Thanks for the opportunity to read this now.

Yes, thanks for sharing.

I was however struck by the first sentence: complexity is a systemic property.

I read "systemic" as "of the system". So I understand the sentence as "Complexity of a property of the system".

In my view Complex Systems have Emergent Properties, and/or a system can be classified as "being complex".

But can complexity be a property itself?

I guess I was a little struck by that too... not sure what was actually intended.

My initial stance would be that "complexity" emerges (an emergent condition, or like you said an emergent property), leading someone to be able to observe the activity and call it complex... rather than thinking that the system itself has an intrinsic property called "complex" and is the reason for the activity it exhibits.

So we could only look at something in the past and say whether it was complex, because the present hasn't conditioned the future yet.

There is a tipping point where for instance a group of founders defines a company, and then tips to the company now defining it's employees. So they have in fact put an inanimate concept in control, which is where I think complication and order stick their heads in.

Chaos: and and every thing IS emergent, at every point... complete randomness and unpredictability.
Complexity: anything CAN be emergent, but we need to be aware of what and how, experimenting and coping with tolerable failure along the way. we aren't too sure who or what is in control.
Complicated: some things are emergent, but im only going to tell you which after you pay me tons of money... otherwise just do what I say.
Order: nothing is emergent, but im in control, so do what I say.

Organization tends to occur from Chaos to Order through forms of "brainwash" almost in all levels of society, until people finally realize we are all in control, they abandon constructs, and see the inherent meaninglessness, and then "re-order" society out of chaos once more.

I'm a newbie to Cynefin theory, and this is my first post on this site, so please be kind if I betray my ignorance. :^)

I like the comment " ... someone ... to observe the activity and call it complex... rather than ... the system itself [having] an intrinsic property called 'complex'".

I think that to a great extent the situation - and particularly how to deal with it - is relative to the observer. For many conditions, an expert will perceive a simpler scenario than a layman. E.g., as a system, a car might appear "complex" to the owner, but merely "complicated" or even "simple" to the experienced mechanic, especially for a given problem. AND, the approach taken by each observer toward that system will be governed by their individual perceptions.

BUT - both observers are looking at the SAME system. In order to exist at all, the system MUST have some properties of its own, so perhaps it's a mixed perspective: the "intrinsic nature" of the system, as well as how it is perceived by different observers.

Then, of course, there's the nesting of systems: resolving poor fuel flow may be "simple" (change the filter), within the boundaries of the system "car" (complicated) as it operates within the traffic system (complex).

Make sense?

I think this is an intriguing discussion and one that I'd like to have a lot more time to pursue (but I have a tender to finish!). Without reaching any conclusions, two things went through my mind while reading this string.

Firstly the Sufi story of the Mullah Nasrudin being asked to define truth and getting 4 chaps to feel through the sides of a tent and say what was in it. Each man came up with his own vigorously defended conclusion - snake, lion, tree, wall - the reality was an elephant.

Secondly, from studies of the physical world, some issue around the fractal nature of things - the level of complexity stays the same regardless of the level at which you examine it.

I'm groping for some way to express a combination of these two. Perhaps, as an involved observer of a complex system what you see is like feeling through the tent. Your [relative] view of the system leads you to perceive something that has some sort of coherence and as you look further that level of coherence holds good - after all you don't want to abandon your conclusion. But enough stories from different participants/observers can reveal the interacting reality of these different perceptions, like taking away the tent to reveal the elephant within.