In my other blog today I made reference to a great book by Adam Kahane called Solving Tough Problems. Kahane is a leader in the area of scenario planning, a method that Jeff and I have used with clients when doing strategy work. Since I made reference to the book, I picked it up and was rereading it, and I came across an important passage about complexity. Kahane explains three kinds of complexity: dynamic, generative, and social.
Dynamic complexity has to do with how clear and quick the cause/effect relationships are. Is the link clear and is the result quick? Or is it more of a long-term, fuzzy, systemic thing?
Generative complexity is about the predictability of the future. In some systems the past is a good predictor of the future (although for most organizations, I don’t think this is true).
Social complexity has to do with the level of shared assumptions and perspectives of the people in the system.
These three types of complexity can be applied to understanding the title of his book: “tough problems.” Tough problems are high on those three scales, and they can’t be solved using methods that we use to solve easy problems.
Simple problems, with low complexity, can be solved perfectly well—efficiently and effectively—using processes that are piecemeal, backward looking, and authoritarian. By contrast, highly complex problems can only be solved using processes that are systemic, emergent, and participatory.
So, here’s the rub: your association’s strategy is a complex problem. The way you do strategic planning is probably piecemeal, backward looking, and authoritarian. Using the same process, but trying harder this time, isn’t going to cut it. And "systemic, emergent, and participatory" are not just buzz words. It really is a new way of doing the work of strategy.
Comments