GOVERNING DIGITALLY in particular, computer programs called complex adaptive systems. What he realized was that these models, no matter how beautiful or sophisticated, could not generate good predictions for the simple reason that in a complex world it is just not possible. Complex adaptive systems are computer programs which model complexity, in which agents (effectively lines of code) interact with each other according to the programmer’s instructions. One well-known such program is called BOIDS in which three simple rules as to separation, alignment and cohesion, generate a complex and ever evolving patterning resembling the flocking behaviour of birds. This is not designed or choreographed but happens through what all the agents are doing together. While obviously the real world is so very much more complex than BOIDS, Stacey and his colleagues realized that the same principles apply in complexity and that what is going on for us is the product of what we are all doing together, out of which patterns of how we relate to one another emerge. However, we do much more than ‘flock’ and the patterning of how we interact with one another is not based upon a few simple rules, but upon an effectively infinite number of variables. Our norms and values, our emotions and our power dynamics all affect how we relate to each other. We all have histories, motives, fears and hopes which influence our actions and reactions. Different perspectives on what we value, what we must do and not do, and even what we observe and perceive as well as our power relationships with others, also drive us. Timing is always key. Further, unlike the BOIDS, we are not like billiard balls – instead, as we interact with each other, we are affected in large and small ways and rarely emerge unchanged from an encounter. Simply put, there’s always a lot going on, a lot at play. We cannot assume that if X happens then Y will be the result. This is what is called nonlinearity, on in popular terms, the butterfly effect. In such a relationship there are very complex connections between cause and effect which means that the effect is not necessarily proportionate to the cause. A small change can lead to large differences in results (e.g., the hypothetical proposition that a small butterfly flapping its wings could cause a typhoon), which makes it impossible to assert with any certainty that X causes Y or that if X happens then Y will result. Instead, very small occurrences can lead to significant alterations in subsequent events. Paraphrasing the philosopher Voltaire, while doubt may not be pleasant, even thinking certainty is possible is absurd. This leaves us as managers and leaders in a difficult position. Making sense in our uncertain and high stakes world is no mean feat. Realistically, if we are seeking to avoid or reduce surprises, we need to ensure we have as much information as possible so that we can figure out what to do. How do we know what we think we know? What is working out? What is a disappointment? What should we be doing about it. So often when things go wrong, we hear loud cries from the corner office lamenting that no one had warned them or spoken up or even noticed the potential for the latest disaster de jour. We had broken the ‘no surprises’ rule! Here, another drawback of most traditional management theory which takes an individualistic perspective on the workplace, comes into play. The reality, confirmed by what we have learned from our study of complexity science, is that we perform as a collective. What is going on is as the result of what all of us are doing. No one person can determine what will happen. Leaders may have significant influence, but they cannot control or determine what will happen. For that reason, we must think not only about ‘what’ we are doing together, but the patterns that have developed which affect ‘how’ we interact with each other in our work together and whether they support our collective problem-solving capabilities. This brings us to an important concept, productive doubt. This term, coined by the great American pragmatist John Dewey, refers to the importance of being able to question generally accepted wisdom. This is where a little bit of uncertainty is helpful. In fact, without productive doubt and the ability to challenge the status quo, there can be no innovation or creativity. Ensuring we have as much information as possible to help us in the exploration of productive doubt depends upon making sure different perspectives are brought forward. This is because research confirms what we see is affected by what we believe and expect to see. In other words what we see or notice, how we interpret it and the conclusions we reach as to what is going on and A small change can lead to large differences in results (e.g., the hypothetical proposition that a small butterfly flapping its wings could cause a typhoon), which makes it impossible to assert with any certainty that X causes Y or that if X happens then Y will result. WINTER 2025 // Canadian Government Executive / 11
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=