This is the English translation of the article published on “Il Sole 24 Ore” (August 12th 2025)
There is a complexity we cannot avoid. It is the complexity that arises from the world we live in, characterized by non-linear, unpredictable, interconnected dynamics that are difficult to decipher. Companies have been talking about it for decades. But are we sure that what we call “complexity” is not also the result of the useless complications we create every day with thousands of small gestures? One more email instead of a phone call. A meeting that could have been a conversation. The abuse of “cc.” Five slides become thirty. We add. We multiply. This isn’t complexity. It’s complication. And yet, every moment offers us the challenge of simplicity: removing the superfluous to let the essential emerge. But even though simplicity is a value declared by many companies, today it is revolutionary because we live in a system that pushes us to add rather than subtract.
Why do we add instead of subtracting? First of all, to avoid effort. Simplicity is a way of thinking and acting that we are not used to. It requires presence, clarity in choices, contextual awareness, and discernment of goals, stakeholders, and actions. It requires mental focus and connection with ourselves, the context, and others. Instead, we follow the inertia of “we’ve always done it this way,” we confuse accuracy with redundancy, we like talking more than staying silent, we think we fight uncertainty by adding. And we cultivate the illusion of being able to control everything… we don’t subtract due to a lack of trust. This is how dysfunctional hierarchy proliferates, increasing the distance between problems and decisions, and slowing down the organization. And so we rush, and we keep saying we don’t have time. Instead, to cultivate simplicity we need to stop and think, to talk to each other and listen to each other in order to understand one another and eliminate the superfluous. Simplicity needs practice. It is not that we lack time. We respond to the need for speed with haste, and in doing so we generate noise. But simplicity is also the courage to make choices, small and large, rather than adding “because you never know.” Yes, we prefer to add also to shield ourselves from others’ negative judgments. This is why we prefer beating around the bush to speaking clearly, avoiding exposure. Is it inevitable? No. This happens when the work environment lacks psychological safety, that element that encourages people to speak transparently, focusing on substance.
In a complex world, there are practices that foster simplicity. For example, asking ourselves: “Do we do this because it’s useful, or because it makes us feel safe?” Creating environments where we can say “I don’t know,” “I made a mistake,” “I have a doubt,” without fear of being considered incapable. Being able to say “I disagree, and here’s why,” even to one’s boss, without being considered inappropriate. Asking ourselves “What can we remove?” without fear of offending. And starting to build from there. This would also reduce stress. To work well, we humans need to stay in contact with the essential. Over the past twenty years, we have produced mountains of models and tools to help organizations “manage complexity.” But we have rarely asked ourselves how much of this complexity is self-induced. And yet, every time we help a leadership team recognize its own useless complications and untangle them, something profound happens. People breathe again. Teams regain momentum. Communication becomes more focused, purposeful, authentic, and listening becomes natural. Decisions come earlier—not because things speed up, but because connection deepens.
We live in a complex world, true. But in organizations there is enormous potential for simplicity. We just have to be willing to see it. We don’t need to add anything. We already have what we need. Stopping, thinking, listening to one another to understand each other and eliminate the superfluous. Simplicity is a daily practice of connection and trust.
by Marina Capizzi, Author of “Hierarchy to Die or to Thrive?”