complexity | The Fourth Revolution Blog

How Leadership is the Ability to Create a Local Alignment in Complexity

There are numerous definitions of leadership. Seen from the complexity view, a leader is someone that is able to create locally, more or less broadly, some alignment inside a complex organization.

In a complex system it is certainly difficult to create any sort of alignment. Contributors all have their own interest and are very inter-dependently linked and related to other contributors. However when one is able to create a dynamic movement and bring along the necessary contributors, astonishing things can happen. That’s probably what leadership in a complex world means.

This may be a new definition of leadership. At the same time I believe it is a useful approach to this issue. Seen from that perspective, a number of leadership practices become clearer and more founded in actual science.

As a leader, impress movement in complexity. It is will be even more powerful than what you believe.

How Complexity and Chaos Extend the Concepts of Quantum Mechanics

Complex and chaotic systems can be described by mathematical equations that are in fact an extension and generalization of Quantum Mechanics equation. That’s what Ilya Prigogine (Nobel-price winner in 1977) explains in his excellent book “the laws of chaos” (apparently not available in English unfortunately).

We have argued numerous times that one of the precursors of the Fourth Revolution is the emergence of Quantum Mechanics, or at least the limits found to Newtonian Mechanics which founded the Industrial Age. The science of complexity and chaos is even newer. By finding that an extension and generalization of the maths of Quantum Mechanics is needed to describe it, we are indeed confirmed in our observation that it constitutes a further step towards the underlying paradigm of the Collaborative Age.

Complexity is still vastly misunderstood because it creates a rupture with the comfortable deterministic view of the world which we entertained during centuries. Its probabilistic nature, the fact that mere observation changes the observed world (like in Quantum Mechanics) makes it even more fascinating.

Welcome to the world beyond Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle.

How Excessive Complication Might be the Cause of Collapse of Empires and Companies

An analysis on the causes of collapse of empires quoted in the post ‘Why Complex Business Models Collapse’ is an interesting start for some considerations of complexity.

The premise is that the intrinsic complexity and sophistication of the empire or organization increases over time up to a point where additional complexity is detrimental, in particular in the face of sudden external change. The institution is then unable to cope with the change. “When societies fail to respond to reduced circumstances through orderly downsizing, it isn’t because they don’t want to, it’s because they can’t.”

I find this model intriguing because from my perspective, complexity rather increases reactivity and adaptation. I think the author mistaken complication and complexity. Adding layers of bureaucracy in a futile attempt at control is complication. Properly maintained complexity is rather an antidote at inflexibility. We should certainly fight organizational complication (and its representative, bureaucracy) but rather welcome complexity.

How Operating in a Foreign Language Makes Us More Rational

Going deeper in our exploration of the relativity of our mental structures, this excellent article ‘How Morality Changes in a Foreign Language‘ is also very insightful.

Research shows that we definitely have different ethical standpoints depending on the language we use. In particular it would seem we are more deliberate (rational) when using a foreign language. There are several explanations for this – the effort needed to operate in the foreign language, or the fact that our original language is related to so many emotions, which the foreign language is less.

Whatever the deep explanation, this creates significant issues when working internationally, for example when negotiating an agreement with someone in his native language. The fact that the foreign speaker will be more deliberate and less emotional is rarely considered.

How To Thrive In a World Where Power is Concentrated

While concentration of power is quite unavoidable in today’s complex world, we still can thrive in this world. Of course, those institutions that have the power and the wealth might not have the best intentions and we should not be too naive. But thanks to the newly available technology of the Fourth Revolution, there is an intrinsic counter-power to this situation.

anybody can publish to the world, for free (or close to it),
we can coordinate, re-group and communicate globally, for free (or close to it),
it is possible to start a business for a lot less money than before, and have instantaneously a global footprint,
we can travel anywhere for much cheaper than anytime before (compared to the average earning power).

The sheer size of those actors has also an interesting drawback, that can be increasingly observed: they don’t know what to do with their money. Share buy-backs are more and more widespread, a sure sign that those organizations don’t know what to invest their resources in. This is great news because it has probably never been easier to get money to fund new initiatives and ventures. And these resources will necessarily flow into much smaller setups, that are nimble enough to take advantage of the opportunities of today’s world.

One can also argue that these huge organizations are also struggling with controlling themselves and what they are actually doing.

Hence although this might be a problem on some aspects, I do not find the concentration of power we can observe to be a major impediment of taking initiative and developing new stuff, on the contrary.

Why Power and Ownership Get Concentrated in Today’s World

Power and ownership get concentrated into a few hands. This is clearly shown in the TED talk of James B. Glattfelder: ‘Who controls the world?‘. In this 2012 talk, he shows by analyzing the ownership links between various global companies how a limited number of financial institutions control most of the economy.

This is not surprising and is the natural consequence of the evolution of the complex, increasingly inter-related economic system. We should not be surprised and still it is an issue from the governance and political perspective.

“It turns out that the 737 top shareholders have the potential to collectively control 80 percent of the Trans National Companies (TNCs)’ value. Now remember, we started out with 600,000 nodes, so these 737 top players make up a bit more than 0.1 percent. They’re mostly financial institutions in the U.S. and the U.K. And it gets even more extreme. There are 146 top players in the core, and they together have the potential to collectively control 40 percent of the TNCs’ value.”

This kind of studies produced the concept of “systemic” or “too big to fail” institutions. We may take regulatory measures to limit the phenomenon, but it is intrinsic to the increased complexity of the world. So my view is that we should rather learn how to deal with it.

Why There is No Apparent Logic to be Expected From Human Behavior

While each of us (or most of us) do behave according to a certain inner logic, to a casual external observer it will often seem as if our actions defy any kind of logic.

An irrational behavior with a possible internal rationality

In the excellent book ‘Spy the Lie: How to spot deception the CIA way‘, the authors explain that: “There’s only a casual relationship between human behavior and logic. And we’ve found that to absolutely be the case.

Human behavior doesn’t always conform to what seems sensible to us, and that what seems sensible to us isn’t necessarily valuable in evaluating how a person thinks or acts.”

This makes any kind of judgment on people’s behavior difficult. As explained in the book in certain situations, suspension of judgment is required. That is the case for example during coaching, or during interviews to determine trustworthiness.

How Establishing Rituals Is an Essential Tool for Change

Establishing rituals is important for our effectiveness but it is also a way to establish change. If we want to change, we need to setup rituals. This will allow us to consistently implement the new approach.

Rituals are not just routines or habits. They have a link to a higher purpose, which can be personal success or the success of the organization.

Setting up rituals as a way to change is true personally and also in organizations. The most effective change programs involve creating a set of new rituals (meetings, type of encounters, new process steps and meeting points etc) up to the point where it becomes a habit with purpose.

Purpose is very important here because it will justify the effort and always re-frame the actions taken with a higher level justification.

When do you establish the rituals that will allow you to change?

Why Big Data Prediction Capability will Remain Limited

Big Data is trendy, and the graal of Big Data is to be able to predict behaviors and ultimately influence them. But the world is complex and whatever power we put behind Big Data, there will be a close limit to what can be inferred.

The most well known complex system is weather. In spite of the tremendous increase in computing power in the last decades, our prediction capacity remains limited to a week or so. That is because it is inherent to a complex system that prediction capability is limited by the system, our understanding of the initial conditions, and not by its equations or by the computing power we put behind.

So the graal of Big Data is in fact elusive – it will never possible to predict behaviors beyond a certain limit which is still to be determined practically.

Big Data will never allow the long term prediction we hope for. It will be a disappointment for many. It is also another sign of our freedom.

How to Scale Organizations Dealing with Complexity

Following up on General McChrystal‘s book ‘Team of Teams‘, the unique feature of the book is how it describes practically how to scale organizations that deal with complexity.

In large complex projects I am used to see co-located teams of 150 to 200 people maximum that can manage huge projects. General McChrystal describes how he scaled a similar organization to deal with thousands of contributors and dozens of departments/agencies in a context of high complexity – war in Iraq.

The recipe is quite simple however it requires a lot of leadership consistency. The co-located team is limited to 100-150 people which is the maximum practically feasible. It mixes all departments and there is no secrecy within the team – all information is shared. Graphical displays show the situation as it unfolds. Exchanges between departments are organized to help people understand others’ approaches and points of view.

The result of setting up and running such an organization can be astounding in reactivity and nimbleness. There is not reason why it could not be adapted to civilian organizations. My guess is that the organization of the future will probably be some evolution of this model.

How We Constantly Underestimate the Role of Luck in Our Lives

This article from The Atlantic ‘Why Luck Matters More Than You Might Think‘ is a useful reminder that we constantly underestimate the role of luck in our lives.

Luck to have been born in a developed country from a well-to-do family, luck of being healthy, luck of having met the right people at the right time… we constantly underestimate the role of luck and overestimate the role of our abilities and hard work. The quote mentioned in the article “Luck is not something you can mention in the presence of self-made men.” sums it up.

Another interesting aspect developed in the article is that seeing ourselves as self-made leads us to be less generous and public-spirited. People that acknowledge the role of luck tend to offer lucky breaks to others!

Never over-rationalize what happens to you, and acknowledge the role of luck. It is a useful first step in reconciling with the complex world that surrounds us.

Why You Should Never Try to Anticipate the Reaction of Other People

Lieutenant General Goodpaster protested to Secretary McNamara in the fall of 1964 about Vietnam, “Sir, you are trying to program the enemy and that is one thing we must never try to do. We can’t do his thinking for him.” He was not listened to as the US believed that increasing military pressure on North Vietnam would lead it to fold. Exactly the opposite happened.

It is one important aspect of any conflict or any relationship, and a key driver of complexity, that it is always contemptuous to think that one can anticipate the other’s reactions. Still, this mistake is done too often in when developing strategies in all ranges of life. It is also why developing strategies too far into the future can’t work.

The right approach is to experiment and see what is the reaction of the other so as to be able to determine roughly what will be its reaction to certain stimuli. And people are notoriously tough to predict as to their reaction, which often seem deeply irrational to our own rationality.

Quote from H. R. McMaster’s book ‘Dereliction of Duty‘ about how the US were progressively brought in the Vietnam war.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30