coffee or a drink after work to develop authentic meetings-of-our-minds.
An interesting read, “The Checklist Manifesto – How to Get Things Right” by Dr. Atul Gawande, M.D. (2009), tackles related topics in an interesting “back-to-the-basics” kind of way. He makes a compelling case that conceptually we might enjoy more success (i.e. less failure) given and perhaps despite our hunger for complexity by revisiting the “lowly” checklist. While the terms used in his exploration may sound a little harsh: “ignorance” (what we don’t know how to do) and “ineptitude” (not properly executing or applying what we do know how to do), the differentiation he makes between the two in the context of team efforts in particular and in a complex world is helpful. I also liked it because it’s relevant and meets my other “Blue Plate Special – aka A Square for 2 Bits” criteria: it’s balanced, practical, and reasonable.
There was a recent news story about lots (perhaps up to a billion per one report) of new $100-dollar bills that were printed incorrectly by the US Treasury and needed to be recalled – because the printing process had become so complex that no one knew how to properly execute, supervise, or quality control it. Making money has indeed and quite literally become more complex.
Reference:
Gawande, A. (M.D.). (2009). The Checklist Manifesto – How to Get Things Right. New York, New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
|