Simplistic Is What Simplistic Does
Parsimonious Haiku
Simple isn’t simple,
Simplistic is too simple,
Simple good, simplistic poor.
?Abstract: This article highlights the vital difference between "simple" and "simplistic" in talent management—one offers clarity and results, and the other oversimplifies and misleads. Through a five-step process, it emphasizes rejecting fads and unproven methods in favor of evidence-supported strategies. The takeaway: if effective talent management were truly simple, everyone would be doing it well—yet here we are.
__________________________________________________________________
Let's compare the characteristics of "simple" versus "simplistic."
Simple:
Simplistic:
While "simple" is valued for its straightforwardness and lack of complication, "simplistic" is criticized for oversimplifying, ignoring complexities or just wrong. A simple solution is usually a good or working solution, whereas a simplistic one is often not adequate and doesn’t work in practice.
?Side by side, they look the same: short, dramatic, easy to remember, and appear right to an amateur or non-expert. The only minor difference is that one is right and works and the other is wrong and doesn’t work.
Simple is hard to find as most challenges in talent management are complex. Simplistic is easier because it is usually someone’s overly confident opinion or misinterpretation of information, laziness or even fraud. They sometimes privately know their simplistic solution to a complex problem will not work well. They are marketing against the simple monster!
To tell the difference, you could ask thought leaders, experts, academics, and practitioners. You could do side-by-side experiments. You could look up the literature on the topic. Now you could just ask AI! Just takes due diligence. Takes effort with a clear, non-judgmental mindset.
In any profession, there are unlimited simplistic solutions and fewer simple ones. A professional in any profession needs to be able to tell the difference.
E=mc2
Getting to simple is never simple. It is usually a five-step process. Faced with a complex problem, others have not yet solved:
First: Simplistic suggestions are those many accept and run with but are wrong.
Second: Complexification. All aspects of the problem are explored. As much as possible, experts learn everything about the problem, all of which are true. It is complete and complex. It takes a while to explain. It is too much for most.
Third: Parsimoniousness. What’s the least number of proven elements needed to explain the problem? Without losing too much truth, how could you explain it with the least content?
Fourth: Essence. What are the fewest core elements you would need to use to explain the most essential parts of the problem?
Fifth: Simple. It can’t be reduced any further without losing efficacy (effectiveness).
领英推荐
A word of caution: In this context, "simplify" means progressing toward clarity and effectiveness—moving up the 5-step chain to simple. It does not mean reducing complexity to the point of being simplistic, which risks oversimplifying and losing critical nuance.
Any professional should strive to avoid simplistic solutions to recurring complex problems.
Why is this important? Because professions differ on vulnerability to quick-fix simplistic solutions – bright, shiny objects. HR and TM are more susceptible than some other professions. The further you get away from a profession based on STEM or science, the less susceptible you should be. HR and TM are sitting at the doorstep of science. It’s there. But not everyone in the profession knows, recognizes, or uses it.?
Marvin Dunnette's seminal article "Fads, Fashions, and Folderol in Psychology" critically examined the transient trends and superficial practices that often dominate the field of psychology. Dunnette categorizes these trends into three groups: fads, fashions, and folderol. Fads are characterized by their short-lived but intense popularity, such as brainstorming and role-playing. Fashions are more enduring practices enforced by social or scientific norms, like theorizing and model building. Folderol refers to overly ornate and useless practices, such as conducting overly precise but trivial studies and coining new names for old concepts. Dunnette's article highlights the need for the field to move beyond these superficial trends and bright shiny objects and focus on more substantive and meaningful research.
More recently, David Ulrich and I (Bob Eichinger) and Allan H. Church and Roger Pearman discuss the persistent obstacles hindering talent management. We also highlight the attraction to superficial or trendy approaches, often referred to as "Bright Shiny Objects," which are not supported by research or scientific evidence. Along with Dunnette decades earlier, they emphasize the importance of relying on rigorous and relevant research to improve talent management practices. This tendency to chase fads and fashions, rather than focusing on proven methods, can lead to ineffective talent management strategies and lack of the expected results.
One cautionary sign in the TM field is the accuracy and usefulness of self-assessment. Mainly from studies using 360 data, the general finding is that other rater groups (bosses, peers, direct reports, and customers) agree more with each other than the self does with them. Others are more accurate when a few of the studies compared results with other outcome information.? Others are more accurate than self in predicting outcomes. The findings are nuanced. Self-rating is more accurate in the cognitive domains than in the EQ skills and competencies. One possible reason for that is growing up; we get a lot of feedback about how smart we are.? Grades, rank in class, awards, IQ testing, etc. We get less EQ feedback about how effective we are working with and relating to others. One possible reason is people have less courage to tell you what they really think about how they experience you.? Combined with less interest in listening on the part of the self. Many are defensive in the face of critical interpersonal feedback.
Self-assessment is useful as one measure of self-awareness. However, it is really a facet of empathy. How accurately can you predict how others see you? Doesn’t mean you agree with it.
Self-assessment alone is often related to a simplistic solution. We don’t allow it or use it much elsewhere. The bank doesn’t rely on self-assessment of loan worthiness. It uses independent credit scores. The Olympic committee doesn’t rely on athletic self-assessment. It runs competitions. Patients do not prescribe for themselves. Doctors do. Whether you are ready for a driver’s license is not based on self-assessment. There is a paper and a driving test. Winning the VOICE is based upon sing-offs and voting from the audience. Whether you are a high potential or not should not be a matter of self-declaration! ?Or whether you deserve a promotion or not.
This is complicated because many of our customers have been taught the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle on their MBA programs. It’s in every leadership book and HBR article. Taught in every communication course. David Rock, a leading expert in neuroleadership, emphasizes "stickiness" in his work, meaning easy to remember, advocating for simplifying concepts to make them memorable and applicable in leadership and organizational contexts.
Personally, I buy a little stock in every company I do work in, so I get all of the shareholder material and have a stake in the value of my advice and counsel. I’m amused when I get the 10-K report (a comprehensive report filed annually by a publicly traded company about its financial performance). It’s 110 pages of 8-point type describing the company which every senior leader would be expected to know and understand, followed by the 67-page annual report to shareholders. This comes from the same C-Suite that loves simplification -- and limits the leadership model to seven competencies!? Everything else is complex but talent management needs to be sticky and simple (simplistic). Sigh…. Even Marketing (Bud Light and now Jaguar) is complex. Running the 47th campaign for President was apparently not simple either.
A minor challenge is that it takes 10 to 20 years to prove something works for succession planning and leadership development. And few are studying simplistic solutions.
Be cautious of any overly simplistic, four-color framework claiming to solve management and leadership challenges—there’s no time today to unpack all the reasons why. If there are really four things, we would all know that, and it would be solidly supported by a stream of research and outcome studies.
Is it simple? Not really, but it looks simple. Is it easy to remember? Yes. Does it work? Not really.
All this leads to my favorite line, if it were simple, we would all be doing it well. We are not.
The closer we are to STEMming, the less likely we will fall for "bright shiny objects." HR and Talent Management sit at science’s doorstep but often fail to knock. The lesson? Skip the fads, embrace the facts, and let evidence-based practices help you live long and prosper.
As an HR or TM professional, you have to be able to judge solutions to serious challenges that are simplistic – too good to be true.
Bob Eichinger and Lisa-Marie Hanson (Series Editor)
Follow more of our articles at:? https://www.dhirubhai.net/company/talenttelligent/mycompany/
References
Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology.?American psychologist,?21(4), 343.
Rock, D. (2010). Your brain at work.?Human Resource Planning,?33(3), 57.
Ulrich, D., Church, A. H., Eichinger, B., & Pearman, R. (2023). Why talent management and succession bench building aren’t working today: At least not as well as they could! International Association for Human Resource Information Management (IHRIM). Retrieved from https://www.ihrim.org/2023/11/why-talent-management-and-succession-bench-building-arent-working-today-as-least-not-as-well-as-they-could/
Shaping viewers' perception of your personal brand – Worked at Paint Weint (Startup) and with @Apurva Makwana
1 个月Great !
Shaping viewers' perception of your personal brand – Worked at Paint Weint (Startup) and with @Apurva Makwana
1 个月Great !
Organisational Health | Leadership Advisory | Vertical Development | VU PhD Candidate | Chartered MCIPD | SHRM-SCP | ICF ACC
2 个月Complexity is relative - what is complex for one is simple for another and vice versa.
Complex problems often have simple, easy to understand WRONG answers. Thank you for outlining these important distinctions.
Sr. HR Consultant; Experienced CHRO; PhD I/O Psychology; Finds Solutions and Delivers Results
2 个月Well said Dr. Bob. You're still at it! And Dunnette's 1966 article was prescient.