Since 1958 more than 80 journal papers from the mainstream ergonomics literature have used either the words 'complex' or 'complexity' in their titles. Of those, more than 90% have been published in only the past 20 years. This observation communicates something interesting about the way in which contemporary ergonomics problems are being understood. The study of complexity itself derives from non-linear mathematics but many of its core concepts have found analogies in numerous non-mathematical domains. Set against this cross-disciplinary background, the current paper aims to provide a similar initial mapping to the field of ergonomics. In it, the ergonomics problem space, complexity metrics and powerful concepts such as emergence raise complexity to the status of an important contingency factor in achieving a match between ergonomics problems and ergonomics methods. The concept of relative predictive efficiency is used to illustrate how this match could be achieved in practice. What is clear overall is that a major source of, and solution to, complexity are the humans in systems. Understanding complexity on its own terms offers the potential to leverage disproportionate effects from ergonomics interventions and to tighten up the often loose usage of the term in the titles of ergonomics papers. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: This paper reviews and discusses concepts from the study of complexity and maps them to ergonomics problems and methods. It concludes that humans are a major source of and solution to complexity in systems and that complexity is a powerful contingency factor, which should be considered to ensure that ergonomics approaches match the true nature of ergonomics problems.