Full warning.  You’ve entered into a post where I will nerd out on systems theory in order to explain why policing cannot be treated like a business making widgets.  One is complex and one is complicated. Why should you know the difference between a complicated endeavor and a complex one, such as policing?  Because knowing the system you are in can help you understand the organization at a deeper level and better position you to solve problems. 

In a training event not too long ago, the students were asked to give a brief statement containing the normal introductory fodder, i.e. name, department, assignment, length of service.  Also, the instructor asked about what we do as a hobby.  I am not a fan of this question, because my hobby is reading, and I knew what was coming.  When it was my turn, I gave the requisite info and my hobby.  I am not a fan because the very next question that gets asked is always the same.  “What do you like to read?”  Well, crap.  Here’s where I lose the class by revealing how much of a nerd I am.  I could make something up, like romance novels or gardening, but I give the truthful answer. I like to read about systems theory.  Surprisingly, the instructor looked excited about the topic.  He was obviously a systems nerd also.  We quickly discussed and agreed on the following outlook: once you understand systems you see them everywhere.  To me, it’s like seeing the Matrix.  You can see the green characters that form the environment and know how it operates.  Anyway, let’s talk about complicated vs. complex.

System types

Systems come in two types- ordered and unordered.  Let’s tackle ordered systems first.  All systems have three parts.  They have an input, a throughput, and output.  Think of a car factory.  The input is steel, rubber, plastic, manpower, etc.  The company puts all these things into making a car.  The throughput is the actual construction of the vehicle, the processes that occur in the factory.  And, of course, the output is the completed car.  Input, throughput, output.  All systems have these.  Ordered systems are predictable.  If I put the resources in to make ten cars, I should get ten cars.  If I input for twenty, I should get twenty.  These are generally closed systems that are not influenced by the environment.  Ordered systems can either be simple or complicated.  An example of a simple system would be standing in line.  It is simple because we all understand how it works.  We teach this to kindergartners, so you know it’s easy to understand.  As a system, the input is people requiring a service.  The throughput is the people cued into a process of moving toward being served. The output is the served customer. Easy.  Complicated systems are also predictable, but the difference is that it takes some expertise to understand how it works.  The typical example I usually give is a car.  When I drive a car, I understand how operate it.  You step here to make it go, you turn this thing to avoid pedestrians, to stop you step here.  Put some gas in the tank and you are good to go.  I am not a mechanic, though, so I do not have the expertise to understand how it does what it does.  Someone needs to have that knowledge for when the system does not function as intended.  It’s a complicated system.  But I can predict the outcome when I put in the key and turn it.  It will start 99.9 percent of the time.

Complex systems are different.  They are unpredictable.  A given input does not always equal the expected output.  First, complex systems are open, meaning they are influenced (and influence) the greater environment.  Has your agency been influenced by something that happened in another part of the country?  I bet it has.  Think George Floyd.  What was the affect of agencies around the country and around the world even though we are not Minneapolis?  When you begin looking at complexity, the examples usually revolve around a flock of birds or a school of fish or ants.  The example I use to explain it is weather.  For all the scientific advancement at predicting the weather, the weather guy on the television still cannot guarantee the result.  This is because weather has many inputs that can change the outcome.  The science can only point to a best guess.  Complex systems result in emergent behavior.  Experience can suggest what the output could be but we will never really know until we see it.  The unpredictability makes this an unordered system.  Consistent input does not always equal the same output. 

The police organization is complex, not complicated

So let’s apply this to the organization.  Unlike the widget factory, the outcomes of policing are not predictable.  For starters, people are complex and as discussed in another post, we are operating in a social system.  Wherever you have humans interacting you have complexity.  As a police supervisor, I can have the same conversation with two different officers and get totally different reactions.  Officer One takes the constructive criticism and makes improvements, but Officer Two gets all bent out of shape.  Tell me it isn’t true.  We all know that policing contains within it this unpredictability of outcomes.  No two calls are the same, isn’t that what we tell recruits in training?  Expect the unexpected and all that.  Another defining characteristic of a complex system is that all the parts influence each other.  Even though organizations might experience siloing, the whole is more than the sum or its parts.  What happens if the street officers complete crappy crime reports with little information to go on?  The detectives that are assigned those reports have a tougher time solving those crimes.  What happens if the department cannot get a crime problem under control?  Then negative perceptions of the department can impact funding through the elected government.  And so on and so on.  Each piece of the organization can have an impact on the others.  As such, these systems are often referred to as complex adaptive systems.  Adaptive because change is ongoing based on how the parts interact.        

So what’s it mean for leaders?

By understanding the system, you are in a better position to navigate to a successful conclusion.  If you operate like you are in one system, but you are actually in another, you will get disorder.  Here’s an example.  Dispatching for police and fire is a complicated system.  Things are supposed to operate in a scripted manner.  Calls come in, are answered and input within the boundaries of given parameters and dispatched in an orderly fashion.  Just like a factory, calls come in, are processed, and dispatched.  It is complicated because it takes a trained person to understand the processes involved.  There is an idea that dispatch centers follow a “best practice.”  Simple systems get a best practice, complicated systems get good practice.  What works there may not be the best fit here.  Your best practices were not our ideal solutions.  Different organization, different needs.  This can lead to confusion and inefficiency in the patrol function.  I digress.  The point is, as a police leader, you should understand that policing is a complex endeavor and act accordingly.  Input does not equal a predictably output.  So this is about running a series of experiments to see what you can get to work.  The heart of the policing organization is about learning, being flexible, and adapting to the changes inside and outside the organization.  Just roll with it.  It’s not complicated.

If you want more info, check out David Snowden on the interwebs.  His Cynefin model lays out the four systems and their characteristics.  Four, you say?  Yes, I am not getting into chaotic systems here.