Posts

No-One Understands How Systems Work.

/0 Comments/in , /by

You may have been listening to economists debating and arguing about the state of the economy and the future of inflation. Are we in a recession or not? What will the economy look like next year? What causes inflation? Will the rate of inflation increase or decrease? What can be done to alter the future direction of change?

There is no shortage of opinions, but a total lack of certainty, of confidence, or even of sound theory.

You probably find the same phenomenon when engaged in discussions about business – about how firms can do a better job of creating customer value, to grow and succeed. How can they achieve a rise in stock price? What are the most critical constraints? What’s the best process for driving innovation? What’s the best way to manage and incentivize employees and to build a strong culture? Those are the kinds of words and phrases business consultants and business school professors use – your own peer conversations are probably more to do with increasing sales, or lead generation or your P&L, or whether all the ingredients you need will be delivered. 

But the challenge, in all these cases is the same. No-one knows anymore how these systems actually work. We can extend the list to climate as a system – some scientists claim they know how it works and can forecast the future, and another set views it as unpredictable and unmanageable. 

We saw during the so-called pandemic that virologists and infectious disease experts and pandemic modelers got their predictions – and their policies – hopelessly wrong, and it cost millions of lives and billions if not trillions of lost economic production. We can see the might modeler Ph.D.’s at the Federal Reserve make the same hubristic mistakes with their models of money supply, inflation, employment, and economic growth. The only thing they’ve ever been is wrong.

In fact, there’s a whole new science of not understanding systems which is called complexity theory, which overlaps closely with chaos theory. It says the following: A system is a collection of elements, components, parts, pieces, or, generally, agents. In an economic system, the agents might include individuals, families, and firms. There are additional elements like processes, government and institutions, norms, traditions, and a whole lot more. These elements and agents interact with each other and with inputs and outputs. There is further interaction after feedback loops establish themselves – agents react to outcomes and results they didn’t expect or anticipate. There are so many variables – individual decisions and preferences, group behaviors, trends, technological changes, money supply changes, etc, etc – that the interaction is described as complex, which means beyond understanding, unpredictable, and non-linear (it goes off in directions and at speeds that no-one expects).

Complexity is science throwing up its hands and saying, we don’t understand these systems anymore, can’t predict them, can’t control them, and can’t manage them. We don’t even have any ideas on how to do so.

There are many fancy new words that come out of this science. One, for example, is emergence. Systems have emergent properties, meaning s*** happens that we can’t account for and couldn’t even imagine in advance. Emergence is a kind of magic.

Another new term is self-organization, which means that the system will evolve and develop as it likes without any input -or despite any input – from the scientists.

Don’t worry, there are lots of government grants being given for the study of complexity, lots of papers and journals, lots of conferences, and lots of sabbaticals being taken to contemplate future studies and grant applications. There is money in complexity.

What’s the alternative? Pragmatism.

When the system (of life, of business, of health, of the economy) is complex to the point of incomprehension and unpredictability, there is only one action: do something and see if it works or it doesn’t work. In business, it takes the form of what is called today A/B testing. Try two different actions (without any prediction or bias or even desire as to which outcome will result) and choose one that works, i.e. moves in the direction you feel is better. Then do another test and another and another until there’s a string of results. Expand the actions so long as they keep working. Start a small store and keep expanding it unit by unit until there’s a big store. Be prepared for things to change without notice. Go back to square one if they do. 

There are fancy terms for this too. Economists call it entrepreneurship. Constantly trying and re-trying, combining and recombining, testing and re-testing. If a promising pattern is established, pursue it and reproduce it, but only so long as the pattern holds. Drop it as soon as it becomes erratic. Start another one. Creativity is the required skill set, and the whole point about creativity is unpredictability. 

Creative entrepreneurship doesn’t try to study complexity. Entrepreneurs face it every day and they take action rather than studying it. 

157. Luca Dellanna on the Power of Adaptation: Managing Complexity Every Day

/0 Comments/in /by

The terminology of complex adaptive systems sounds academic and abstruse, but the subject is not: it’s about the real-life, in-your-face problems and challenges that face a business every day. The secret to solving the challenges of complexity is adaptation. Luca Dellanna, a business expert on the subject, joined Economics For Business to explain how any firm and all management teams can harness the power of adaptation.

Key Takeaways And Actionable Insights

Complex systems are a business’s everyday environment, and every business behavior is an adaptation.

Every action a manager or leader takes should be aimed not just at its direct outcome but also for the adaptations triggered in your team, i.e. the longer term, second order future behaviors that are made more likely as a consequence of the immediate action. Take motivation as an example. Motivation results less from direct efforts (such as a “motivational speech”) but rather from the establishment of an environment in which good effort is recognized and rewarded. Your system action could be as simple as checking back with employees regarding assignments very quicky and providing feedback. This shows that their behavior is observed, appreciated and valued – a motivational environment to which they will adapt positively. A different environment can be demotivating, with negative long term consequences.

Fast, tight feedback loops are the engines of adaptive systems.

Feedback is the energy of adaptive systems, and Luca urges that the feedback loops must be fast and tight. After-action feedback should be as close to immediate as possible, so that there is no uncertainty about whether action is praiseworthy or not. Dashboards and end-of-period bonuses are too delayed for motivational purposes. Similarly, feedback should be highly specific to the action in question, as opposed to a general – and, even worse, vague or unclear – evaluation. These “motivational moments” or “mission moments” can contribute to the sense of a shared mission and vision.

The opposite case can generate “motivational losses”.

When a team member or colleague shifts from motivated and engaged to unmotivated and disengaged – ready to quit perhaps – it’s a motivational loss. These can be avoided. Treat these occasions as incidents, to be investigated and addressed. Usually, the best solution is productive clarity, because motivational losses usually occur in the event of unclear objectives or unclear directions. The solution to lack of clarity is to make it impossible to be misunderstood, and to do so from the very outset, so that there is never a need to be remedial.

People have mental contracts, and it’s important to understand and empathize with them.

We all have two contracts, the one we sign, and the one in our mind which includes a host of intangibles that are unexpressed in the written contract. We might expect to receive promotion after an appropriate period of hard work, even though there’s nothing in the written contract to that effect, nor has anyone made us that promise. It’s an implicit contract. It’s important to identify and understand these mental contracts, and to end, through clear communications that can’t be misunderstood, all misconceptions that can lead to unfulfilled expectations.

Signaling must be clear and costly.

Leadership behaviors act as signals to the rest of the organization. The signals must be clear and unambiguous. Words can be misunderstood or can be perceived as self-contradicting when there is inconsistency. Behaviors can be more clear and more consistent. Luca gave a safety example: instead of instructing individuals to wear helmets in unsafe areas, managers should go to wear the work is being done, and demonstrate the behavior. The more “costly” the signaling behavior to the manager, the more clear the signal. Luca gave the example of the founder of the Dupont explosives businesses living with his family at the factory where explosives were made. He put “skin in the game” to demonstrate the importance of safety in a notoriously unsafe industry – a costly signal, and one that had the desired effect.

How to become a systems thinker: practice adaptive thinking and apply it to yourself.

Adaptive thinking can be practiced. It can become an expertise. Think through every reality to determine how other individuals are adapting to behaviors of others that concern them or affect their work. How do people adapt to the words that are spoken to them, or the instructions that are given to them? What are the likely second and third order effects? Always ask yourself, how is the system adapting?

Then apply adaptive principles to yourself. Fashion tight and specific feedback loops for yourself so that your actions generate immediate feedback. How are people adapting to your actions? Make sure you are using the right mental models. Check your assumptions.

Additional Resources

Luca’s website: https://www.luca-dellanna.com

Managing Adaptive Systems – Our E4B Knowledge Graphic

The Power Of Adaptation by Luca Dellana

Teams Are Adaptive Systems by Luca Dellanna

Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

The Age Of Strategy Is Over. The Replacement Is Explore And Expand

/0 Comments/in /by

Business schools, business writers, including retired CEO’s writing their memoirs, business bloggers, magazines and conference presenters all insist that strategy is the one mandatory for any individual or team that’s leading or managing a business. There’s no business without a strategy.

Well, I am here to tell you there is. In fact, strategy is way overblown as a business tool or business skill. Not only that, the way it is taught and written about is founded on an entirely false premise.

Strategy is presented to us as a knowledge tool, with the promise that, when the tool is well-used, it can influence future outcomes. When a strategic firm, or a strategic plan, or a strategic CEO, or a well-designed and implemented strategy goes to market, the result, we are assured, will be superior performance: more growth or revenues or market share, a stronger relative position vis-à-vis competitors, stock price appreciation, or some other objective measure of business success.

However, as a brief study of complexity economics makes clear, no market future is predictable, or even subject to influence, via strategy. The knowledge flow that is an input to strategy tools and debates is dynamic and constantly changing, always incomplete, and mostly tacit and non-quantifiable, impervious to the spreadsheet calculus of the strategic planning department. The confidence of the strategist, backed up by charts and graphs and data analytics and presented in powerpoint and video, is false and misplaced. Expertise in strategy development may be good for individual careers, but it has no value in business management because it can not possibly paint an accurate picture of the future. It  can not account for changes in the business environment, whether exogenous or endogenous or (in what is usually the case) a combination of both. Decisions made on the basis of a strategic plan for the future will be blessed with no more certainty as a result of all the effort that went into the planning exercise.

Yet strategy and strategic planning remain a core product of the business education and publishing industry. Why? Mostly because of a lack of alternatives. If businesses don’t have strategy tools to utilize for making the one year and five year plans with which they guide resource allocation and tactical implementation, what’s their alternative? Until recently, there has not been one.

Now, however, an alternative is emerging. That’s a careful choice of wording, because the idea of emergence is core to navigating the business world without strategic planning. Emergence is a property of complex systems such that outcomes occur that are not predictable from the properties of the components of the system or from their interaction. The new properties that the system produces are not shared with the components from which the system is made up or with prior states. Emergent outcomes can not be predicted, they can only be observed.

Peter Corning, one of the early students of complex systems wrote:

Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything.

He used the analogy of a chess game, which has very precise rules, but they have no predictive power.

Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” – i.e. the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a large number of available options at each choice point. 

If emergence is the characteristic outcome of complex systems, and it can’t be predicted, where does that leave business strategy? It’s a process for which its protagonists claim the capability of prediction: business results will be better with the adoption of the recommendations of strategic planners, who study data, trends and business conditions and competition and markets to arrive at formulations of how to allocate resources optimally, sometimes described as “where to play and how to win”. 

The theory of complex systems suggests that it is impossible to identify where to play and how to win, and dangerously hubristic to try.  The alternative to strategy is a balanced process we can call explore and expand. A business should organize around the activity of exploration: attempting as many new initiatives as possible, and allocating authority to do so to the outermost edges of the organization, those operating directly with customers, active in local markets with all their local variation and distinctive conditions. If any initiatives appear to be effective in meeting customer goals and therefore meeting the goals of the business, quickly expand those initiatives so that more parts of the organization can utilize the learning and more resources can be brought to bear in their activation.

Where strategy pursues standardization and conformity around one set of plans, Explore And Expand prizes variation, and looks to identify more and more ways to pursue value improvements. This is a way of harnessing complexity, as Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen refer to it, in the book with that title.

Axelrod and Cohen point to a couple of organizational attributes that render the Explore And Expand approach viable. One is the existence and maintenance of rich networks of engagement, between the firm and its customers, within the firm between individuals and decision-making units, and amongst customers. The more information that can flow through these networks from acts of exploration, and the faster it flows, the greater the economic productivity of value improvement.

Second is the development of short-term, fine-grained measures of success, so that the exploration activities can be relieved of the time burden of long wait periods to read results. Although it remains important to be alert to misattribution of outcomes to actions, getting more learning more quickly is generally advantageous, and measurement systems should be aligned with this need for rapidity.

In sum, we should consider the age of strategy in business over, and prepare ourselves for the age of Explore And Expand.