For the past five years, one of my mottos has been “simple is better”. At first glance, and at second glance also, there is nothing wrong with this sentence. In fact, I’d argue that this statement is always correct. In science, for instance, we always look for the simplest explanation for a phenomenon: the least steps or elements we need to explain something, the better. Of course I’m not the first one to make this observation, as I’m sure that philosophers like Popper, Kuhn, and Wallace would agree, despite their differences, and even beyond that.

Ockham’s Razor, for example, is a principle of simplicity. It states that when two explanations for a phenomenon are in contest, the simplest must be the truth. And even when Mr. Ockham can be traced back to the XIII and XIV centuries, we can find this principle in use way back by the old Greeks. The one and only Aristotle wrote in his work Physica: “...praestat autem pauciora et finita sumere, quod quidem facit Empedocles” which translates into “… and it is better to assume a smaller and finite quantity of elements, as Empedocles did.” Here, Aristotle makes references to the four-element principle of Empedocles: water, earth, fire, and wind as basic constituents of all matter. However simple, we know today of course, that this is wrong, but back then it was revolutionary.

My point here is that simplicity is important and we should prioritize simple explanations over complex ones, as chances are that the former is a better explanation (I dedicate an entire chapter in my upcoming book to discuss and argue this point further). But simple is not always easy, and probably more often than not it isn’t. This is a conceptual error I’ve had for the past five years: believing that pursuing something simple would be an easy task.

As I already mentioned, simplicity is the characteristic of performing a task in a reduced number of steps or elements, where the fewer steps or elements it needs to complete its goal successfully, the simpler it is. On the other hand, easy is something that is low-effort, that requires a small quantity of energy and a reduced amount of time to be done. At first, it could be understood that these are related since a simple process may be easy to implement or easy to arrive at. But is this true?

In science, when we talk about something as elegant, we refer to its simplicity, as to how it explains a complex mechanism in a few terms. For example, Einstein’s energy-mass equivalency formula is terribly simple and thus elegant, with only three terms: energy (E), mass (m), and the speed of light (c). At the same time, the road to arrive there required a prodigy master-mind of which we get once every two-hundred years or so, and its consequences are paradigm-changing. I think it is clear that, though simple, it was not easy to arrive at such conclusion.
E=mc2

The issue here is not pursuing something simple or something easy, but rather confusing them as the same or even related when they are not. I have some personal evidence (anecdotes, really) that this is a common misunderstanding, not so much in science but in the industry and especially in startups. Startups want to quickly get to market, quickly evolve, and quickly acquire clients to validate their product. For this, it is a common saying in that niche that things must be kept simple, when in reality they mean to keep things easy. Easy is definitely quick, but it gets messy, creates chaos, it breaks and leaks, just what startups need. Simple takes time, is refined and robust, it works beautifully, but it takes time, a lot of it.

Most times I’d see a problem with confusing these concepts, but other times it could be fine. For example, if you ask for something simple when you actually mean something easy and you get something easy, then that is fine as it would meet your expectations. However, if you ask for something simple when you in fact mean something simple and expect it as quickly as something easy, then we have a problem. Same is for the other case: if you ask for something easy and expect it to perform as something simple, then we have a problem. In an extreme case, and I think the worst case scenario, is to ask for something simple AND easy. In my opinion, there is virtually no such thing.

To be clear, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with asking for something easy or simple, but I think it is a problem not to understand what they mean and what their differences are. Hence, my invitation now is to be more conscious of the things we need, want, and ask for in this context. It looks to me, after talking with friends and peers, that very often there are bosses, managers, and even CEOs and CTOs who do not really get these concepts and differences, often asking for simplicity and easy at the same time. This provokes an unrealistic expectation of what can be achieved and also confusion about what the real goal is. In contrast, understanding these differences can help individuals and teams to work more effectively and with a better aim towards the goal. In any case, the first step is clear: deciding between either simple or easy, and you should make up your mind, because both cannot be true.
ask means recieve outcome
simple simple simple no problem
easy easy easy no problem
simple easy easy no problem
easy simple easy problem
simple easy simple problem
simple simple easy problem
easy simple simple no problem
easy easy simple problem