# Rethinking Organizational Transformation: A Complexity Science Approach (part 2) ![[Transformational change team 01.jpg]] Welcome back to *Rethinking Organizational Transformation*, the ongoing serialization of my article exploring complex change in organizations. This is the second part of the article, where I delve into problems with traditional change management. Traditional change management approaches failed in the ED because they treated the problem as complicated rather than complex, relying on predictable plans that couldn’t address the uncertainty and emergence of transformation. Adopting a complexity-based approach, the ED team focused on experimentation, discovery, and application. They still needed to present progress in traditional project terms to keep executives supportive. The team's innovative results ultimately proved that complex change requires fundamentally different approaches, emphasizing exploration and application over rigid planning and execution. If you've missed the previous installment, don’t worry! You can catch up by following this link to [[Rethinking Organizational Transformation (part 1) | Part 1]]. At the conclusion of this series, the entire article will be made available for a comprehensive read. This series is part of Randall Benson's Digital Garden, _ChangeQuest_, where we explore insights, strategies, and best practices for navigating complex change. Let’s dive into today’s topic. --- ## From Crisis to Breakthrough: The ED That Transformed Patient Care (Part 3) ![[ED Consulting Reports 01.jpg]] *Expert traditional thinking that had little impact* Let me set the scene: I’m sitting in my hotel room, a stack of consulting reports on the desk and a room-service dinner on the table. These reports weren’t amateur efforts—they were detailed, polished, and crafted by well-regarded consulting firms. But as I flipped through the pages, one question kept nagging at me: _Why hadn’t they made a difference?_ Was there something I could offer that would work where these had failed? The more I read, the clearer it became: these reports were built on an assumption that didn’t hold up. They treated the ER’s challenges as “normal” change—complicated, sure, but manageable with the right plans, frameworks, and checklists. The recommendations were full of strategic plans, project definitions, and activity tracking. It reflected a deeply ingrained belief that the same principles of change apply to every situation, just scaled up or down as needed. It wasn’t bad advice for the right kind of problem, but this wasn’t that kind of problem. The ER wasn’t dealing with a complicated issue; it was facing something fundamentally _complex_. Here’s the thing: these consultants weren’t wrong in their methodology—they were just applying it to the wrong kind of problem. Traditional change management is based on the belief that change is predictable, that you can break it into steps, follow the plan, and get the result. That works for complicated projects—think building a bridge or rolling out a new IT system. But the ER had already tried this approach. Three times. And failed. Maybe the staff found some comfort in the fact that they weren’t alone—after all, studies show more than 70% of large-scale change projects fail. But that wasn’t good enough for the ER. I didn’t want to hand them another version of the same old advice and hope for a different result. So I was faced with a choice: bow out gracefully or go all in with something radically different. I chose the latter. I proposed a shift from traditional change management to an approach rooted in exploration, discovery, and application. This wasn’t just tweaking the existing model—it was a whole new way of thinking. My pitch was simple: the ER wasn’t facing a “normal” change challenge that was just extra difficult. It was grappling with _complex change_—the kind where the path forward is unknowable, even to the most seasoned experts. If Connie, the ER director, agreed, this would mean letting go of traditional methods and embracing uncertainty. Instead of focusing on detailed timelines and checklists, the team would need to experiment, adapt, and learn as they went. It was a big ask, especially in a high-stakes environment like healthcare, but I believed it was the only approach with a real shot at success. Looking back, I realize this was a pivotal moment—not just for the ER, but for my own understanding of what it takes to navigate transformations. It was about using the thinking from complexity science and building a process based on exploration, experimentation and application of new insights. Why wouldn't those consulting recommendations work for the change problem faced by the ER? Consider this list of conventional assumptions about organizational change. Not one of them applies to complex change! > [!WARNING] ### Conventional Assumptions About Organizational Change: > - Change steps are knowable. > - There are right answers. > - The outcomes are predictable. > - Solutions are repeatable. > - We must analyze, plan, and execute. > - Subject-matter expertise is crucial. > - Manage from the top down for results. > - It's like constructing a building. > - Analysis leads to solutions. > - Changes are stable and predictable. > - Big change is simply a matter of scale. > > ###### *Applying these assumptions to complex change is a recipe for failure.* --- ## What Makes Complex Different Than Complicated? ![[Complicated vs Comples 01.jpg]] *Complicated vs Complex* Let’s break this down. Organizational transformation isn’t just a more challenging version of a normal project. It’s not complicated—it’s *complex*. And that distinction is critical. When we treat transformation as anything other than a complex challenge, we set ourselves up for failure. In fact, this misunderstanding is a major reason why transformation efforts fail so often. Here’s the key difference: **complicated problems** can be solved by experts using analysis, planning, and execution. Think of something like building a bridge or performing a complex surgery. The steps might be tough, but they’re either known or knowable. Success comes down to subject-matter expertise, precise planning and execution. **Complex problems**, on the other hand, don’t play by those rules. The path forward isn’t clear, and the outcomes can’t be known in advance. Instead of solving these problems with step-by-step plans, we have to navigate them through exploration, experimentation, and application. Traditional change management—the kind that works well for complicated problems—just doesn’t cut it for complex challenges. And yet, it’s the approach most organizations fall back on. It’s like trying to use a recipe to invent a new cuisine. The tools don’t match the task. ### Complicated vs. Complex: A Comparison Here’s a snapshot of what makes these two types of problems so different: > [! Complicated vs. Complex Change ] ### Complicated vs. Complex Change >| **Aspect** | **Complicated Change** | **Complex Change** | | --------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | **Nature of the Problem** | Knowable and analyzable. There’s a “right answer.” | Unknowable upfront; relationships and effects emerge. | | **Approach to Change** | Expert analysis and established methods. | Exploration, experimentation, and adaptation. | | **Predictability** | Outcomes are predictable. | Outcomes are emergent and evolve over time. | | **Repeatability** | Solutions are repeatable. | Solutions develop through iterations and learning. | | **Expertise Needed** | Specialized subject-matter knowledge. | Diverse perspectives and collaborative expertise. | | **Problem-Solving Process** | Analyze, plan, and execute. | Explore, discover, and apply. | | **Management Style** | Top-down decision-making works well. | Requires more participatory and distributed leadership. | | **Examples** | Building a bridge, complicated surgery. | Organizational transformation, navigating global markets. | | **Cause and Effect** | Clear cause-and-effect relationships. | Cause and effect are only understood in hindsight. | | **Change Dynamics** | Relatively stable and predictable. | Emergent, innovative, and sometimes unexpected. | ### The Real Reason Transformations Fail Complex change isn’t just a trickier version of complicated change—it’s an entirely different game. But here’s where most organizations stumble: they try to apply complicated-change methods, like planning and execution, to a complex problem. And that’s why so many transformations—over 70%—fall flat. It’s not that we’re bad at traditional change management. In fact, we’re often *great* at it. The issue is that those traditional methods aren’t built for complex change. Worse, they can actively undermine it. ### Why Traditional Methods Don’t Work for Complex Change Let’s imagine what happens when you try to use traditional planning-and-execution (PE) methods for a complex challenge like transformation. First, you start by breaking the project into detailed steps—even though the steps are unknowable in advance. Then, you treat unexpected events as problems to either avoid or fix, ignoring that novelty and emergence are actually *essential* to complex change. Then you measure success by ticking off planned-in-advance tasks instead of learning from new discoveries. This approach doesn’t just fail to harness the power of complexity—it actively discourages the kind of experimentation and innovation that lead to breakthrough results. In short, PE methods are a square peg for the round hole of transformation. They’re perfectly fine for normal projects, but when it comes to complex change, they work against you at every turn. >[!Big Idea] ### Big Idea >**The real mistake isn’t failing to execute traditional change-management methods effectively—it’s using them at all for complex change.** When we measure progress by how well we stick to a plan, we miss the chance to embrace the uncertainty and novelty that drive real transformation. Instead of playing it safe with rigid processes, we need to shift our focus to exploration, experimentation, and adapting. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way to truly tackle the challenges of complexity. --- ## From Crisis to Breakthrough: The ED That Transformed Patient Care (part 4) %%This section needs editing%% ![[Project Management 01.jpg]] *Executives knew just one approach: planning and execution* Thankfully, the ED director and hospital executives were willing to try something new. They agreed to tackle the problem as a *non-normal* change. It was a big step, but it quickly became clear that their thinking hadn’t entirely shifted. They were still looking for the usual deliverables—detailed project plans, status updates, percentage-completion reports. Essentially, they were stuck in their comfort zone of traditional planning and execution. The ED staff, understandably nervous that the execs might pull the plug if things seemed too risky, decided to meet them halfway. They crafted project-style reports specifically tailored to keep leadership reassured. Even though the staff wasn’t using traditional project management or Agile to guide their transformation, they presented their progress as if they were. Behind the scenes, their real work was all about exploration and application—experimenting, learning, and adapting. But they translated it into the familiar language of planning and execution to keep the executives on board. The truth is, traditional planning-and-execution methods were deeply ingrained in the hospital’s culture. Leaders had spent years relying on plans and predictable outcomes, so the idea of uncertainty—let alone embracing it—felt like a nonstarter. Words like “uncertainty” and “unknowable” were red flags to them. No matter how well we explained the difference between traditional and complex change, it didn’t fully click. It wasn’t until the ED team began delivering real, measurable breakthroughs that the shift happened. Experiments turned into game-changing results, and those results spoke louder than any explanation ever could. Slowly but surely, the executives started to see the value of this new approach and began to let go of the old one. > [!NOTE] ### Sidebar: Hands-On with Complexity > In later complex-change initiatives, we introduced one-day workshops to give participants a chance to experience the complexity approach firsthand. These sessions were designed to be immersive and practical, letting people roll up their sleeves and work within the complexity framework on a manageable scale. And the results were eye-opening—participants often saw breakthrough outcomes in just a single day. > > What became clear is that simply hearing about these concepts isn’t enough. True understanding comes from *doing*. Direct, hands-on engagement turns abstract ideas into actionable insights, helping teams internalize the mindset and skills needed to navigate complex change. --- ## The Futility of Managing Risk ![[Managing Risk 01.jpg]] *Eliminating risk is a fool's errand.* Why were the hospital executives so attached to traditional planning and execution? A big part of it was their responsibility to minimize risk for the hospital. They had learned to manage risk through careful planning and tight control, so letting go of that approach felt not only risky but almost reckless—a betrayal of their duties. To them, reducing risk in the emergency department transformation wasn’t just important; it felt like their professional obligation. Navigating transformations can be precarious terrain. While our aim is to mitigate risks for complex change, traditional change-management strategies actually increase risk and steer us towards failure. Mitigating risk traditionally involves doubling down on planning and control. While planning and control are hallmarks of traditional change management, they work in counter-intuitive ways for complex change. Herein lies the great tragedy: as organizations expend more and more resources on detailed planning, control, and precise execution, they dramatically increase risk of failure for any complex change, including organizational transformation. >[!Big Idea] ### Big Idea >It is tragic when the organization put more emphasis on planning and control, and by doing so, fatally undermine their transformation. I'm going to follow Professor James March's convention of describing the process of detailed planning, maximum control and precise execution simply as Planning and Execution (PE). Let's delve into why PE is at odds with the requirements of transformative change. Transformation, along with any complex-change endeavor, operates within a landscape characterized by these inherent factors: - volatility - unknowability - ambiguity - adaptation - emergence - novelty These factors stand in stark contrast to the structured nature of planning-and-execution approach. Consequently, PE consistently proves to be dismally ineffective for navigating complex change and transformation. From the standpoint of **normal change** processes, whether simple or complicated, the inherent factors listed above are typically seen as highly undesirable and pose a risk of disrupting or crippling Planning and Execution (PE) activities. Capable change leaders strive to eliminate these elements from their initiatives. Yet, when viewed through the lens of **complex change**, these same factors emerge as valuable assets that foster opportunities for pivotal discoveries, breakthroughs, and transformative changes. The following table illustrates how these factors conflict with the traditional planning-and-execution approach. It is important to note that these factors are not merely challenging; they fundamentally undermine conventional PE methodologies. > [!NOTE] ### Complexity's Impact on Planning and Execution (PE) Methods > >| **Complexity Factor** | **What It Means** | **Why It Challenges Planning & Execution (PE)** | | --------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Volatility** | Unpredictable, rapidly changing conditions in a dynamic system. | PE depends on predictability and stability, making it incompatible with volatile situations. | | **Unknowability** | The future steps in a process can’t be fully predicted or defined upfront. | PE relies on predefined steps, which doesn’t work when the path forward is unknowable. | | **Uncertainty** | A lack of clarity or predictability about future outcomes or events. | PE assumes stable, predictable environments—something uncertainty directly undermines. | | **Ambiguity** | Multiple possible interpretations or paths in a situation. | PE demands clear, precise directions, which ambiguity makes impossible. | | **Adaptation** | The ability to flex and adjust to evolving conditions and opportunities. | PE follows a fixed roadmap, leaving little room to adapt to new discoveries in real-time. | | **Emergence** | New, unexpected patterns or behaviors arise during the process. | PE sees emergence as a disruption to control rather than an opportunity for innovation. | | **Novelty** | The introduction of fresh ideas, methods, or solutions that break from the norm. | PE prioritizes consistency and predictability over embracing creative breakthroughs. This table highlights how the dynamic nature of complexity fundamentally clashes with the rigid structures of traditional planning-and-execution methods. To succeed in complex environments, we need exploration, discovery, new insights and adaption on the fly. --- ## Coming Up In the next part of this article, we’ll dive deeper into: - How the ER used a quest change process to navigate complex change and transformation - How complexity thinking is different - How the process works and why it's an alternative to traditional change management - ChangeQuest as a process These topics aim to offer practical insights for navigating complex transformations. For those eager to explore more on organizational change, feel free to return to my _ChangeQuest_ Digital Garden at www.changequest.net I also encourage you to share your questions and thoughts at [email protected]—your feedback is essential to this ongoing journey. Let’s continue exploring this path together. --- ## Resources ### Information | Topic | Details | | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Article maturity | ![[Digital Garden Sapling 01 small.png]] Sapling - this article is still developing and needs to be nurtured before it's mature. | | Author note | This article was last updated on October 18, 2024. As I continue my journey, I'll be adding more insights here. I would love to hear from you. Feel free to email me at [email](mailto:[email protected]) | | Social media | If you found this article helpful, share it with your network! | | Useful Links | | | | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [Email Me](mailto:[email protected]) | [Quest Effect Website](www.questeffect.com) | [My Book - The Quest Effect](https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Effect-Mastering-Breakthrough-Organization/dp/0967545331/ref=sr_1_1?crid=XIMAD1W2YFBB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kdRdPPDqpm_VomZu3b_YlQM_wQXI2AzuSbAu966GwwPGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.zBB0GSA-MVQz_-J1M-Q-XZpAEXBVeFCmNnUcgGTOAg8&dib_tag=se&keywords=%22the+quest+effect%22&qid=1729191943&s=books&sprefix=the+quest+effect+%2Cstripbooks%2C162&sr=1-1) | | | | | --- © 2024 by Randall Benson. All rights reserved. You can link or reference the article. [[Rethinking Organizational Transformation (part 1)]] [[About this Digital Garden]] [[The Aim of This Digital Garden]] [[Introducing Myself]]