How do we make sense of what’s going on?
One of the first things we need to do is identify the type of problem we’re working on, and what the level of complexity is. I talked about this in my Adaptive Challenges post.
There are also many different perspectives, contexts, and ways of seeing the world. Because of that, as humans we’ve tried different ways to make sense of things and find meaning over a long time.
There’s a lot of theory and fascinating research in this area – far too much to cover here. I’ll briefly mention three things I find useful as background to making sense and meaning of the world, and what we’re learning as we explore our ideas.
Mental Models
A mental model is simply our internal explanation of how things work, especially how we interact with our external reality – the world around us.
Mental models are key to how we make sense of the world, approach problems, and make decisions. They guide our perceptions and behaviour. I have mine, you have yours, and everyone else has their own version too.
Cognitive Bias
We all have cognitive biases. They shape what we believe, how we reason and make decisions, what we remember, how we form relationships, and ultimately how we behave. They affect every area of our life.
These biases can affect us and those around us in negative ways, but many of them can be beneficial, and necessary to how we function. The Cognitive Bias Codex visualises over 180 documented cognitive biases, grouped into four everyday scenarios: too much information, not enough meaning, need to act fast, and what should I remember?
The interactive version of the Codex links to Wikipedia pages where you can learn more about each of the biases.
Building awareness of our mental models and how our set of cognitive biases are tuned helps us refine how we make sense of things, the conclusions we draw, and how we choose to behave.
We also need to be mindful that, to varying degrees, other people experience things differently – which is why empathy is so important. I’ll deep dive on empathy in another post soon.
“There is a kink in my damned brain that prevents me from thinking as other people think.”
CS Peirce
Abductive Reasoning & First Principles
The approach I recommend is based on first principles thinking and reasoning – especially abductive reasoning, alongside deduction and induction.
These are areas of deep academic theory, but I’m only interested in enough understanding to apply it in practical ways to make sense of things.
First Principles
First principles are defined as “one of the fundamental assumptions on which a particular theory or procedure is thought to be based” by the Collins Dictionary. Descartes said “they must be so clear and evident that the human mind cannot doubt of their truth.”
In simple terms, first principles are the most basic things we believe to be true – based on strong evidence.
First principles thinking is critical when working on complex problems. It involves breaking down the problem and its causes into its basic elements. We ask the question “what do we know to be true?”
We seek to remove assumptions to get to the set of things we can be confident are true. From this set of first principles, we then start building up what might be – testing our thinking and making sense as we progress.
Abductive Reasoning
In design research, synthesis is the stage where we make sense of what we’ve heard, and the information we’ve collected. This is an abductive sense-making process.
CS Peirce, the philosopher famous for defining the concept, said “abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea… Abduction merely suggests that something may be.”
In his excellent book Exposing the Magic of Design, Jon Kolko says “abduction allows for the creation of new knowledge and insight… The various constraints of the problem begin to act as logical premises, and the designer’s work and life experiences, and her ease and flexibility with logical leaps based on inconclusive or incomplete data, begin to shape abduction. Abduction acts as intuition and is directly aided and assisted by experience of any design or cultural patterns… Design cannot prove the solutions to the mysteries because solutions are only demonstrable and testable, not provable.”
When working on solving problems that matter, we first need to really understand what is – the current reality. Get down to first principles rather than building on faulty assumptions.
We use abductive reasoning to generate hypotheses about “something that may be”. We then test our hypotheses and ideas using approaches consistent with the scientific method.
Integral Theory
Integral theory is huge, but also beautiful in its simplicity. I find it a powerful framework to understand myself, others, organisations, leadership, systems, ecology, and pretty much everything else.
It’s primarily based on Ken Wilber’s work as a meta-theory that seeks to unify all fields of human research, knowledge, and experience. It’s also closely integrated with Clare Graves’ work which became Spiral Dynamics.
For decades my focus has been on developing myself and building a more holistic world-centric perspective – increasingly taking a planet-centric and integrated systems view. Most of this was before I discovered Integral. The frameworks and language of Integral have brought much sharper clarity to my approach. So, what is it?
AQAL
One of the things I find very valuable is using Integral as a transdisciplinary approach to making sense and meaning – and working on complex problems. Integral is all about making space for multiple perspectives and integrating them into a coherent whole.
AQAL (or “all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, and all types”) is the basic framework of Integral. There are so many aspects of this I’d love to share, but it would be theory for the sake of it. The Quadrants are the only part of the framework I’ll outline briefly, because they directly inform the approach I take in very practical ways.
There are four different perspectives that apply to all human experience, and they’re all interrelated. These are on the axis of individual and collective, internal and external. The quadrants are:
- The “I” perspective is the individual internal quadrant – our first-person subjective experience. Our thoughts, emotions, memories, states of mind, perceptions, and immediate sensations
- The “We” perspective is the collective internal quadrant – second-person perspective. Shared values, meanings, language, relationships, and cultural background
- The “It” perspective is the individual external quadrant – the objective third-person perspective. Our physical body (including our brain), and anything you can see and touch (or observe scientifically) in time and space
- The “Its” perspective is the collective external quadrant – inter-objective systems and structure. Systems, networks, technology, government, and the natural environment
While we’re working on an idea, especially those focused on systems change, it’s important to understand these different perspectives and find ways to integrate them meaningfully.
Holacracy
Holacracy isn’t directly part of Integral but was heavily influenced by its principles. It’s a way of structuring and running your organisation where power is distributed – giving individuals and teams freedom while staying aligned to the organisation’s purpose.
This is bit of a tangent and I’ll probably talk more about holacracy in a future post.
Holacracy is often spoken about in the context of “teal organisations”, and the stages of organisational development use red, amber, orange, green, and teal. This is a direct reference to some of the Integral development levels. I’ve spent a lot of my work life building the ways of thinking and practices that make green and teal possible.
There are a lot of context specific things to consider, and I never try to “implement” holacracy when I’m looking at leadership and doing organisation design, but I love the principles and always look to apply them to whatever degree fits – and what people are ready for.
I’ve found the structure fits very well with collective impact and collaborative change approaches.
If you’re keen to find out more, Brian Robertson is the author of Holacracy, a practical book worth reading. He also explains some of the key principles in his great 2012 TED talk Why not ditch bosses and distribute power.
Enspiral is a global community that started in New Zealand, and applies Holacracy principles. It’s “a virtual and physical network of companies and professionals brought together by a set of shared values and a passion for positive social impact. It’s sort of a “DIY” social enterprise support network. At its heart, it’s a group of people who want to co-create an encouraging, diverse community of people trying to make a difference”. The Enspiral Handbook is a great practical resource.
Solve Problems That Matter
This is an excerpt from my book Solve Problems That Matter, where I go into a lot more detail on all of the things I’ve covered in this post… and plenty more.
It’s a playbook with actions and worksheets to help you take a human-centred design and living systems approach to design, build, and launch your idea. Ideas that customers love, make money, and do great things for people and our planet… all while increasing wellbeing.
Let’s Collaborate
We specialise in coaching, training, and working alongside leaders.
A key way we do this is by designing and delivering action learning experiences with masterclasses, workshops, innovation sprints, and leadership, design thinking & innovation programs. These sessions build personal, team, and organisational capability to solve problems that matter with more:
- ❤️ Clarity on your purpose, goals, and approach to navigate complexity and make progress
- 🎯 Momentum to achieve your goals by building the workflows, rhythms, and habits for success
- 🌿 Confidence to move forward with more certainty and less risk while increasing your wellbeing
Ready to have fun collaborating to solve problems that matter?
