Taking the bait
by Paul Miller
It�s true that we do talk a lot about complexity, systems and networks and I can�t remember the last time we recommended that the government invested in a nice rigid hierarchy, but we don�t really see the issue in a kind of networks good, hierarchies bad, black and white kind of way. I don�t really have any arguments with Jo Freeman�s article. In almost every way she�s right. But I think a few things have moved on since 1970.
Just to illustrate, maybe it�s worth explaining a bit about how we use complexity in the work that we do.
The first area where we use it is as a tool for understanding what�s going on. Perhaps the best example is Jake Chapman�s System Failure, which is one of our most read publications, and particularly popular with public sector organisations. What Jake says is that human systems (such as public sector organisations) don�t behave in a linear, mechanical way and need to be thought of as �complex adaptive systems�.
He illustrates this by comparing throwing a stone with throwing a live bird. The trajectory of the stone can be calculated quite precisely using Newton�s laws of gravity and motion and it�s possible to ensure that the stone reaches a specified destination using this approach. But it�s not possible to predict the outcome of throwing the live bird in the same way, even though the bird�s motion through the air is ultimately governed by the same laws of physics. The bird is a complex adaptive system.
Basically we�ve found that the formal structures that Jo Freeman talks about, don�t quite work in the linear way that, say, the civil service �organogram� might suggest. Understanding the complex nature of the system helps give some extra information about what�s going on. I�ve now lost count of the number of meetings with civil servants I�ve been in where they�ve had a �oh, I get it� moment and by understanding a little better how the system they work in functions they�ve been able to spot new possibilities.
Another way we�ve started to use complexity is through learning about and experimenting with social network analysis. The picture below is Demos in June this year � each red dot is a person (either a staff member or associate) and each line represents where both people have answered yes to the question �we�ve worked together closely and got to know each others� skills�. It�s just another tool for understanding what�s going on, so it doesn�t replace our management chart or our financial statement, but the exercise does tell us a little bit about how healthy we are as a team. Over the course of this year our density of links has gone up, while our average distance between any two members of the team has gone down, which gives us some clues about both how resilient and good at sharing information we are.
As Will Davies points out, Jo Freeman isn�t really talking about �structurelessness� at all. As she says, �Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion.� What�s changed is that we�re beginning to understand how this structuring without structures takes place. Through the work of Barabasi, Watts and other network theorists, we�re beginning to be able to see patterns in the way that networks develop. And the act of knowing what�s going on means that we can take action to counter the bad things.
For instance, the Demos �working network� wasn�t planned by anybody but now we know a little about what�s going on we can make decisions about who works with who to make sure we retain the best things about the overall pattern. And it isn�t just useful for the management team, everybody can look at the diagram and understand the organisation in a slightly different way and change their behaviour accordingly.
The second main area that we use complexity for is in trying to recommend ways forward for policy makers.
Formal structures (hierarchies anyway) are very good at solving problems that involve achieving a single objective. So when Jo Freeman says unstructured groups, �aren�t very good for getting things done�, she�s right in one respect. If you have a clear objective that you want to achieve, then a formal structure of delegation and accountability is probably the best way to get it done.
The problem is, governing ain�t simple. You have multiple objectives to achieve which might conflict with one another, and even multiple perspectives on what the problem is. By thinking of the system as complex you realise that choosing one (usually the �expert�) perspective is pretty dangerous. Unintended consequences will abound and you�ll more than likely end up with people who�ve been antagonised so much by being told what to do that they try bend the rules to their advantage � the hospital waiting list target debacle is just one example. So that leaves us with the question of how to govern these complex systems.
Demos has always been about creating the ideas that could lead to what we call �self government�. By that we don�t mean the kind of gun-toting libertarianism that some people do. For me, the role of government in such a system would be as �nurturer of links�. It would recognise that control is impossible in a highly interdependent and interconnected world, and would recognise the value of emergent solutions to problems. What this means in practice, it�s probably fair to say, is the focus of the majority of Demos projects at the moment. So, from the future of regulation through to spreading best practice in teaching, we�re exploring how to enable large, complex systems to be more than the sum of their parts.
It's important to recognise that complex, self organising systems do still require high levels of structure. But once you realise that the participants in the systems are more autonomous and interact more, then the requirements for good structure change quite significantly from the options we use now. The issue won't be how to collapse structures to zero but how to redesign and adapt the ones we have now. But you can only do that if you understand the underlying qualities and patterns of organisation of complex systems.
By the way, we�ll also be publishing a collection of essays at the end of the year � themed around networks � that tries to bring together all the disciplines that have been thinking about this stuff over the past few decades. The contributors list is looking dead good and as first drafts of the essays come in, we�re learning even more. So watch this space, as they say.