Complicated or complex? The diagnostic most 2026 change programmes skip

Most 2026 change programmes are designed as though they are 'complicated'. The ones actually landing on senior leaders' desks generally aren't.

That distinction (cribbed from Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework, written up in Harvard Business Review back in 2007) is the difference between sense, analyse, respond and probe, sense, respond. A jet engine is complicated. A tax return is complicated. A culture shift, an AI-era operating model rebuild, or a workforce moving through distributed authority…those are complex. The cause-and-effect map only really shows up in retrospect.

Why this matters: when leaders apply a complicated playbook to a complex problem, the work tends to feel busy without ever feeling settled. The reports get longer. The steering committees get crowded. And the 'momentum' people talk about quietly stalls.

There's a second framework worth knowing, from British physicist Mark McKergow. He coined the word rutenso…using Japanese roots because English doesn't quite have one for the operating mode complex systems actually reward. Rutenso contrasts with koteiso, the fixed-framework mindset. The pair I keep coming back to is: when it's hard, speed up and act versus when it's hard, slow down and observe.

(In my experience, that second instinct is the most consistently violated piece of advice in any high-stakes change meeting I've sat in. Senior leaders tend to over-rely on action as proof of competence…and the system tends to punish them for it later.)

The full article walks through five archetypes of complex change showing up on senior leaders' desks right now. The AI adoption where the technology decision has been made but the organisation hasn't been redesigned around it. The transformation still running on a 'gold standard' 2005 playbook. The 'destination change' dressed up as consultation. The capability uplift that quietly drifts back six months after the consultant invoices land. And the 'permeable ecosystem' where the same person rotates as client, staff, subcontractor and competitor inside one programme lifecycle.

If you'd like to sharpen your own thinking on any of those scenarios in confidence, Pragma was built for exactly that. Send your leadership team in as individuals first…then compare notes. First five messages are free.

For the full article (including the Daryl Conner 'disposition' line, the Lara Boyd neuroplasticity bridge, and the Toolkit for Turbulence reference), read What does it mean to lead complex change in 2026? on markwinter.com.au.