top of page
Behavor_white2.png
Search

KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid! Keep it Simple? Stupid!

  • davidjamesgrosse
  • Aug 4, 2025
  • 10 min read

Many years ago I had a boss who came into my office and wrote on the whiteboard “KISS”.


I don’t think he had taken a shine to me, rather it was a reminder to Keep It Simple Stupid. I do not recall what I had done to excite his ire.


It was probably after a tense meeting with Senior Management and one of my frequent bouts of YeahButEry and WhatAboutEry.

 

LinkedIn Post #1


I was reminded of this when I saw a LinkedIn post last week extolling the virtues of simplicity[i], referencing an old article from the Atlantic[ii].


The excerpt started with the heading “Simple is Smart”, and talked about the need to cut down on the big words, as the readers want complex ideas made simple.

 

Whilst I broadly agreed with the writer’s sentiments (when it relates to the skills of clear communication), I had another sudden attack of WhatAboutEry.

 

It appears to be a personality trait I still havn’t shaken off.


The underlying article noted that:


“Complicated language and jargon offer writers the illusion of sophistication”

 

Noting research that concluded when people use complicated language, they tend to come across as low-status or less intelligent.


Uh-oh.


However, it got me thinking and creating my own counter quote; being:


“Overly simplified language and metaphor offers readers the illusion of understanding”

 

Climbing on my high horse, for no good reason, I added a comment to the original LinkedIn post that noted:



Re-reading it now, it looks like I was spoiling for a fight that wasn’t there.


LinkedIn Post #2


Luckily just after I had sent my comment, the magic LinkedIn algorithm decided to feed into my confirmation bias. At the top of my screen was a new post[iii] from James Healy reminding us that humans are complex.


It highlighted the danger that:


“many of the accepted solutions for influencing humans in organisations assume humans are simple, mechanical creatures who'll respond in logical and predictable ways”

 

And


“One of the core themes of my new book, "BS At Work[iv]", is the yawning chasm between the complexity of real humans and the simplicity of so many of the organisational solutions we take for granted”

 

As expected, I couldn’t resist feeding the social media fire with my own comments, given a new personal trait I have self diagnosed, called TooRightEry



KICK Me


The next time anyone spots me getting too boisterous in my comments, please remind me to “KICK” back and relax, being Keep It Civilized & Kind.


Nonetheless, there is still something about this Simplicity & Complexity conversation that needs to be further explored.


KISS Brain Surgeons


I don’t know much about brain surgery, but I suspect it is quite tricky.


I am hoping that the instructions passed to the senior surgeon aren’t “drill your way in and have a rummage around with a knife”.


A trite example, because the surgeon is a highly trained expert, and will sometimes need to know about “brainstem cavernous malformation resection”, and the possibility of also “using the lateral pontine sulcus as an entry zone”.

 

The communication to the patient and their family will be simplified, and focus on “a cluster of abnormal blood vessels inside the brainstem that need to be removed”.


Each person will have the language and detail they need to fulfil their role.


Communication needs to be clear and relevant to the audience, and the knowledge required for them to understand their situation, and undertake their responsibilities[v].


So far so good.


KISS Rocket Scientists (part 1)


Rocket Scientists are also technical specialists of repute.


They may need to understand “a spacecraft's trajectory, through a time-varying, multi-body gravitational field, often leveraging gravity assists and continuous low thrust propulsion and that requires them to solve the optimal control problem” subject to:


What!


For us mortals they can summarize this as need to get an object from Earth to another planet, like Neptune, using the least amount of fuel, and making sure it arrives at the right time and in the right place.


If you want a good metaphor for this:


“imagine you’re playing golf in space. To get the ball (your spaceship) into the hole (your target planet), you bounce it off a series of trampolines (other planets) and those trampolines are flying around too. You have to hit the ball just right so it bounces at the perfect angles and lands in the hole... sometimes years later”[vi]


Once again, the communication needs to be clear and relevant to the audience.

NASA scientists think orbital resonance[vii]. I think trampolines.


KISS Management, Regulators and Politicians


Extending the same train of thought, there is appropriate language and framing needed in companies when engaging with experts, management, employees, customers and the wider public.


As with my old boss, we need to Keep It Simple Stupid.


But there is a snag. The Executive Management and the Board of a firm are not passive brain surgery patients or rocket launch bystanders.


They are not an audience, but key players in the game, whose decisions and actions set in train a range consequences and shape the fortunes of the organization.


When thinking out the potential impact and outcome of a course of action they need to understand more than just slicing into a brain with a knife or bouncing balls off a trampoline.


The often repeated Einstein quote[viii] that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" emphasizes the importance of finding the balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness. 


Avoiding oversimplification, whilst pushing for intelligibility and efficiency.

 

But when thinking about the audience for a message, and how they may then act upon it, it is essential to not stop at the words “as simple as possible” and continue the sentence with the oft overlooked caveat: “but not simpler".

 

The same challenges face politicians as they grapple with government, policy and spending, and regulators as they face institutional and systemic risk.


The press and public will yearn for simple sound bites and solutions. A slogan plastered on a Downing Street lectern. 

 

Reality has other ideas.


KISS, Reductionism and Representation


In life and work we face different situations, scenarios and processes that exhibit diverse traits and properties (for example, of inherent simplicity or complexity).


For the sake of brevity we can summarize them as:


  • Simple (e.g. a recipe, a clock)

  • Complicated (e.g. a jet engine, a computer)

  • Complex (e.g. an ecosystem, an organization’s culture)

 

Applying the lure of KISS and “reductionism”, people may seek to analyse and describe these phenomena in terms of their basic or fundamental constituents.


This works well for the recipe, and reasonably OK for the jet engine (albeit you will probably need a good manual and some engineering know-how).


However, applying it to a firm’s culture and the behavioural landscape is problematic.

Complex systems like a culture are adaptive, emergent, nonlinear, context-dependent and sensitive to feedback.


This means that:


  • Interactions matter more than the parts themselves;

  • Emergent properties can't be predicted from individual components;

  • Different features adapt, based on system level feedback.

 

In summary, the KISS of reductionism misses the very essence of thing being communicated, and it’s (wonderfully messy) inherent unpredictability, it’s shifting patterns, adaptation and evolution.


We can also assess the dangers of KISSing the wrong things, by studying how the topic is represented. What language and metaphors are used?


If organizational culture is represented as a simple object (an iceberg, mirror, map or glue), or as a clear structure (an operating system or compass) then the understanding will be stunted. As will any assessment and attempts to influence or intervene. 

 

Even those who try to apply more natural metaphors, in the hope of capturing the essence of complexity, can fall horribly short.


I once heard someone proudly declare they had a sophisticated approach to culture as they treated it as a garden that required careful cultivation; including a) planting (values), b) watering (training), and c) weeding (removing any toxic behaviour).


To which I would helpfully add: d) nonsense.


And not forgetting weather, soil, flora, fauna and a myriad of other interacting factors.

If, in the attempt to KISS a situation or problem, the approach is not truly representative of it’s inherent complexity then you might lead everyone down the garden path[ix].


KISS my Rs


For ease of memory we may summarize these caveats as “KISS my Rs”, Remembering the Risks and Rules of Reductionism and Representation.


The image is of an automatic duck[x]. The one example where if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is not a duck.


It's a robotic reductionist representation of a waterfowl. A Duck's Rs.


Fond of KISSing


A further difficulty arises from the fondness of people for KISSing.


Humans are often cognitive misers, favouring minimal mental effort, and relying on heuristics (rules of thumb) instead of the effort of processing complexity.


We also like the feeling of things being clearly understood and in control, and so will create (or fall for) simple and compelling stories that feed our hunger for order, and quell the uneasiness of reality.


This can lead to skewed understanding and poor decisions.


Peter Sandman, a leading authority on risk communication, coined the ironic phrase “misoversimplification[xi]” for when critical nuance is omitted.


Oversimplified risk communication may attract attention and ease management acceptance, but skipping contradictory or complex information can damage efficacy and trust.


Beware those bestselling airport books[xii], cult management styles and big ticket management consultants that frame complex issues in simple and repeatable narratives.


Likewise those politicians who contrive a short slogan of snake oil, accompanied with a simple explanation of who is to blame.


These sticky stories thrive on neatness but often omit complexity, leading their readers to embrace simplified and misleading “truths”.


KISS Rocket Scientists (part 2)


Bouncing back off the cosmic trampolines we return to the Rocket Scientists at NASA HQ.


A group we can surely trust to know when to KISS and when to refrain. When the imperative for clear communication should not be confused with naïve understanding and simplistic approaches to launching 2000 metric tonnes of metal, fuel[xiii] and 7 people into space.

Usually they managed to launch and return the craft safely. A remarkable achievement of scientific endeavour.


But sometimes they did not.


Both Challenger[xiv] in 1986 and Columbia in 2003 ended in disaster. The former due to an O-ring failure in cold weather, the latter when a piece of foam insulation from the external tank struck the left wing on launch, leading to break up on re-entry.

 

The extensive post mortems highlighted both the proximate technical failures and the ultimate human and organizational causes[xv].


Even a group of the technically brilliant can miss the cultural context, and the dangers are so pervasive that “never again” is repeated 17 years later


As someone once said, “it’s not rocket science”.


No, it’s more complex than that.


KISS Farewell


KISSing is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It depends on the circumstances, and who or what you are metaphorically locking lips with, when and where.


The trouble comes when we confuse the ease of messaging and communication, with the substance of the topic in question.


Sound bites are good for advertising and engagement. For gaining the attention of the distracted or the overworked.  Less so for those tasked with understanding and intervening in complex domains.


Here we may need to follow the immortal words of Scotland’s Robert Burns and bid farewell to the KISS[xvi];


“Ae fond kiss, and then we sever; Ae fareweel, and then for ever!”

 

Post Script 1


In writing an article on the dangers of assuming simplification is always a positive trait, and the urgent need to embrace reality and complexity, I have (of course) simplified the arguments, and made wide use of metaphors and KISS acronyms.

Irony of ironies.


I admit it is often a necessity. But do not confuse the message with the underlying substance.


“Organizational Culture is Complex” is a simple sentence. The implications are not.

Particularly if those who have authority, responsibility and decision-making power follow naïve, limited or misleading approaches that do not reflect reality


In this piece i have focussed on the consequences for understanding culture and behaviour inside a firm. The challenges apply equally to ecology, the environment, politics, state conflict, economics, the financial system and a myriad of other complex spheres.


If your management, regulators or politicians are following simple advice and linear solutions in the wrong places, they are rummaging around a brain with a knife, and it is unlikely to make the patient better.


Post Script 2


If we restrict our KISS focus to communications, nuance is still required.

Research has shown that in politics, overly simple or unsophisticated messaging reduces perceived reasoning ability and trustworthiness, even when clarity is intended. But conversely, messages that are too technical can alienate and depress engagement[xvii]

It’s a tricky balance. 

 

References


[ii] The Atlantic article on writing tips, including the need for simplicity https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/writing-tips-for-journalists-jargon-simplicity/621411/

[iv] BS At Work: Why so much of modern work is bullshit and how behavioural science can make it better – by James Healy.

[v] Albeit we need to be careful that we don’t withhold information on the basis we under-estimate another’s capacity to understand the detail. There are rights of honesty and transparency as well as brevity.

[vi] Thanks ChatGPT, that trampoline example was helpful

[viii] Lots of quotes are attributed to Einstein. Whether they all come from him is questionable. For this one see - https://elevatesociety.com/everything-should-be-made-as/

[ix] Idioms – and being led down the garden path: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lead+down+the+garden+path

[x] The Canard Digérateur (Digesting Duck) was an automaton created by Jacques de Vaucanson in 1764. The mechanical duck appeared to have the ability to eat grain, and to metabolize and defecate. However, the food was collected in one inner container, and the pre-stored “faeces” were evacuated from a second.  It was also unlikely to taste good in a pancake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digesting_Duck

[xi] See Peter Sandman at - https://www.psandman.com/index.htm

[xii] Have a listen to – “If Books Could Kill”, a podcast that runs a critical eye over best-selling books that offer (too) simple solutions to the world’s biggest problems. https://open.spotify.com/show/2khJBoF73ujIATWUFtSxLD

[xiv] Higginbotham - 'Challenger: A True Story of Heroism & Disaster on the Edge of Space' https://www.space.com/challenger-a-true-story-heroism-disaster-edge-of-space-book-release

[xvi] Robert Burns “Ae Fond Kiss” - https://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/ae_fond_kiss/

[xvii] Turkenburg, E. (2025). The separate and combined effects of (in) accessible and (un) sophisticated political communication on citizens’ reasoning and attitudes toward politicians. Human Communication Research, hqaf002. https://academic.oup.com/hcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hcr/hqaf002/8078028

See also - The Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN), hosted by the University of Surrey - https://www.cecan.ac.uk/about-us/ And a good blog on Slipping into Simplicity - https://www.cecan.ac.uk/blog/slipping-into-simplicity/

Comments

bottom of page