Complexity is everywhere. We create it ourselves, we delight in it, we even question it - which makes it yet more complex. In fact we worry when it’s not there. We question ourselves when things appear too simple?. Is there a perfect state of ‘not too complex – not too simple?’. In the majority of cases we strive for a balance; one that is at the crossroads of greater clarity, understanding and focus and this ensures that groups of people agree on a discussion or agree to understand the differences when they don’t. I believe this is why we aim to simplify everything. Except when we don’t. That is what this discussion is about.
The ‘organization’ really interests me. They are one of the examples of where the complexity-simplicity debate rages wildly. It’s a classic example of the two ends of the spectrum and ensures we keep honing the sharp horns of our dilemma.
Organizations do run on meetings and for good reason. This is by and large how human beings like to work and interact – people are social animals. These meetings do not need to be face-to-face, but this is typically the case, because people like it that way. Such meetings provide a naturally systemic way to shape, frame, focus, debate and agree - or they don’t.
Sure, if they are run appropriately, fostering feelings of purposefulness and competence, and motivating individuals to drive towards the organisation’s vision then they are a powerful way forward. But what happens if they aren’t? The outcome of a collaborative approach is that members feel a valued part of the organisation, connected internally with their own needs and externally to the needs of others. When it isn’t we find barriers, disconnection, political agendas forming and inefficiencies all over the place.
To be fair organizations do try to overcome the surface barriers and try to enhance interpersonal and communication skills. Through well intentioned yet superficial training and seminars (courses) people get given the techniques and rituals of meetings, but they do not necessarily become better at really understanding, or opening up to one another. Think about it. We need to unlock the mind, make people receptive to new ideas, to think, to consider, to reflect and to absorb the ideas and concepts of others. I am not advocating more meetings, just better structure and deeper collaboration in situations where shared objectives matter. Co-creation if you will.
In my bitter experience a meetings attendees can talk for hours without “meeting” each other at all. In many instances the last thing people want is to actually ‘meet’ and be forced to expose their real feelings, their uncertainty, their anxieties, lack of knowledge or understanding. In fact many meetings are held to protect people’s positions and interests rather than to increase understanding. This lack of thinking, comprehension and disclosure arises because of the nature and quality of the interactions between individuals and groups.
In my opinion the issue is compounded by the differences we each have around whether the debate is too simple or too complex. Stay tuned.
First published on John's Contextual Frameworking blog, 5 March 2006. See the copy in the Wayback Machine. Kept as John wrote it.
More from What we were saying back then