Three little words that can be misunderstood

Lucy Wake
Jul 6, 2020
3 min read

We know how important using the right language is in providing clarity and understanding. Assumptions and perceptions can lead to misinterpretations. Offence can easily be caused, wrong actions undertaken, messages can be replayed inaccurately; getting the right language in the first place goes a long way to achieving common understanding.

There are three examples where a simple change in word, or even the way the same word is written, can be really impactful in the COVID world that organisations are navigating. These three words have been cropping up a lot in my recent conversations, so I thought I’d share them with you.

Complex (as opposed to complicated)

When we approach something that is complicated, it can take time and have many different elements to consider. Complicated problems are usually technical in nature and generally predictable. It might take time, but it’s usually possible to design step-by-step solutions to complicated problems that are relatively easy to implement.

Complex problems, however, are rarely solved; they generally involve being managed for the best outcomes at any time. Complex problems involve large numbers of interacting elements, within a dynamic system. Minor changes can have a disproportionately large impact. Hindsight doesn’t lead to foresight because the external conditions and systems constantly change.

Building a rocket is complicated. Sending it into space is complex.

Effective (as opposed to efficient)

Being efficient is about maximising productivity while minimising wasted effort or expense. Being effective might be at the cost of this. If Edison had focused only on how to make lighting more efficient, he would no doubt have worked on how to make candles burn longer and more brightly. However, he sought something that was more effective, and pursued many iterations of the lightbulb before he was successful.

As efficient as we make our organisations, we need them to be effective too. To create efficiency, we can work out cause and effect and put the right measures in place to result in the best outcomes. This works really well when we can predict exactly what we’re going to need. But, organisations need to be able to deal with the unexpected. In her Ted talk, ‘The human skills we need in an unpredictable world’, Margaret Heffernan refers to “imagination, stamina and bravery”. The pursuit of efficiency can be at the cost of achieving true effectiveness.

agile (as opposed to Agile)

Organisational agility leads to swifter responsiveness to changing needs, innovative thinking, improved collaboration, both internally and externally, and flexible ways of working. The principle of agility comes from the software design process of Agile. But, whilst there are overlaps in their purpose, agile with a small ‘a’ is different to Agile with a capital ‘A’. The capital ‘A’ Agile is an iterative approach to software development and project management with articulated principles, values, methods, roles, processes and tools.

Organisational agility isn’t about scrums and sprints. What it does share with capital ‘A’ Agile is a valuing of human communication and feedback, being customer centric and adapting to change. When we refer to agile with a small ‘a’, we are referring to the traits of an organisation that enables it to change more effectively. There is no methodology for achieving agility; what needs to happen will differ from one organisation to another. The ambiguity of this approach can be hard for leaders to embrace when they are used to the predictability that comes from efficiencies. But we are living in times of ambiguity, and the first step for organisations to achieve agility is a willingness to adopt an approach that is agile in itself.