Simplify
In complex organizations, outcomes become emergent properties—irreducible results shaped by a labyrinth of hidden interactions and interdependencies. In such environments, where clarity is elusive, theatrics and politics often become the default affordances for navigating ambiguity.
You are in a complex organization if the target outcomes cannot be traced back to clear levers, identifiable causes, or predictable effects. In complex organizations, outcomes emerge as irreducible results shaped by hidden interactions and interdependencies. In these environments—where complexity obstructs clarity—theatrics and politics often become the default affordances of navigating complexity, underscoring the need for simplification.
To address this, we need a simplification doctrine.
Simplicity by Processes
Business processes serve as the backbone of enterprise simplification. They introduce formalism and determinism, enabling automation and reducing cognitive load. While processes are often criticized for their voluminous body of knowledge, complicatedness, and opacity—perceived as the source of organizational rigidity—they are, in fact, essential for transformation. Processes provide the structure, or “form,” that enables “transformation”. Without well-defined processes constituting the form, transformation is impossible.
In general, the real issue lies not in the existence of processes but in how they are defined, designed, developed, and deployed. When done correctly, processes enhance enterprise agility, flexibility, and resilience. They enable software-defined, digitally executed workflows that reduce friction and improve adaptability.
In the age of AI and knowledge graphs, businesses can go a step further: rendering the enterprise as an intelligent system capable of answering complex questions. Imagine a system that can instantly identify the steps to transform “X” into “Y,” map out the people involved, and conduct a thorough impact analysis. Such capabilities are no longer futuristic—they are achievable and transformative.
Simplicity by the Human Edge
Even with advanced digital tools and process maturity, complex organizations will always require intellectual and intelligent people. These individuals possess the cognitive bandwidth to navigate and execute effectively in entangled, dynamic environments.
The edge where simplicity meets complexity is where competition thrives. While digital tools and process expertise are widely accessible, intellectual talent is not—it remains scarce and invaluable. This edge is where organizations differentiate themselves, leveraging both simplification and human ingenuity to compete and excel.
Ultimately, simplicity through processes and intelligence through people must coexist. Together, they equip organizations to transform complexity into competitive advantage.
Simplicity by Trust & Honesty
Nothing simplifies an organization more effectively than a culture of trust and honesty, exemplified by the 'Respect for People' principle in lean, the blameless retrospectives of agile, and the servant leadership philosophy. Trust reduces the need for excessive layers of control, rules, and oversight, fostering an environment where teamwork and collaboration thrive. It boosts employee engagement, happiness, and retention, cultivating a motivated and resilient workforce. Most importantly, trust empowers an organization to confront and embrace the truth, enabling informed decisions and meaningful progress. Building trust and honesty as the foundation of organizational culture requires unwavering leadership commitment and a thoughtful alignment of incentives to reinforce these values.
Unlike the more protective labor laws prevalent in many European countries, most U.S. states adhere to an 'at-will' employment doctrine. This framework allows employers to hire or terminate employees at any time, for almost any reason (provided it is not illegal), fostering a fluid labor market. However, a less-discussed consequence of this doctrine is the emergence of a workforce that often prioritizes job security with guarded and strategic behavior. Time and again, I have observed how even the suggestion of increased transparency or formal processes can provoke resistance or subtle acts of sabotage. In many U.S. workplaces, routine phrases like 'Let’s talk' or 'Let’s set up a call' are used almost ritualistically, even for the simplest tasks between teams. Despite substantial investments in data and digital transformation, spreadsheets remain the de facto source for critical information. The cumulative effect of these behaviors is the creation of highly verbal, analog, and politically charged organizations—often at odds with the efficiencies promised by modern technologies.
Simplicity by Proactiveness
In my observation, most U.S. firms devote over 80% of managerial time to analyzing what happened and attempting to fix symptoms after the fact. For example, every U.S. factory I have visited holds morning meetings to review the previous night’s shift but lacks a planning & preparation routine for the shift ahead. Indeed, the past always exists, and it invariably contains problems. While organizations can address root causes to prevent repetition, this requires a thorough, disciplined approach backed by institutional structures—such as SOPs, processes, workflows, and training. Yet the next hour, day, week, or quarter remains open to proactive management. Some root causes may even be irrelevant moving forward. Constantly rehashing past issues and scrambling to mitigate their symptoms can feel like a perpetual game of “monkey in the middle.”
Simplicity by Design
Every organization needs both well-honed routines for flawless execution and scrappy, improvisational elements. Think of these as a philharmonic orchestra versus a jazz ensemble.
A philharmonic represents a carefully architected system with a central vision. Each musician specializes in a single part of a meticulously documented score, rehearsed to perfection. It’s brilliant for executing a complex piece but lacks adaptability—if the audience wants a different tune, the entire orchestra can’t simply pivot.
A jazz band, by contrast, is the epitome of adaptability. Musicians shift chords, style, and tempo on the fly, guided by the audience, fellow players, and spontaneous creativity. While both forms produce music, their fundamental natures differ at the core.
The nature of a philharmonic orchestra and a jazz band is truly inspiring for enterprise architecture.
© Saip Eren Yilmaz, 2023
