this is an intentionally dumb question, but important to me - does complexity increase?

Something is unique or not, you don't get degrees of uniqueness. As a person I may be very different to my friends who are all similar, but that doesn't mean i am more unique, i am just an outlier.

doesn't the same apply to complexity? the strength of interdependencies may increase making the system more sensitive to small changes...does that mean it is more complex?

i ask the question because i don't know!

I recently conducted a qualitative research on the discovery of crucial leadership behavior and evidence of how leadership behavior enhances organizational learning processes. In an extended literature review I focused on new leadership frameworks which have further been tested through interviews. These new leadership frameworks outline that it is not about 'leading for efficiency and control' but about 'leading for adaptability, knowledge and learning'. One of the ways this is being realized is by the "law of requisite variety". This law states that it takes complexity to defeat complexity. In order words, it "enhances a system's capacity to search for solutions to challenge and to innovate because it releases the capacity of a neural network of agents in pursuit of such optimization. That is, it optimizes a system's capacity for learning, creativity, and adaptability" (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008; p. 190).

If you want to read Uhl-Bien's article, just go to http://books.google.com/ and search for the book 'Complexity Leadership: Part 1: Conceptual Foundations'. When selected, please search inside the book with the term requisite, et voila, there is more about new (complexity) leadership frameworks.

Regards,

Richard Lalleman

---------------------------
References:
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R and McKelvey, B (2008) Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era, in: Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R.
(eds.) Complexity leadership: Conceptual foundations Pt. 1

Dave,
you confirm my intuition that the MBA/consultancy "technology" has been over deployed, and that there is a shortage of individuals equipped with that less mechanistic ability to judge information and events. One assumes that in time, the need for those skills will be recognized and demand will rise. Creating supply is another matter.

Tim

Complexity is complexity but the number and type and variation between agents including the nature of those agents can change. I think the quote is OK given that, although there is always the danger of seeing complexity as a spectrum rather than a state.

The Law of requisite variety (Ashby is the originator of this) is a more interesting idea and there is some controversy. Especially as Ashby wrote pre-complexity science and is therefore using the word in a non technical way. Some (myself/Boisot) think that complexity allows us to reverse Ashby's law, and reduce complexity (in Ashby's sense of the word) though complexity (adaptive systems, science thereof) but that is for another blog.

Tim - fully agree!

Thanks to all for comments - made me think

Induction, not complexity, is the reason we need ambiguity. If we want to make meaningful inferences by collecting instances of the same type, we need a type to guide our collecting.

A type needn't have strong ontological credentials, it can just be a hypothesis or a heuristic for gathering instsnces to investigate.

The McKinsey authors of Mobilizing Minds talk about a complexity frontier, which affects large organisations, where economies of scale disappear and interaction costs increase faster than revenue. Some of their suggestions for breaking through this frontier could be interpreted as loosening management and letting internal markets work for you. They also talk of the digital revolution, as an enabler to breakthrough, but I am not sure that equate this to the potential offered by some social networking paradigms.

Dave,
Are you familiar with the concept of "redundant diversity"? It is in "Complexity and Innovations in Organizations" by Jose Fonseca. The principle thrust if I am reading it as intended, is that conversations about misunderstandings amplify differences in structures and language in a process of "transformation of redundant diversity." It is a short, concise and well argued work, although a trifle expensive if you can't find it at the library.

I read the Fonesca book. I will admit that I thought it was not the best in the series. Grffin on Leadership was better.

I like this summary as a prescription for entrepreneurship:

"Markets are complex systems, we have to act before we can fully know: shift from fail-safe design to safe-fail experimentation." Dave Snowden