What If Complexity Isn't the Problem?

Organisations spend a lot of time trying to make things simpler. We build frameworks, introduce processes, create dashboards and break problems into manageable parts. There is good reason for this. Unnecessary complication gets in the way. Confusing processes, duplicated activity and unclear decisions rarely become better simply because we describe them as complex.

But there is an important difference between something being complicated and something being complex.

A complicated problem may contain lots of parts, but those parts can often be understood, organised and improved. Complexity is different. In a complex situation, people, decisions, structures, relationships and incentives interact with one another, sometimes in ways that are difficult to predict. Change something in one place and the consequences may emerge somewhere else entirely (Fielden, 2021). What looks like a straightforward problem from one perspective can look very different when viewed from another.

This was something I became interested in while studying and writing about high-performing organisations. Complexity thinking challenges the assumption that everything can be understood through simple cause and effect. Keith Richardson (2008) describes managing complex organisations as both a science and an art, which really resonated with me. Analysis still matters, but so does judgement. Not everything can be known in advance, which means making sense of complexity often involves acting with incomplete information while remaining open to what might change.

That creates an interesting tension. Complexity can be demanding, and individuals can quickly feel “over their heads” when trying to make sense of complex situations (Törnblom, 2018). We need models because complexity without any structure can quickly become overwhelming. Frameworks help us organise information, test assumptions and make decisions. But a model is still a representation of reality rather than reality itself.

Different approaches to complexity reflect this in different ways. Some seek to reduce uncertainty through structured analysis, others encourage us to explore systems from alternative perspectives, while another view is that several explanations may need to be held at the same time because no single model captures the whole picture (Richardson, 2008).

For me, that raises a deceptively simple question: when we simplify something, do we know what we are simplifying away?

There is something naturally attractive about certainty. A clear answer is easier to communicate than an ambiguous one. A measurable target is easier to monitor than a complicated network of relationships. A linear plan feels more manageable than acknowledging that an intervention could produce consequences we did not anticipate. Yet organisations are human systems, and human systems do not always behave neatly.

I also recognise the opposite risk in myself. I tend towards analysis. Years ago, some Insights Discovery work described my preference as an "Observing Coordinator", which resonated with the way I often approach problems. I like to understand what is happening, explore the connections and make sense of the wider picture. That can be useful, but every strength has a point at which it can become less helpful. There are times when the desire to understand something more fully can make it harder to decide when enough understanding is enough.

That feels particularly relevant when thinking about complexity. Recognising that a situation is complex should not become an excuse for endless analysis or delayed action. There is a risk that, in trying to understand every connection or anticipate every consequence, we become less willing to make a decision at all. We may never have the complete picture. The challenge is perhaps to understand enough to act thoughtfully while remaining willing to adapt when the system responds in ways we did not expect.

This is where resilience becomes relevant. If we cannot predict every consequence in a complex system, then perhaps resilience is less about having the right answer in advance and more about developing the capacity to respond as things unfold. The Cranfield School of Management’s (2017) 4Sight model looks at foresight, insight, oversight and hindsight as different ways of anticipating change, interpreting what is happening, noticing consequences and learning afterwards. In that sense, resilience is not simply about recovering when something goes wrong. It is also about building the capability to adapt.

Arie de Geus (1997) approaches a related idea from another direction in The Living Company. His work on long-lived organisations emphasised learning, adaptability and a tolerance for experimentation. What interests me here is the leadership implication. Strength may not lie in finding the right answer and then holding onto it, but in creating an organisation capable of noticing when circumstances have changed and responding accordingly. That requires a mindset that sees complexity not simply as a threat to efficiency, but as something that can prompt learning, renewal and adaptation.

Perhaps that is where the distinction between complicated and complex becomes useful. We should absolutely remove unnecessary complication. A process that can be made clearer probably should be. A decision that can be simplified without losing anything important probably benefits from it.

But complexity may require a different response.

The challenge is not to celebrate confusion or analyse forever. It may be to simplify what is genuinely complicated, while respecting what is genuinely complex. To create enough clarity to act, but retain enough curiosity to notice what happens next.

That shifts the ambition away from trying to control everything and towards something more adaptive: understanding enough to take the next step, learning from what follows, and being willing to change course.

Which leaves me with a question I keep coming back to:

When we make a complex problem simpler, how do we know what we have left out?

Further reading

• Cranfield School of Management. (2017). Organizational Resilience: A Summary of Academic Evidence, Business Insights and New Thinking.

• de Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent Business Environment.

• Fielden, S. L. (2021). Creating a Healthy Organisation: Perceptions, Learning, Challenges and Benefits.

• Richardson, K. (2008). Managing Complex Organizations: Complexity Thinking and the Science and Art of Management.

• Törnblom, O. (2018). Managing Complexity in Organizations: Analyzing and Discussing a Managerial Perspective on the Nature of Organizational Leadership.