The word "complex" often finds its way into our daily conversations.

"So-and-so is a complex character"
"This is a complex issue"
"Gosh, how do we get around this complexity?"

And then, the same happens with the word "complicated". In fact, we probably use the terms interchangeably. Is there a difference? Well, the difference in the words lies in the difference between solving these two common scenarios:

1 – merging two business units, and
2 – figuring out how these business units will live and work together optimally.

You'll here me say often that the way we use language is important. I feel, now more than ever, that the distinction between "complicated" and "complex" is an important one. Such a belief has come out of delving into the emerging disciplines of complexity, complex adaptive systems, complexity theory, systems theory and especially by the work done by Dave Snowden at Cognitive Edge.

In my mind, we need to be more intentional around the distinction between the words, and especially more so when using the words in the realm of organisations, problems, issues and systems. While on one hand, the word "complex" refers to a higher order of complication, they refer to uniquely different dynamics when understanding the nature of systems and their problems.

Dave has posted a clarifying list of how the word "complex" is applied in various arenas (please forgive his spelling – I put it down to his mind operating on intellectual planes us mere mortals do not yet understand and are as yet to discover). The team at the Centre for Complexity Studies have also captured the issue well:

The recipe based (or best practice) approach to strategy, market research and organisational development has failed dismally. Practitioners and consultants that simply sell and implement the latest 'recipe of the month' have shown their intellectual bankruptcy. In the complex business environment of today, no pre-determinable link exists between cause and effect. Causal links are highly contextual, they may well be discoverable in retrospect, but that does not mean that they are then predictable, as these relationships and the resulting patterns almost never repeat. This immediately rubbishes the idea that a change intervention that worked wonders in a one company will have the exact same impact on another. Furthermore, so-called best practices and management fads that pervade business literature are seldom successful when implemented outside of the context (whether geographical or organisational) where they originated.

And so we need to be aware that the problems we face in our lives, organisations, family, social settings have a unique nature to them that helps inform what the solution could be. If we know the nature of the problem, we are better positioned to "intervene" (hate the word BTW, perhaps you can suggest a better one?).

So, know this about me when I use the words "complicated" and "complex" when speaking of a problem:

A complicated problem is one where the links between the cause of the problem and its result are knowable and we can find a solution. A complex problem on the other hand, is where this knowledge is not immediately available and needs to be explored using narrative (yep, you where wondering when this would come in!) to expose the complexities of the issue. It is in this process that solutions emerge.

Back to the scenarios. The first scenarios is solvable by calling in the the Merger & Acquisition experts to make it happen – a complicated problem not easily solved by the general workforce. The second scenario has another layer to it … it is a complex issue around culture and people and is not resolved by having the CEO stand up, point a finger (in a parental manner) and instruct the workforce to "get-along". This will only be solved by letting the solutions emerge from the narratives of the individual cultures and that of the combined culture.

Image courtesy of Lenford