Studio Non Troppo

“Complexity” and “chaos” are commonly used words that have both everyday and technical meanings. In their technical incarnations, both complexity theory and chaos theory deal in part with cases in which it’s difficult to predict what’s going to happen next.

For chaos theory, think “butterfly effect.” Tiny changes in the initial conditions of a system can have (under certain circumstances) immense effects down the line.

For complexity theory, think “network.” A free, viral YouTube video can have a profound effect on the public’s perception of a company in spite of the company’s multimillion dollar advertising budget.

Even if your system is complex (and not all systems are), that doesn’t mean you can determine in advance which YouTube video will go viral, and even if your system is chaotic (and not all systems are), that doesn’t mean you can tell which huge effect the butterfly will have down the line.

When the system you are in is complex or chaotic, you’ve got to get over the idea that you’re going for mastery. Mastery, predictability, and control just don’t stack up in complex or chaotic systems the way they do in other contexts.

Instead, cultivate fluid response and resilience.

In Seth Godin’s post today, he uses an example of a fuel conservation problem to illustrate the practical limitations and pitfalls of coming across logic (in this case, arithmetic):

A simple quiz for smart marketers:

Let’s say your goal is to reduce gasoline consumption.

And let’s say there are only two kinds of cars in the world. Half of them are Suburbans that get 10 miles to the gallon and half are Priuses that get 50.

If we assume that all the cars drive the same number of miles, which would be a better investment:

• Get new tires for all the Suburbans and increase their mileage a bit to 13 miles per gallon.
• Replace all the Priuses and rewire them to get 100 miles per gallon (doubling their average!)

Trick question aside, the answer is the first one. (In fact, it’s more than twice as good a move).

We’re not wired for arithmetic. It confuses us, stresses us out and more often than not, is used to deceive.

I’ll focus on the “trick question” part and leave the math to the reader (Seth also includes a couple links in his post with demonstrations of the arithmetic.)

In all likelihood, the best answer to the problem would be c) none of the above. Replacing the Suburbans with 50 mpg Priuses – or even with cars that get just 20 miles per gallon – would be far better than either of the alternatives. And that’s obviously only one of many alternatives, including radical ones such as “walk!” These aren’t answers Seth is unaware of; he was just making his point about arithmetic, confusion, and deception.

The point I want to make in this post is this:

Optimizing a bad choice rarely gets you ahead of where you could be if you made a better choice.

Photo: davco9200

Your “power band” is where you’re most effective.

Maybe you can alphabetize the files, but with that Ph.D. in Information Architecture, maybe that’s not the best use of your talents.

Or maybe you could teach college students, but you shine with middle schoolers.

Or maybe you know you can help people solve their problems using negotiation and facilitation techniques, but you find that when people are forced to listen to you, you only manage moderate, treading-water style solutions, whereas when people come seek you out to get unstuck, you effect game changing innovation.

Working outside of your power band might not make things worse, but it doesn’t efficiently make things better.

If you have the choice to work in your power band, that’s great.  Many times, of course, you’re told to work outside of it.  Keep on the lookout for ways back in.  You owe it to yourself and to the people you can help.