Simple Is Powerful, Complex is Fragile

We have all been there — trying to solve a difficult problem, coming up with a solution path after so much thinking and discussion, only to have our elegant solution fall flat on its face. Maybe the problem is trying to get third graders to catch up to their peers and read on grade level, or reduce suspensions in a high school, or increase attendance during a pandemic. Regardless of the problem confronting you, you can almost always imagine potential solutions: ways in which success could be found if only these sets of things would happen.

The problem with these solutions and why they overwhelmingly fail is both a behavioral issue as well as a mathematical one. In this instance, behavioral issues refer to the notion that all leadership is about making change happen, and all change is essentially about a change in behaviors. Getting people to change their behaviors and habits is the behavioral issue at hand. The math of this problem has to do with a probability equation that can be calculated from the solution.

First, let’s examine the behavioral side of the issue. Getting people to change behaviors is far more complex and effortful than simply telling people what to do or writing a memo. Most of the behaviors that we seek to change in these situations can easily be called habits: we want people to drop one habit and adopt a different one. We know this is not easy for people to do, even when they want to change their habits, it is even more difficult when they are not choosing the change.

Changes in habits that represent significant changes for people have a lower probability of success. Asking people to change a rote behavior that carries no meaning to them requires significantly less effort. Think about an IT change that asks people to stop saving on the desktop and start saving in a network drive. These types of initiatives are reasonably successful because there is little emotional attachment to the desktop, and people can be provided with an easy “step by step” script for getting to the network drive. Research tells us we can put the likelihood of success for an initiative like this to be at the high end of the success scale — near 70%

Compare this with a change that involves changing the way staff interact with students who have behavioral issues. Asking staff to respond with compassion and understanding when a student is having a verbal outburst laden with obscenities can be a much more difficult change to make. First, this change in response will often fly in the face of a punishment mindset that many people have. Second, it requires several decision-making points, involving multiple adults, each of whom may or may not fulfill the aim of the initiative. The nature and the sheer complexity of this second initiative will make it much less likely to be successful. Research suggests that initiatives that target changes in mindset, or values, can expect a success rate of less than 50%.

The second issue with complexity and change management has to do with mathematical functions. Many people overestimate the outcomes of multiplying decimals, or percentages, and this causes them to overestimate the likelihood of success of their initiatives.

Consider the first initiative we described: a single-step change that had a probability of success of 70%, or 0.70. This is mathematically simple and requires no multiplication at all. However, if we add a second, equally simple step to this initiative, desiring people to use a specific naming convention when saving to the network drive, it changes things. Using a naming convention might have the same probability of success as the change in location, 70%. By combining the two initiatives, we take the likelihood of success down from 70% to less than 50% (0.70 * 0.70 = 0.49). Despite the fact that both of these initiatives are high probability initiatives, we have quickly shifted to a low likelihood of success.

Now consider an initiative that is more complex and difficult to implement. Going back to a change regarding students with behavioral issues, we have a 50% chance of success with a single staff member, in a single incident. We also will expect that the student will be moved on to someone else to help them process their emotions while the teacher continues on teaching the class. This typically requires a hallway escort by security or an aide, an interaction with a secretary at an assistant principal’s or counselor’s office, an interaction with the assistant principal or counselor, and a re-entry to the classroom (involving additional interactions with the secretary, hall staff, and teacher.

Even if we assume the highest degrees of success with each of these interactions, say 70%, our likelihood of being successful with so many steps is disturbingly low. The mathematical expression would be: Teacher interaction 1 (0.70) * Hallway staff interaction 1 (0.70) * Secretary interaction 1 (0.70) * AP / Counselor interaction (0.70) * Secretary interaction 2 (0.70) * Hall staff interaction (0.70) * Teacher interaction 2 (0.70), or 0.70 * 0.70 * 0.70 *0.70 * 0.70 * 0.70 * 0.70 = 0.082, or an 8.2% chance of success, despite a 70% chance of success at each step.

This problem is compounded by the fact that we used an overly optimistic probability of success for this model. Using a more realistic model of 50% likelihood of success in each step results in an overall success of 0.7% that the student will be dealt with in the desired manner.

The two main ways to address these dismal odds of success are to reduce the number of opportunities to fail and to increase the likelihood of success at each opportunity. Eliminating opportunities for failure, in this instance, involves reducing the number of adult interactions the student has before returning to class. If the AP/Counselor walks the student back to the classroom, two adult interactions are eliminated and the likelihood of success goes from 8% up to 16%. Additionally, if specific hall staff are trained for and chosen for this specific type of escort based on their existing mindset, the likelihood of success on that interaction can go up to 90%, boosting overall success to 21%. If there were a way to eliminate two additional interactions, say with the secretary, the likelihood of success becomes greater than 30%.

While these numbers can seem disheartening, they should motivate leaders and teams to find increasingly simple solutions to problems. Additionally, it should help schools have realistic expectations about the success of initiatives. Given the math involved, school leaders should consider a 30% success rate on this behavioral intervention a success that is worth building on.

This can be considered a treatise on the strength of the K.I.S.S. principle. When designing solutions for the problems your system encounters, consider each of the steps involved in a proposed solution and the probability of success on each of those steps. Consider having a goal of ensuring each step must have a success probability of greater than 90% and that there can be no more than three opportunities for failure. By attending to these two stringent solution criteria, you can ensure your solution has a probability of success that is greater than 70%. If your solution does not meet these criteria, you aren’t done planning and may need to involve more stakeholders to help you find simpler solutions.