This has significant parallels with necessary approaches for dealing with complex adaptive (dare I say "wicked") challenges, which have come to dominate ever more of the landscape today.
Most challenges under complex contexts do not have the luxury of a silver bullet solution. Think Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety from cybernetics. As Bill McKibben wrote in a 2006 op ed on climate change intervention, "There are no silver bullets, only silver buckshot.”
While classical double-diamond design thinking will converge at single problem and single solution focal points, what many environments actually need is a managed portfolio of experiments, or bets. Each bet offers the opportunity for safe-to-fail learning or building on discovered novelty.
The complexity of managing 100-200 experiments in each context also cannot be centralized with top-down order and a master plan. Rather, they must encourage systems of self-organization and self-governance that are better embedded into the network. So it's a very different mindset. It's also one that Net Zero Cities EU approaches innovation with, for example.
Been a while since I've seen someone reference the Law of Requisite Variety! Good pull!
And I heartily agree on the relevance and suitability of complexity thinking, self-organization, emergence, etc. to navigating adaptive challenges and building for the future in a world of non-linear change.
One thing I'm curious about: SO much of the great work on complexity (and adaptive leadership) was done... 30+ years ago. It seemed to be briefly in vogue but never really imprint on org design and strategy. Why? Too heady/acadmic? Can it still have a moment?
This has significant parallels with necessary approaches for dealing with complex adaptive (dare I say "wicked") challenges, which have come to dominate ever more of the landscape today.
Most challenges under complex contexts do not have the luxury of a silver bullet solution. Think Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety from cybernetics. As Bill McKibben wrote in a 2006 op ed on climate change intervention, "There are no silver bullets, only silver buckshot.”
While classical double-diamond design thinking will converge at single problem and single solution focal points, what many environments actually need is a managed portfolio of experiments, or bets. Each bet offers the opportunity for safe-to-fail learning or building on discovered novelty.
The complexity of managing 100-200 experiments in each context also cannot be centralized with top-down order and a master plan. Rather, they must encourage systems of self-organization and self-governance that are better embedded into the network. So it's a very different mindset. It's also one that Net Zero Cities EU approaches innovation with, for example.
Been a while since I've seen someone reference the Law of Requisite Variety! Good pull!
And I heartily agree on the relevance and suitability of complexity thinking, self-organization, emergence, etc. to navigating adaptive challenges and building for the future in a world of non-linear change.
One thing I'm curious about: SO much of the great work on complexity (and adaptive leadership) was done... 30+ years ago. It seemed to be briefly in vogue but never really imprint on org design and strategy. Why? Too heady/acadmic? Can it still have a moment?
I think people just prefer oversimplification even if it’s partially a delusion.