Deb, I so appreciate your work and the way you articulate not only the way that complexity works in the public sector, but how complexity works per se. What this article does for me is highlight the way that we seem to believe complexity is an obstacle to get over as fast as possible in order to get to a “solution”. And the easier and faster that step is, the better. Even without algorithms and LLMs there is a will towards flattening. Our education system trains us relentlessly in the art of summarising and simplifying. But it is in the complexity that life dwells. And being with that complexity—attending to it with care for its dynamics and its specificities and its multidimensionality without smoothing off its edges too soon—is I think an essential skill. And it takes a real ability to be with the discomfort of things not all fitting neatly into boxes or bullet points or flowcharts. We’ve been acculturated to believe that complexity is a problem to be avoided, not the very basis of life itself.
The abstraction that results when we are led by one-dimensional conceptions of efficiency, productivity, and outcomes takes us further away from the actual messy work that is needed to address the contours of our entangled and shifting terrain. And I think it also habituates us collectively to simple solutions and explanations for complex phenomena, contributing further to polarisation.
And, yes, we move at the speed of trust, not the speed of a line drawn on an org chart or a decision tree. It’s relationality all the way down.
Rebecca, that is so beautifully put: thank you. That is precisely it. To add to this, being able to sit with complexity and shift context is also a key reason why bilingualism and multilingualism are essential.
I was thinking about exactly that as I was writing. The way that bilingualism and multilingualism helps wire us for holding complexity. Something that the current narrow approach to education seems to bypass entirely. And it is so needed as unpredictability continues to increase.
👍🫂 I know there is some angst about Substack, and I agree with a lot of it, but how can I hate it when it gives us THIS! This type of well articulated, well researched, long form sharing of things that are part of what makes the difference between theory & effective implementation ie the THEORY of simplifying, streamlining, EFFICIENCY versus reality. AND the comments sections here & elsewhere make us both better informed & give us hope 🤔
Kia Ora! That was great article and very timely. It feels as if we are being pushed to adapt AI in a blind, unconsidered way just at the moment. It promises the world while actually not really delivering - or delivering badly when you actually look at the product in the real world. My recent experience was with a customer service chatbot trial here at work. It was pants! It looked slick, it looked like we would be cutting edge, it looked like it could save money but in the end it gave bad, non nuanced info to - as you point out - complex, messy individuals. We humans then had to spend time untangling the mess, cope withe justified ire of our clients, wear the organizational embarrassment and still do the work. This is before all of the wider ethical and environmental issues are thought about. I loved the skeptics reading list at the end too!
Thank you for reading my friend. I appreciate your example. It is so ordinary but so material. I say material because now and again someone will tell me that I’m making complexity “the norm,” when really, it only shows up in public services for more vulnerable and underserved or disengagement populations. That's just not true: not any more. Public administration research is clear: complexity is the baseline condition of government, not an exception. In fact, I would offer that if we continue to assume simplicity is the norm, we'll continue to misdiagnose how government actually works and how to provide effective service.
I may revisit this point in a later series. Meanwhile, for those interested, you could not go past:
Butler, M. J. R., & Allen, P. M. (2008). Understanding policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems. Public Management Review, 10(3), 421-440.
Eppel, E. A., & Rhodes, M. L. (2017). Complexity theory and public management: a ‘becoming’ field. Public Management Review, 20(7), 949–959.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Key concepts in complexity theory compared to their counterparts in public administration research. Public Management Review, 10(3), 299-317.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management: An introduction. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287-297.
Deb, I so appreciate your work and the way you articulate not only the way that complexity works in the public sector, but how complexity works per se. What this article does for me is highlight the way that we seem to believe complexity is an obstacle to get over as fast as possible in order to get to a “solution”. And the easier and faster that step is, the better. Even without algorithms and LLMs there is a will towards flattening. Our education system trains us relentlessly in the art of summarising and simplifying. But it is in the complexity that life dwells. And being with that complexity—attending to it with care for its dynamics and its specificities and its multidimensionality without smoothing off its edges too soon—is I think an essential skill. And it takes a real ability to be with the discomfort of things not all fitting neatly into boxes or bullet points or flowcharts. We’ve been acculturated to believe that complexity is a problem to be avoided, not the very basis of life itself.
The abstraction that results when we are led by one-dimensional conceptions of efficiency, productivity, and outcomes takes us further away from the actual messy work that is needed to address the contours of our entangled and shifting terrain. And I think it also habituates us collectively to simple solutions and explanations for complex phenomena, contributing further to polarisation.
And, yes, we move at the speed of trust, not the speed of a line drawn on an org chart or a decision tree. It’s relationality all the way down.
Rebecca, that is so beautifully put: thank you. That is precisely it. To add to this, being able to sit with complexity and shift context is also a key reason why bilingualism and multilingualism are essential.
I was thinking about exactly that as I was writing. The way that bilingualism and multilingualism helps wire us for holding complexity. Something that the current narrow approach to education seems to bypass entirely. And it is so needed as unpredictability continues to increase.
👍🫂 I know there is some angst about Substack, and I agree with a lot of it, but how can I hate it when it gives us THIS! This type of well articulated, well researched, long form sharing of things that are part of what makes the difference between theory & effective implementation ie the THEORY of simplifying, streamlining, EFFICIENCY versus reality. AND the comments sections here & elsewhere make us both better informed & give us hope 🤔
Kia Ora! That was great article and very timely. It feels as if we are being pushed to adapt AI in a blind, unconsidered way just at the moment. It promises the world while actually not really delivering - or delivering badly when you actually look at the product in the real world. My recent experience was with a customer service chatbot trial here at work. It was pants! It looked slick, it looked like we would be cutting edge, it looked like it could save money but in the end it gave bad, non nuanced info to - as you point out - complex, messy individuals. We humans then had to spend time untangling the mess, cope withe justified ire of our clients, wear the organizational embarrassment and still do the work. This is before all of the wider ethical and environmental issues are thought about. I loved the skeptics reading list at the end too!
Thank you for reading my friend. I appreciate your example. It is so ordinary but so material. I say material because now and again someone will tell me that I’m making complexity “the norm,” when really, it only shows up in public services for more vulnerable and underserved or disengagement populations. That's just not true: not any more. Public administration research is clear: complexity is the baseline condition of government, not an exception. In fact, I would offer that if we continue to assume simplicity is the norm, we'll continue to misdiagnose how government actually works and how to provide effective service.
I may revisit this point in a later series. Meanwhile, for those interested, you could not go past:
Butler, M. J. R., & Allen, P. M. (2008). Understanding policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems. Public Management Review, 10(3), 421-440.
Eppel, E. A., & Rhodes, M. L. (2017). Complexity theory and public management: a ‘becoming’ field. Public Management Review, 20(7), 949–959.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Key concepts in complexity theory compared to their counterparts in public administration research. Public Management Review, 10(3), 299-317.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management: An introduction. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287-297.