STICKING IT OUT – Continuing to engage when things get complicated

THE MANY PROBLEMS WITH COMPLEXITY

I confess here that I have told a story many times that is not quite true. When the concept of ambiguity and uncertainty arise in my consulting, training or facilitating discussions, I will relay that I use to have a boss that had a coffee cup reading, “I can explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.” The actual story is that I had a boss who said mug in a souvenir store. She relayed that the quote made her think of me. Maybe that version is a better story, but the quote gives pause for thought.

We tend to equate comprehension with intelligence, so the fault in a conceptual disconnect sits with the recipient who “just isn’t getting it!” Einstein flips responsibility in claiming, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” (i.e. it’s my fault that you don’t understand me.)

What happens when this is no clarity to be had? Too often the response—which I am sure is on a coffee cup somewhere—is “It’s complicated,” which allows both parties to simply accept that any discussion is futile because it is too complicated for: (1) me to explain simply OR (2) for you to understand easily OR, in all probability, both.

In the face of situations that involve ambiguity and uncertainty (and let’s throw in volatility and complexity for good measure), I suggest that we should all make an extra effort, with special emphasis on “we” because such discussions require equal levels of engagement. This means, we forego our skills to persuade others (a la Robert Cialdini) or simply wear them down (e.g. Broken Record technique).

Better understanding each other (and ourselves) is a prerequisite for managing situations that bring different interpretations (i.e. just about everything). Having someone listen to you, with the deep intent to understand, often reveals unworkable situations that our own minds have created for us. Such a conversation, be it with a therapist, a coach or a friend, will expose the disconnect between the incompatible states of, for example, (1) feeling stress when running late and (2) being uncomfortable killing time upon an early arrival. Sound logic would dictate, in the absence of being able to perfectly predict an arrival time, one has to be comfortable being early or late (or both), but stressing around both is avoidable.

To allow for such a conversation to emerge without the careful guidance of a trained professional or with the aid of well-established mutual trust, we have to readily accept the inconsistencies in our thinking (this is ungenerously termed, “being a hypocrite,”) and be comfortable when these are exposed. Ditto for the exposure of a rash connection we have made (this is somewhat generously termed, “unconscious bias”).

There is a very specific feeling that can easily arise when we are asked for our “intellectual receipts” during a discussion where views differ. One of my experiences jump to mind.

VDA Warning! (VERY DATED ANECDOTE)

I had rented a video tape from a video store that I wanted to play in my video cassette recorder. (No streaming in the early 2000s!) The tape created a low hum that made it hard to pay attention to the movie, especially at a volume that allowed the kids to remain asleep. My wife and I likely got an early start to movie night—and the weather cooperated—because I found myself back in the video store trying to exchange the tape for one that worked properly.

The attendant made a very reasonable request to play the tape in the store machine. The very reasonable question was, “Now, whereabouts did you have the problem with the tape?” When no problem presented itself, we appeared to have established that the problem was not with the tape, but likely with my machine. (If you are old enough to have first-hand experience with this technology, especially if you had kids of an age who would watch video tapes again and again—Can you say, “heavy rotation” with VCRs?—you may be able to empathize. If you do not have this experience, this probably sounds like a recollection of cleaning teeth with baking soda or using sun dials.)

From a “customer service” point of view, I was affronted at the lack of trust bestowed upon me that my reasonable request for a new tape was met with the cold-war-era “trust and verify,” which should be termed simply “verify” because there is no trust.

Aside: My ideal of “customer service” (especially when I am the customer), is to refrain from engaging in ideological warfare with customers, and accommodate enough to neither put yourself out-of-business, nor give them reasons to take their business elsewhere.

Further aside: Even though the world quickly moved to media-less home movie viewing, I took my business elsewhere and this incident is one that I used to rationalize the longer walk, especially in bad weather.

From a “let’s understand each other” perspective, this was highly effective. Our video-store employee approached the situation this way:

You made a claim that there is a defect in a product that I have rented to you. It is reasonable for me to verify to see what kind of defect we are facing. This will help me to guide us to a resolution that takes in all aspects of the problem. Maybe the tape is defective. Maybe your machine is. Maybe your machine needs a cleaning. Let’s take a look so as to better understand.

If we are working together to further our understanding in the face of complexity (which we see in a wide range of facets), we must be comfortable articulating our assumptions and theories, as well as acknowledging their shortcomings. One requires a good deal of both confidence and humility to engage in this type of “rationale exchange.”

This does not have to feel like the realm of philosophy where lengthy sentences try to cover all possible instances and permutations. The intent here is to, when appropriate, find the practical balance between an oversimplified (but very actionable) interpretation and one that is complexified to the point of being impractical.

THE URGENCY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS

Many years ago, I heard a talk on an analytical framework that moved from degree of complexity to degree of disagreement. An underlying assumption was that “low complexity” (i.e. very straightforward) should guarantee strong agreement. This assumption may seem quaint, but as the example used to illustrate “reasonably complex, yet widely accepted he speaker used “vaccinations to mitigate contagious disease.”  Perhaps we can agree that the transmission of infectious diseases has many moving parts, but post-COVID the “widely accepted” part of this did not age well.

Leaving that specific context, and returning to the conceptual theory, the means to measure progress in instances of HIGH complexity/HIGH agreement was simply to focus on “inputs,” meaning that you look at the simplest of actions and follow the logic that “more is better.”

Think of the application if we have a wide consensus of what a good action is, even in face of complexity like overall health (light exercise is good, so 10K steps!) or managing CO2 in the atmosphere (trees are good, so let’s plant 2 Billion!).

In the near two decades since this discussion happened, perhaps the biggest change has been the reduction in being able to say, “widely accepted,” and the sharp uptick in having to say “strongly accepted by some.” Recall the tagline of Alexander Keith’s brewery: “Those who like it, like it a lot.” The corollary to this seems to be, “And those who don’t like it, virulently reject it.”

We seeing this in many aspects of society. Pick your global ideological fault line or simply walk a neighbourhood to see the “No Mow May” sign by an unkempt (or is it “pollinator friendly”?) lawn. Now stick around to see the reactions of others who observe and offer unsolicited comment.

In the effort to better understand each other, we have to be open to ideas that run completely counter to what we believe. I dearly hope that this next example ages better than the vaccine one did, but perhaps we can count on wide consensus that gravity continues to do a good job of holding things on the ground. With that said, imagine a conversation with someone who has a different perspective.

Gravity Skeptic:            Gravity may not hold up for much longer. We need to be ready for this change.

Complexity Partner: Okay. Can you tell me what lead you to believe that gravity is ending?

GS:        Everything runs its course. We have had a very long run with gravity and we need to be prepared for when it starts to weaken.

CP (Acknowledging the articulated theory that “everything runs its course,” a theory for which there are many examples):      Okay, I can see where you are coming from. Have you seen any specific instances of gravity failures?

GS:        Not yet, but isn’t it better to get out ahead of this rather than wait until it starts?

Although the above example may seem extreme, I find it common to confront or be confronted with thinking that, to me, is so counter to how I see the world that it is very hard quiet responses like, “Are you kidding me?” or “Who raised you?” or some other phrasing that would never pass the lips of our above Complexity Partner.

THE CONTEXT FOR COLLABORATING

The application that I envision for this thinking is distinct groups of people that work together (as opposed to society at large). I am quick to use the word “community” to describe a group for which collaboration is of benefit. This could inform creating a strong workplace culture. This could be useful in helping a community organization to figure out or revisit their raison d’etre and how to achieve success.

My hope, as I assume is the hope of many writers, is that this will provide insights and awareness that allow people who should be working together to better do so by engaging in the thinking that informs their actions. Hope you enjoy!