Nevertheless, storytelling has tremendous power, and it would be surprising if this mixture did not also invite abuse. I therefore want to delve deeper into this dark side. In this article, mainly how it looks. Later, I will say something about ways to recognize such abuse, how to cope with it – or even better: how to construct a storytelling process (not really a process in the traditional sense of organizational science) that is resilient to such abuse.

Four Archtypes of Manipulative Storytelling

Some negative patterns of storytelling recur regularly. They are actually easy to recognize if you know how to read the signs. I call these archetypes, in analogy to my metaphor of the four sisters of sensemaking, the four witches of confusion.

1. Narrative Colonization

Dominant narratives often overshadow alternative perspectives, marginalizing voices that do not align with the established story. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s concept of the “single story” illustrates how one perspective, when repeated and institutionalized, becomes the only recognized truth.

In organizations, narrative colonization manifests in histories that erase contributions of certain groups, cultural stories that reinforce the status quo, and leadership narratives that frame dissent as disloyalty.

Notorious example: A multinational corporation celebrates its legacy of innovation while neglecting to acknowledge the contributions of early employees and overlooked contributors from diverse backgrounds.

2. Gaslighting Through Selective Storytelling

Gaslighting occurs when selective storytelling is used to construct a misleading version of reality. This often involves omitting crucial details, reframing past events, or selectively highlighting successes while ignoring failures.

Notorious example: A toxic leader manipulates organizational history by presenting past failures as the fault of previous teams while taking credit for inherited successes. Employees begin doubting their own recollections, leading to a culture of confusion and passivity.

3. False Urgency and Crisis Narratives

Urgency is a powerful motivator, but when wielded dishonestly, it becomes a tool for bypassing critical thinking and rational decision-making.

The “burning platform” dilemma: While a genuine crisis may necessitate quick decisions, fabricated or exaggerated crises serve as a justification for pushing unpopular changes and suppressing debate.

Notorious example: A CEO declares an existential financial crisis to justify mass layoffs, only for reports to later reveal stable profit margins and executive bonuses.

4. Heroic Storytelling and Ego-Driven Narratives

The Cult of the Hero

Organizations often romanticize singular figures, attributing collective achievements to the brilliance of one individual. This erasure of collective effort distorts reality and discourages a culture of shared success.

Notorious example: Silicon Valley’s obsession with founder myths, where charismatic leaders are credited with all innovation, ignoring the contributions of early employees, advisors, and support networks.

Savior Complexes in Leadership

Some leaders position themselves as indispensable by crafting narratives where only they can navigate challenges. This fosters dependency, discourages empowerment, and stifles organizational resilience.

Notorious example: A turnaround CEO implements short-term wins while suppressing emerging leaders, ensuring the company remains reliant on their leadership rather than fostering sustainable success.

Organizational Propaganda eats Authentic Narratives

Just as there are recurring patterns for problematic or toxic narratives, many of the processes by which they arise are also similar.

1. Values Statement morphing into Fiction

Organizations often craft grand narratives around their core values, but when these stories do not align with reality, they breed cynicism and disengagement.

Notorious example: A company wins awards for its workplace culture while experiencing high turnover, burnout, and internal dissatisfaction.

2. The “Happy Family” Toxic Narrative

Framing an organization as a “family” can be a manipulative tactic to suppress dissent, enforce loyalty, and discourage professional boundaries.

Notorious example: A company insists “we’re all family here” while expecting employees to work excessive hours without compensation, framing objections as a betrayal of the collective.

3. Progress Narratives That Mask Regression

Storytelling is often used to portray an illusion of progress by selectively presenting data that supports a preferred narrative while obscuring declining conditions.

Notorious example: A company boasts “industry-leading” employee engagement scores while neglecting to mention that these scores are based on selectively reported metrics, not comprehensive feedback.

Conclusion

Storytelling holds immense power in shaping organizational culture, decision-making, and leadership. However, this power carries ethical responsibility. Leaders and organizations must remain vigilant against the manipulation of narratives for control, exclusion, or self-interest. By fostering authentic, inclusive, and transparent storytelling, organizations can cultivate a culture of trust, accountability, and genuine progress.

The next article in this series will explore the countermeasures, cognitive mechanisms behind storytelling, examining how narratives shape perception, memory, and decision-making.

References

• Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. 2009. “The Danger of a Single Story.” https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.
• Boje, David. 2011. “Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations.” Annals of Business Research 5 (2): 89–104. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Narratives_Annals.pdf.
• Gordon, George, and Sarah Nichols. 2023. “A Narrative Approach to Exploring Values in Organisations.” In Exploring Values and Ethics in Organizational Culture, 245–62. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-90769-3_11.
• Sonenshein, Scott. 2010. “Organizational Storytelling, Ethics and Morality: How Stories Frame Limits of Behavior in Organizations.” Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies 10 (2): 4–9. https://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol10_no2_pages_4-9.pdf.
• Team, Axios Editorial. 2024. “Lead with Integrity: Explore the Ethics of Organizational Change.” https://www.axios.com/sponsored/lead-with-integrity-explore-the-ethics-of-organizational-change.
• Khodur et al. 2023. “The Power of Organizational Storytelling: The Story of a Company in Times of Transformation.” Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review 7 (3): 16–30. https://virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/cgobrv7i3p16.pdf.

Foto: jurien huggins, Unsplash

The post The Dark Side: Manipulative and Toxic Storytelling appeared first on Grado.

The storytelling metaphor / method is sometimes used in a pretty different way from this understanding. It is more unidirectional, structured, transporting a predefined purpose.

This form makes is a very different setting. For my purposes, I will call it tame storytelling.

Tame stories are not inherently bad; they serve a purpose in maintaining stability and reinforcing established practices. However, their primary limitation is that they lack the ambition or open-ended exploration needed for organizational sensemaking. Tame stories provide certainty and structure, but they do little to enhance situation awareness or reveal weak signals – those subtle, early indicators of change that could inform strategic adaptation.

This interaction is not dynamic and cooperative, it is goal-oriented, one-sided, it distinuishes between the story teller and the audience.

I present two popular examples of tame story telling.

Steve Denning’s Approach to Storytelling is tame: Persuasion and One-Sided Narratives

As an example, I will use Steve Denning’s approach as an example of tame storytelling. Steve Denning is a well-known advocate of storytelling in business, particularly for leadership, knowledge management, and organizational change. His approach focuses on the strategic use of storytelling to drive alignment, persuade audiences, and ease resistance to change. While effective in achieving predefined goals, Denning’s method can be one-sided, prioritizing the storyteller’s objectives over genuine dialogue or emergent sensemaking.

A Tool for Persuasion

Denning’s storytelling model is centered around narratives designed to influence. His key types of stories include:

• Springboard Stories: Short, engaging stories designed to inspire change by illustrating a successful transformation. These stories are meant to be easily retold and adapted by audiences.
• Knowledge-Sharing Stories: Used to simplify complex ideas and make information more accessible.
• Leadership Stories: Crafted to inspire and guide employees toward a shared vision.
• Brand Stories: Used in marketing to create emotional connections with customers.

His storytelling is goal-driven, meaning the primary aim is to guide listeners toward accepting a particular conclusion or action.

One-Sided Approach

While Denning’s storytelling approach is highly effective in reducing resistance and gaining buy-in, it has inherent limitations* due to its predefined purpose and unidirectional nature.

1. Weakening Resistance Rather Than Encouraging Dialogue: Denning’s method focuses on making change palatable rather than engaging in open-ended exploration. Instead of fostering organizational sensemaking, it smooths over resistance by presenting narratives in ways that make them difficult to contest. This can be useful in managing change but limits the ability of audience to critically engage with or shape the evolving story.
2. Easing Acceptance for a Predefined Purpose: Stories in this model are carefully crafted to drive an intended conclusion rather than explore possibilities. This aligns with corporate objectives but often suppresses alternative perspectives, reinforcing a single narrative rather than accommodating complexity. Employees may accept the story because it is compelling, not necessarily because it reflects a full or accurate picture of reality.
3. Ignoring Weak Signals and Organizational Complexity: Because Denning’s storytelling is outcome-driven, it does little to surface weak signals – subtle indicators of change, risk, or opportunity that emerge from decentralized sensemaking. It prioritizes coherence over complexity, making it less effective in highly uncertain or ambiguous situations where multiple narratives need to be explored.

Unlike emergent storytelling, which allows for bottom-up contributions and multiple perspectives, Denning’s use of stories follows a top-down structure. While effective in persuading audiences, it does not lend itself to the wild, open-ended sensemaking needed for organizations to navigate uncertainty.

User Stories are tame: a constructed user perspective of a predefined purpose

User stories are a widely used technique in agile development and product management, intended to capture the needs of end-users in a simple, structured narrative format. Typically written from the perspective of a user, they follow a formula such as:

> *As a [user], I want [feature or functionality] so that [benefit or outcome].*

While user stories aim to center the user’s needs, in practice, they are often one-sided and pursue a predefined purpose set by the storyteller (e.g., product manager, or product owner).

Why User Stories Are Often One-Sided

1. The User Perspective Is Often Constructed, Not Emergent. User stories are written by product teams, not actual users. While they attempt to represent real needs, they often reflect assumptions, business goals, or the storyteller’s vision rather than genuine user experiences. Since user stories are crafted within the constraints of business objectives and technical feasibility, they may filter out inconvenient complexities or diverse user perspectives.
2. A Predefined Purpose: The structured nature of user stories simplifies decision-making and helps teams align around a common goal, but this also means they steer development in a predetermined direction rather than inviting open-ended exploration. Developers are encouraged to accept the story as written, rather than challenge its framing or introduce alternative narratives.
3. Lack of Weak Signal Detection and Deep Sensemaking: User stories reduce ambiguity but, in doing so, suppress early warning signs or emergent insights that could indicate shifting user needs.

Unlike emergent storytelling or sensemaking methods, which collect multiple narratives to reveal patterns, user stories fixate on a single, anticipated path, often missing unexpected or weak signals from real-world user behavior.

Example: How User Stories Reinforce a Predefined Path

Imagine a company developing an AI-powered chatbot for customer service. A typical user story might be:

> *As a customer, I want an AI chatbot that can answer my questions instantly so that I don’t have to wait for human support.*

On the surface, this seems user-centered. However, it reflects the company’s assumption that users prioritize instant AI responses over other potential needs (e.g., personalized service, human escalation). In reality, some users may prefer slower but more accurate responses or may not trust AI for certain queries.

By structuring the need in a way that favors the company’s solution (AI chatbots), the user story reduces debate and alternative explorations, making it easier for the team to justify their planned implementation.

Rewilding Stories?

Again: tame stories are not bad – they just serve a different purpose than my main topic in this series, which is mastering complexity. But they do not feel right – kind of distorted, mutilated to fit machine logic. They can help for their intended purpose. But they have lost most of their transformative potential, the power to deal with complexity.

Stories can do so much more if you embrace the complexity they bring. What happend whe we start rewilding our stories?

• Atlassian. n.d. “User Stories | Examples and Template.” Atlassian. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/user-stories.
• Cohn, M. 2004. User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Signature Series. Addison-Wesley.
• Denning. 2005. The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. John Wiley & Sons.

The post Tame Stories appeared first on Grado.

When I started my research, I noticed something that I hadn’t conciously noted before: there are quite different meanings, techniques and mechanisms at work in storytelling.

I found some variants of storytelling that emerge in different environments, from organic, emergent narratives to structured hero-driven tales. I found also failed and toxic storytelling, including manipulative narratives designed to deceive, heroic storytelling that over-glorifies individuals while erasing collective effort, and tame storytelling, which sanitizes complexity and avoids necessary conflict.

Today I start with myths, the wild side of story telling.

Emergent narratives

I want to introduce with my hero Claude Lévi-Strauss, pioneering anthropologist and structuralist, who extensively analyzed myths and stories in human societies. His work focused on the deep structures underlying myths across cultures, arguing that myths serve as a form of universal human expression structured by binary oppositions (e.g., life vs. death, nature vs. culture, raw vs. cooked).

He viewed myths as a kind of “language” shared by all human societies. He argued that despite their diverse content, myths across cultures follow similar structures, revealing fundamental human thought patterns.

Bridging Myth and Science
Levi-Strauss compares myth to music, noting how both operate through recurring patterns and themes. For him, myths are not just tales but serve as a collective way for societies to make sense of contradictions and maintain cohesion.

Example: The Myth of the Trickster
One of the most analyzed myths in his work is the trickster figure, found across cultures (e.g., Coyote in Native American myths, Loki in Norse mythology). The trickster often embodies contradictions—both creator and destroyer, hero and villain—showing how myths help societies navigate ambiguity.

Business Storytelling

This structuralist view to mythology and storytelling provides insights into how businesses craft and use narratives, to understand the deep structures underlying their stories.

Myths as Structural Foundations for Business Culture

Lévi-Strauss argued that myths serve as frameworks through which societies organize meaning. Businesses, like societies, rely on foundational stories to define their identity, values, and purpose.

• Example: some companies have origin myths around a visionary founder, e.g., Steve Jobs and Apple. These narratives structure how the company’s mission is perceived.
• Insight: Internal myths shape decision-making and employee engagement. Going with the flow of emerging stories has a much stronger impace than reinforcing outdated narratives and supports redefining identity in times of transformation.

Binary Oppositions in Business Narratives

A core idea in Lévi-Strauss’ theory is that myths are structured through binary oppositions—concepts that appear in tension but help make sense of the world. Examples are nature versus technology or chaos versus order. Businesses analogues of such contrasts could be tradition versus oinnovation or startup versus corporate.

• Example: The “disruptor vs. incumbent” (e.g., Tesla vs. legacy automakers), is a classic business story that mirrors the myths of trickster figures challenging the established order.
• Insight: Using these patterns allows an organization to craft narratives that strategically position themselves, e.g., as the bold innovator overturning an old system.

Resolving Contradictions

Lévi-Strauss believed that myths serve to mediate contradictions in human thought. Similarly, business storytelling often functions to reconcile tensions between competing priorities.

This is an especially important aspect, as it takes into account that reality is usually too complex for simple solutions or binary decisions. It allows you to leave things in limbo, understand complexity, and more easily find non-binary answers.

• Example: The tension between profit vs. purpose. Sustainable brands (e.g., Patagonia) use storytelling to bridge this contradiction, portraying profitability and environmental responsibility as complementary forces rather than opposing goals.
• Insight: Be mindful of the contradictions your audiences perceive and use storytelling to reframe these tensions in a way that enables alignment rather than conflict.

Levi-Strauss’ Four-Volume Mythologiques Series
His most famous work, Mythologiques, consists of four volumes where he analyzes myths across the Americas to uncover their deep structures:
The Raw and the Cooked (1964) – Examines myths about food preparation, revealing symbolic oppositions between nature (raw) and culture (cooked).
From Honey to Ashes (1966) – Explores myths related to sweetness, bitterness, and food taboos.
The Origin of Table Manners (1968) – Studies the socialization of eating and its symbolic meaning in myths.
The Naked Man* (1971) – Concludes the series by connecting mythology with human perception and experience.

The post Myths, Narratives and Stories appeared first on Grado.

Weak signal detection appeared as the evolution of a concept, born out of the growing need to navigate uncertainty in more and more complex times. It goes back to the mid-20th century, as organizations, scientists, and strategists grappled with the challenges of anticipating disruptions in rapidly changing environments.

Early Warning Systems

War is the father of all things — Heraclithus

During the Cold War, after WW2, the USA and the Sovjet Union had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the adversary – if they could surprise them (they still have – but that is another story). Consequently, the spies and intelligence agencies sought methods to identify early signs of potential threats. These efforts focused on intercepting and interpreting faint, ambiguous information to predict military actions or geopolitical shifts.

Business plays catchup

Since then the focus extended from military applications to business, the technology from radar technology to big data, AI and social studies.

The concept began to crystallize in the 1970s and 1980s, when global markets became more dynamic and uncertain. Two trends stand out: Strategic management with Igor Ansoff and Systems thinking, primarily the Futures Movement with lvin Toffler‘s influential book Future Shock.

• Igor Ansoff: recognized that traditional tools for planning and forecasting were insufficient in such environments. He introduced the term “weak signals” in his seminal 1975 paper, “Managing Strategic Surprise.”
• Alvin Toffler highlighted in  Future Shock the psychological and societal effects of rapid change. It introduced a broader audience to the idea that understanding and managing the future was essential.

New Technologies and Concepts

Advances in technology and the advent of social media transformed weak signal detection. The availability of large amounts of data, coupled with artificial intelligence tools, enabled organizations to analyze massive datasets for faint patterns and anomalies. They unlocked completely new opportunities like sentiment analysis, social media listening, and predictive analytics became essential for identifying weak signals in real time.

By the way: I am as concerned about ethical and political implications as you are: for this article, I put the concerns into the parking place – I will come back to that aspect.

There are also significant developments in the area of science, concepts and models.

In addition to systems theory, complexity science and assemblage theory have emerged, providing a new foundation for the entire field of weak signal detection, sensemaking and situation awareness. I will come back with dedicated articles about these topics.

For now, I want to add a (probably incomplete) list of tool types, ranging from software platforms to methodologies that organizations can adopt. A subset of the categories for these tools would be:

• Data Analytics Platforms: These tools process large datasets to identify patterns, anomalies, and trends that could represent weak signals. Example: Google Trends
• Social Media Listening Tools: monitor public sentiment, emerging conversations, and shifts in behavior across digital platforms. Example: Hootsuite Insights
• Environmental Scanning Tools: monitoring media coverage and trends. Example: CISION.
• AI and Machine Learning Algorithms: analyze unstructured data, detect weak signals, and make predictions based on patterns. Example: IBM Watson Analytics.
• Foresight and Scenario Planning Tools: explore weak signals and integrate them into scenario planning. Example: The Futures Platform.
• Trend Monitoring Platforms: aggregate data from multiple sources. Example: TrendHunter.

Sensemaking is a Human Activity

A fool with a tool is a fool

Valuable as these tools may be, there is a danger in relying on them: they create a deceptive feeling of safety. The real surprises come from unexpected directions that are not covered by tools like SAP Predictive Analytics.

When people stumble onto the truth they usually pick themselves up and hurry about their business.” —attributed to Winston Churchill

The tools can help to overcome the “attention blindness”, tunnel view and group think from which individuals and organizations suffer. Crowdsourcing and Collaboration Platforms can provide a valuable contribution, as do Human-Centric Methods such as the Delphi Method or Trend Scouting Workshops.

There are platforms that explicitly emphasize the need to abstract from the implicit control of interviewers’ and moderators’ biases. Typically, they rely on story telling techniques in which the participants pprovide their own questions and vocabulary and then create a map of cultural ideas from individual participants’ stories.

A Weak Signal Detection Framework

If weak signals are to be perceived successfully, the process must be deeply integrated into the culture of the organization. The organization must continuously look for new angels and perspectives. Looking for weak signals must become part of Organizational Learning. It is not a one-off action – surprises do not provide a timetable. The framework of Day and Schoemaker gives a number of hints how such a process couls be implemented and how it must be embedded into the organization’s DNA.

Problems addressed

• Missed Signals: Missed signals are not due solely to lack of information but also “information overload, organizational filters, and cognitive biases.
• Personal Biases as Obstacles to Sense-Making: several personal biases hamper our ability to interpret weak signals accurately, such as Selective Perception/Filtering, Rationalization, or Wishful Thinking
• Organizational Biases and Challenges: such as Groupthink, Dispersed Memory or Source Credibility Bias.

A Three-Stage Approach to Improved Sense-Making

The three principal stages of the process provide a number of idea for collecting, qualifying and validating potentially important signals:

• Actively Reveal Weak Signals
• Amplify Interesting Signals
• Probing and Clarifying

(we talk of stages, not steps – all of it should happen all the time, albeit on different signals)

Actively Reveal Weak Signals

• Tap Local Intelligence: Push sense-making down to local levels, emulating how subculture networks operate with autonomous cells. This enables a real-time view.
• Leverage Extended Networks: Query partners, suppliers, customers, and others in the company’s ecosystem to extend the “eyes and ears of the company.”
• Mobilize Search Parties: Create task forces, like IBM’s “Crow’s Nest,” to scan specific areas and share insights with management.

Amplify Interesting Signals

After collecting signal, you need to filter the important ones in a way that is compatible with the complex and ambiguous nature of the environment.

• Test Multiple Hypotheses: Actively challenge existing assumptions with competing viewpoints.
• Canvass the Wisdom of the Crowd: Use collective forecasting methods like Delphi polling and anonymous opinion markets to pool the knowledge of the organization.
• Develop Diverse Scenarios: Create multiple scenarios to challenge the dominant view, preventing organizations from locking into single and potentially incorrect views.

Probing and Clarifying

Typically thre are no hard data about the relevance, meaning and impact of the signals. After filtering the candidates, here follows an active phase in which the signals are further validated.

• Seek new information to “confront reality”: Look for more evidence and challenge the status quo.
• Encourage Constructive Conflict: Promote respectful debate focused on ideas, not people, to ensure facts are examined from different perspectives.
• Trust Seasoned Intuition: Recognize the value of experienced peoples’ hunches – but beware: experience is the only way to get good intuition.

Recommendations to implement

Some consequences for implementing a sound approach help organizations to improve their sensemaking and to become more resilient and adaptive:

• Proactively implement the three-stage approach.
• Develop a training programs about common cognitive and organizational biases.
• Foster a culture that values dissenting viewpoints and promotes constructive conflict.
• Leverage extended networks and tap into local intelligence to gain broader perspectives.
• Scenario planning and multiple hypothesis testing should become a regular part of strategic decision-making.

The post Weak Signal Detection in Real Life appeared first on Grado.

The concept of sensemaking is well-named: its purpose is obvious at first glance. At second glance, it becomes more differentiated, as is almost always the case: why do we need a new term in addition to interpretation, measurement, benchmarking and all the others?

We will answer this question when we look at sensemaking in detail:

• When do I need sensemaking
• What is sensemaking
• How does sensemaking work
• What is the difference to measuring and interpreting
• What is the difference to situational awareness

We will rely heavily on Carl Weick’s explanations on the topic. Weick arguments that sensemaking is part of constructing a reality, not just measuring or interpreting it. Stay tuned, this is not an esoteric phantasy, but a valid description of an activity..

How can I know what I think until I see what I say? Carl Weick

Opportunities for sensemaking

The need or simply opportunities for sensemaking arise in situations that disrupt expectations or understanding. These situations often involve a need to make sense of something that is new, unexpected, or ambiguous.

This is not simply about filling a lack of information. Instead, it is about actively constructing meaning and understanding. They can involve both individual and social processes and can lead to changes in understanding, behavior, and organizational practices. It is important to note that the label or category that is applied to the novelty is consequential for how the situation is framed and understood, like surprises, ambiguity or disruptions.

Sensemaking can also be triggered when people are asked to think about or explain a situation or when they notice gaps between perceptions and expectations. People may actively seek information to help bridge these gaps.

What is sensemaking

Sensemaking is the process of creating meaning from experiences, particularly in situations that are unexpected, complex, ambiguous, or uncertain. It’s about how we interpret events, data, and information to understand what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what it means for us.

• Making sense of the world: Sensemaking is a fundamental human activity. It is especially important when we face situations with incomplete information, conflicting interpretations, or unexpected events. We constantly try to make sense of our surroundings, the actions of others, and the events that unfold around us.
• An active process shaping reality: Expectations and actions influence each other and the environment, which in turn influences experiences, focus and the next questions. We can say, sensemaking actively constructs our reality.
• Other than measuring: Unlike measuring, sensemaking is circular and reflexive. It is not fixated on gathering specific data points, often treated as discrete and objective. Sensemaking understands that the targets of perception are not constant and immutable.
• More than interpretation: Sensemaking involves analyzing information, constructing narratives, and engaging in dialogue with others to develop a shared understanding of a situation. Unlike interpretation, it is an active, ongoing process of constructing meaning, invention and creation. It involves framing, creating facticity, and making the subjective more tangible.
• Retrospective view: Sensemaking typically looks back at past events to understand their significance, to help us to anticipate future possibilities and plan accordingly.
• Individual and collective: Sensemaking can be an individual cognitive process, but it also occurs in groups and organizations, where people work together to make sense of shared experiences.

The Seven Properties of Sensemaking

1. Grounded in Identity Construction: Sensemaking is deeply tied to our sense of self. We interpret events and situations based on who we perceive ourselves to be. Identity is fluid and evolves through interaction, influencing how we understand situations.
2. Retrospective: Sensemaking is backward-looking. We understand past actions and events based on present circumstances and outcomes. Current understanding retroactively shapes our interpretation of past actions.
3. Enactive of Sensible Environments: Our actions shape the environments we then interpret. We “enact” the world and are then influenced by our own actions.
4. Social: Sensemaking is a social process, influenced by interactions and shared understandings. The individuals’ sensemaking processes are interconnected.
5. Ongoing: Sensemaking is an continuous, never-ending process that evolves over time. What makes sense today can be revisited and reconfigured as circumstances and perspective change.
6. Focused on and by Extracted Cues: Sensemaking involves focusing on specific cues within the information stream, these are influenced by context and personal dispositions. The “what” we select and embellish is often only a small portion of the overall data and is made salient due to context and individual viewpoints.
7. Driven by Plausibility Rather Than Accuracy: The goal is to make a situation plausible and sensible to guide action, not necessarily to create an accurate representation of reality.

Using Sensemaking in Organizations

Remember that sensemaking is an iterative, collaborative, and adaptive process that balances past experiences, current realities, and future possibilities to navigate complexity.

1. Create Retrospective Images and Narratives

• What it means: Sensemaking involves looking back at past events or situations to make sense of the present. People construct narratives or images that explain how things came to be.
• Why it’s important: This retrospective analysis helps individuals or groups identify patterns, clarify what has happened, and make informed decisions about what to do next.
• Example: After a project fails, a team reviews past actions, decisions, and events to understand the root causes and prevent similar issues in the future.

2. A Collective Process

• What it means: Sensemaking is not done in isolation – it often involves collaboration, discussion, and negotiation among groups or teams.
• Why it’s important: Different perspectives contribute to a richer understanding of the situation, reducing blind spots and biases.
• Example: During a crisis, leaders and teams collaborate to pool information, share insights, and develop a shared understanding of the problem and potential solutions.

3. Seek to Understand the Sources of Stability and Change

• What it means: Sensemaking involves identifying what remains constant in a situation and what is changing. This helps in understanding the dynamics at play.
• Why it’s important: Recognizing stability provides a foundation to build upon, while understanding change helps in adapting strategies and responses.
• Example: A company adapting to new market trends might assess which customer needs have remained steady and which have shifted due to technological advancements.

4. Use Multiple Cues to Create Mental Models

• What it means: Sensemaking requires drawing on various sources of information or “cues” to form a mental model – a simplified representation of reality that guides understanding and action.
• Why it’s important: Relying on diverse cues reduces the risk of making decisions based on incomplete or biased information.
• Example: When assessing the impact of a new competitor, a business may consider factors like pricing, customer reviews, market share, and marketing strategies to form a comprehensive view.

5. Use Plausibility Tests

• What it means: Instead of seeking absolute truth, sensemaking focuses on creating explanations or narratives that are plausible and actionable in the given context.
• Why it’s important: In complex or uncertain situations, perfect accuracy may be unattainable, but plausible explanations enable timely decisions and actions.
• Example: In a rapidly evolving public health crisis, decision-makers may act based on plausible trends in infection rates rather than waiting for complete data.

Misconceptions of Sensemaking

Some misconceptions arise from oversimplifying sensemaking or misunderstanding its complexity. Sensemaking is a nuanced process that incorporates emotions, collaboration, iteration, and adaptability to make meaning in uncertain or complex situations.

It is not the same as perception or cognition Sensemaking is often confused with perception (the process of interpreting sensory input) or cognition (the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience).

Sensemaking involves interpreting and organizing information to construct meaning, especially in complex or ambiguous situations. It’s an active, meaning-making process rather than just passive information intake.

Example: Perceiving smoke and associating it with fire is perception and cognition. Sensemaking is piecing together multiple cues (smoke, alarms, people’s reactions) to determine whether it’s a controlled fire (e.g., a barbecue) or an emergency.

It is not a purely rational process Sensemaking involves emotions, intuition, and subjective interpretation, especially when dealing with uncertainty or incomplete information. People rely on both logical reasoning and emotional reactions to create plausible narratives or explanations.

Example: In a workplace conflict, sensemaking might involve both analyzing the facts of the situation and interpreting the emotional dynamics between colleagues to understand the root cause of the issue.

It is not a purely individual process While individuals can engage in sensemaking, it is often a social and collective process. Groups and teams contribute diverse perspectives, share information, and negotiate meaning to create a shared understanding.

Example: After a natural disaster, communities engage in collective sensemaking by pooling experiences, sharing knowledge, and collaborating to understand the scope of the damage and organize recovery efforts.

It is not a linear process with a clear beginning, middle, and end Sensemaking is often assumed to follow a straightforward sequence, where information is gathered, analyzed, and resolved in a tidy manner. Instead, is a cyclical, iterative, and dynamic process. People revisit, reinterpret, and revise their understanding as new information emerges or as the situation evolves.

Example: During a pandemic, initial sensemaking might focus on understanding how the virus spreads. As new variants emerge, people revisit earlier assumptions, reinterpret risks, and adjust responses accordingly.

Sources

• Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

The post Sensemaking – the theory of Carl Weick appeared first on Grado.

One assumption repeatedly creeps into the study of sensemaking: we sit on the sofa and calmly reflect on a situation. In reality, however, it often looks different: we are stressed, we have too many parallel demands, and too many sensory perceptions competing for our attention.

It is worth reflecting on how we structure and prioritize our perception. It turns out that only a small part of the raw data actually makes it into our conscious perception. This part receives disproportionately more attention when we perceive our situation and when we try to understand what is going on in our environment.

Let’s dive into this world and look at examples that illustrate our perception’s limits.

The invisible gorilla

A well-known video has gone viral as an example of the phenomenon of selective attention, often referred to as the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment. In the video, viewers are asked to count the number of passes thrown between players on a basketball team. While the players pass the ball back and forth, a person in a gorilla costume slowly walks through the scene, stops in the middle, drums his chest, and then leaves the picture.

Although the gorilla is visible, many viewers do not notice him. Their attention is entirely absorbed by the counting of basketball passes. People tend to overlook unexpected objects in their field of vision when their attention is focused on a demanding task.

Expectations often lead us to overlook surprises. However, if we cultivate the habit of exploring alternatives and variations before making a decision, we can avoid many potential detours, empowering ourselves with a broader perspective.

This example encourages us to switch hats multiple times during an analysis, like we introduced in the four OODA hats. This leads to more thorough thinking and well-founded decisions.

Who clicks the fastest

Web designers complain that website visitors do not read through, understand, and evaluate the text. Instead, they often select the first element that looks clickable, even if this is consent to a newsletter or subscription.

This may be a controversial example, but the real crux is the observation that people are often too quick to jump into actions where a more detailed analysis of the situation would be beneficial.

Try not to jump to conclusions. This is harder than it sounds, but it’s a habit worth striving for. Making mindful decisions based on understanding the consequences of actions can lead to better outcomes and a more fulfilling experience. This is a theme of Endsley’s model of situation awareness.

On the difficulty of assessing the situation

As we see, it is not easy to plan good diagnoses and valid and well-founded ways of improvement. It is worth considering how analysis, decision-making, and implementation are approached.

This includes some insights on how people observe situations and gain insights from them. Kahneman’s “Thinking fast and slow” provides valuable insights to the mechanisms behind our sensemaking and decisions.

System 1: Fast Thinking

Elizabeth Bennet quickly forms a negative opinion of Mr. Darcy based on her first impression and his proud demeanor. She judges intuitively and emotionally, without more profound reflection. This is an example of fast, automatic thinking characterized by prejudices and heuristics.

System 1 is used when we have to react quickly, for example, when we are suddenly confronted with a jaguar or when a child runs out in front of us. It is, however, prone to cognitive distortions and careless mistakes.

System 1 is:

• Fast: It operates quickly and automatically
• Effortless: Requires little to no mental effort
• Unconscious: Functions below the level of conscious awareness
• Intuitive: Based on instinct and gut feelings
• Emotional: Often influenced by emotions and feelings

It handles routine tasks and familiar situations, Relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) and past experiences and is responsible for involuntary actions and quick judgments.

It operates continuously in the background

System 2: Slow Thinking

During the story, Elizabeth questions her initial judgment of Mr. Darcy. She reads his letter, reflects on his actions, and considers the situation differently. Through this conscious and strenuous thought process, she recognizes her error and gradually develops feelings for him. This illustrates slow, rational thinking based on logic and analysis.

System 2 questions the decisions of system 1; it is a kind of control instance. It uses deeper reflection but is slower and more energy-intensive. It is, therefore, not always triggered automatically.

System 2 is characterized by:

• Deliberation: Involves careful consideration and analysis
• Effort: Requires conscious mental exertion
• Logical: Based on reason and rational thought
• Controlled: Involves intentional focus and attention
• Analytical: Capable of complex problem-solving

System 2 engages in demanding cognitive tasks, processes information sequentially and is capable of following rules and making comparisons.

It is responsible for self-control and conscious decision-making and is activated when facing unfamiliar or complex situations occur.

Interaction Between Systems

Kahneman emphasizes that these systems are not entirely separate but interact constantly:

• System 1 generates impressions, intuitions, and feelings
• System 2 monitors System 1’s output and can override it when necessary
• System 2 is often “lazy” and tends to accept System 1’s suggestions unless prompted to engage more deeply

Not all decisions need speed

An interesting reflection is the consideration of the consequences for decision-making processes.

Quick decisions do not lead to faster implementation. How decisions are prepared determines their quality, resistance to implementation, and sustainability. Every decision is part of an iterative, empirical, goal-oriented process.

If you look at Toyota, we expect fast changes and adaptability. However, when we observe the decision-making processes, we find that Toyota’s decision-making processes are very different from those of many other companies. But they are not necessarily faster. Instead, thorough consideration and investment in sound decisions are intended to achieve high-quality results. According to the Toyota philosophy, this is more important than speed. Characteristic features of this approach are:

• Genchi Genbutsu: “Go to the site and check for yourself” encourages decision-makers to assess the situation at the site.
• Consensus building (Nemawashi): – before a formal decision is made, decision-makers hold numerous discussions with all parties involved.
• Long-term perspective: long-term stability and sustainable success are prioritized.
• Continuous improvement (Kaizen): Decisions are part of an ongoing improvement an

The post Valid Diagnoses and Good Decisions appeared first on Grado.

Mica Endsley received a PhD in industrial and systems engineering. She served as Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force and is a prominent figure in cognitive engineering.

Endsley works on operator interfaces for various systems, including those for military, aviation, air traffic control, medicine, and power grid operations. Her work is focused on designing systems to support situation awareness and dynamic decision-making.

Endsley’s work

is significant for its emphasis on the practical application of cognitive research to real-world systems. Her work translates research findings into usable design principles and guidelines for engineers and human factors professionals. She has developed the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), a widely used method for objectively measuring SA. Her research has impacted the design of systems across many domains, including aviation, air traffic control, medicine, military operations, and power grid operations.

For Endsley, the development of SA is a layered process that starts with the perception of essential environmental elements, progresses to comprehending the current situation, and ultimately projects future states.

Cognitive mechanisms, goals, and experience influence this process. Understanding these levels and mechanisms allows one to design systems and training programs that effectively support and enhance SA in various complex and dynamic domains.

Endsley includes

• Three levels of situation awareness, which build on each other, which allows to track where awareness breaks down
• Key cognitive mechanisms that influence the performance of SA
• Challenges to SA
• The influence of technical systems and consequences for the design of these systems.

Endsley has worked on designing technical systems and the intricacies of group situation awareness, but this post does not focus on these topics.

Use cases for the model

Endsley’s model provides a framework for designing systems and interfaces that support human situational awareness.

Aside of that, it is used in

• Training and Education for various professions, including healthcare, first responders, and pilots
• Safety and Risk Management. By understanding the factors that contribute to situational awareness failures, organizations can develop strategies to prevent accidents and errors
• Teamwork and Collaboration: improvement of our understanding of how teams develop and maintain shared situational awareness.

Three Levels of SA

Endsley breaks down SA into three distinct levels. The idea is that a person goes through the three stages of recognizing the situation and can then act purposefully.

Level 1: Perception of the Elements in the Environment

This is the most basic level of SA and involves perceiving relevant environmental cues and information through our senses (sight, hearing, touch, etc.) and any available tools or displays.

The focus is on noticing and attending to important details, such as:

• Objects and their characteristics
• Events that are occurring
• People and their actions
• System status and indicators

Examples include a driver noticing a pedestrian crossing the street, a pilot observing the airspeed indicator, or a doctor monitoring a patient’s vital signs.

Level 2: Comprehension of the Current Situation

This level goes beyond simply perceiving individual elements and involves understanding their meaning and significance in the context of the current situation.

The focus moves to integrating the perceived information, recognizing patterns, and forming a mental picture of what is happening, such as

• Understanding the relationships between different elements
• Interpreting the meaning of events
• Developing a coherent mental model of the situation

Example: A driver who understands that the pedestrian is crossing against the light and may pose a hazard, a pilot who understands that a sudden drop in airspeed could indicate a problem with the engine, or a doctor who recognizes that a patient’s changing vital signs could indicate a worsening condition.

Level 3: Projection of Future Status

Based on the current understanding, this is the highest level of SA and involves anticipating how the situation might evolve in the near future.

It’s about using knowledge and experience to predict potential states and outcomes.

This includes:

• Forecasting the likely course of events
• Anticipating potential problems or opportunities
• Evaluating the consequences of different actions

Example: A driver anticipating that the pedestrian may continue crossing the street and adjusting their speed accordingly, a pilot anticipating that the engine problem may lead to a loss of altitude and preparing for an emergency landing, or a doctor anticipating that the patient’s condition may deteriorate and taking proactive steps to prevent further complications.

Cognitive Mechanisms

Endsley identifies several cognitive processes and mechanisms that contribute to SA. These include:

• Perception and Attention: Individuals can only attend to a limited amount of information at a time, requiring them to selectively focus their attention on the most relevant elements. Factors such as the importance and rate of change of information influence attention allocation.
• Working Memory: Working memory, which has limited capacity, plays a vital role in SA by temporarily storing and processing information from the environment.
• Long-Term Memory (Mental Models, Schema, and Scripts): Long-term memory structures help overcome working memory limitations.

o Mental models are internal representations of systems that allow individuals to understand their behavior, explain observed states, and make predictions about future states. For example, a pilot has a mental model of how an aircraft responds to control inputs.

o Schema are mental frameworks that organize knowledge about specific situations, allowing for rapid classification and understanding of new information. They act as shortcuts, enabling individuals to quickly comprehend and make projections based on familiar patterns.

o Scripts are sequences of expected actions or events in a particular situation. For instance, a pilot has a script for takeoff procedures that outlines the steps involved.

• Goals: Goals act as filters, directing attention to relevant information (top-down processing). They also provide context for comprehending and interpreting the perceived information.
• Expectations: Expectations, derived from past experiences and knowledge, can influence the perception and interpretation of information.

The Demons to SA

The model identifies several challenges (the demons) that can hinder an individual’s ability to achieve and maintain good SA. These challenges stem from human information processing limitations and the complexities of individuals’ environments:

Attentional Tunneling: an individual focuses too narrowly on one aspect of a situation and misses other important information.

Can lead to: A limited and inaccurate understanding of the overall situation.

Requisite Memory Trap: the difficulty in remembering all the relevant information required to maintain SA.

Can lead to: As the demands on working memory increase, retaining and processing all the information critical for SA becomes challenging.

Workload: Workload, Anxiety, Fatigue, and Other Stressors (WAFOS),

Can lead to: It can impair cognitive functions and negatively impact SA. Stressors can reduce attentional capacity and information processing capabilities.

Data Overload: An excessive amount of information,

Can lead to: Individuals may struggle to process, prioritize, and make sense of the data, which can overwhelm their information processing capacity. This can lead to difficulty in identifying the most relevant information needed to make informed decisions.

Misplaced Salience: Less important information draws attention away from more critical aspects of the situation.

Can lead to: A distorted perception of the overall situation.

Complexity Creep: Systems become more complex.

Can lead to: Forming an accurate mental model of how the system works becomes increasingly difficult.

Errant Mental Models: Having an incorrect or incomplete mental model.

Can lead to: This can significantly impair SA. An inaccurate mental model makes it difficult to assimilate and process information correctly and also to form accurate projections. Mental models are crucial for directing problem-solving and interaction with a system.

Out-of-the-Loop Syndrome: Passively monitor automated systems, leading to a loss of SA and a diminished understanding of what the system is doing.

Can lead to: The out-of-the-loop problem may not simply be complacency but a fundamental difficulty in understanding what the system is doing when passively monitoring.

Poor Feedback: Systems do not provide adequate feedback.

Can lead to: This creates challenges for SA because key information is not effectively communicated to the operator. When feedback on system operation is eliminated or changed, monitoring what’s happening effectively becomes difficult.

Time constraints: Time is an important factor in SA.

Can lead to: Understanding how much time is available until an event is often a critical component of SA.

Shared SA: This can arise because team members might not be aware of what information needs to be shared or may assume that other team members have the same information.

Can lead to: Shared information might not be passed between team members. In addition, team members might falsely assume that others will arrive at the same assessments based on the same data.

To support SA, system designs must be built to mitigate these issues.

Designing for Situation Awareness

The collection of guidings including the “demons” leads to a number of design principles and guidelines aimed include:

• Explicitly identify missing information: Systems should indicate when data is unavailable or unreliable to prevent users from making assumptions.
• Support the rapid development of global SA of systems in an alarm state: Displays should provide a clear overview of the system’s status, particularly during emergencies.
• Design systems to support the projection of future states: Displays should provide information and tools that help users anticipate future developments, such as trend graphs and predictive displays.
• Highlight deviations from expected or desired states: Systems should use visual cues like color changes or alerts to draw attention to significant changes or anomalies.

Sources

• For a first overview on YouTube.There are shorter versions available, but in this case the description above should suffice. Situation Awareness, Mica Endsley. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WaGolF2V2c.
• Endsley, Mica. 2013. Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2013.793052.
• McNeese, Michael D., Eduardo Salas, and Mica R. Endsley, eds. 2020. Foundations and Theoretical Perspectives of Distributed Team Cognition. 1st ed. First edition. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2020.: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429459795.

The post Mica Endsley’s concept of situation awareness appeared first on Grado.

Feedback cycles are important and necessary – if a measured variable deviates from the norm, you have to take action. 

In a classic lean manufacturing organization, this culminates in Six Sigma. Six Sigma is a data-driven methodology that aims to significantly improve the quality of business processes by minimizing defects and errors. The goal is (almost) perfect performance.

But what if the processes are in the complex domain, are not so manageable: like that one tweet in Spain that led thousands to take to the streets the next day and topple the government a week later?

Some big problems start small and grow overnight into disasters – the proverbial butterfly that sets off a storm.

Other problems have small signs: weak signals. If you recognize them early, you can avoid a problem or take advantage of an opportunity.

Weak signals are often hidden in a flood of information and can easily be overlooked if you’re not paying close attention.

A Definition

In general, we distinguish

• Strong signals: These are obvious trends, like a huge increase in sales for a particular product. They’re easy to spot and interpret.
• Weak signals: These are more like whispers or hints. They might be a single customer complaint, an unusual blog post, or a small news article about a new technology. On their own, they don’t seem like much, but together they can paint a picture of an emerging trend.

Examples of weak signals:

• A few customers complaining about a specific feature on your product.
• A small increase in online searches for a niche topic.
• A new technology being discussed in an academic journal.
• An unusual event happening in a seemingly unrelated industry.

Why is weak signal detection important?

• Early warning system: Weak signals can alert you to potential threats or opportunities before they become obvious. This gives you more time to react and adapt.
• Competitive advantage: By spotting trends early on, you can get ahead of the curve and make strategic decisions before your competitors.
• Innovation: Weak signals can spark new ideas and help you identify emerging needs or market niches.

Weak Signal Detection – a social activity

It’s like something you perceive in peripheral vision. The usual recommendations are:

• Broaden your information sources: Don’t just rely on traditional sources like industry reports. Look at blogs, social media, academic papers, and even fiction.
• Pay attention to anomalies: Anything that seems unusual or out of place could be a weak signal.
• Connect the dots: Look for patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated signals.
• Use technology: Tools like social media monitoring and trend analysis software can help you filter through vast amounts of data and identify potential weak signals.

You will have noticed that these are all relatively time-consuming activities that usually take place in a distributed fashion – an indication that it is a social activity and that appropriate structures are needed.

But how do you put this into practice? There is an interesting cross-relationship with Holacracy.

Weak Signal Detection and Holacracy

Holacracy is a self-organizing system for running a business and a member of the family of diverse Sociocracy methods. Holacracy claims to be the method of choice for weak signal detection and adaptability when confronted with rapid change.

The key idea is: Instead of traditional hierarchies with managers and subordinates, Holacracy distributes authority and decision-making power among self-organizing teams.
Holacracy focuses on

• Roles, not jobs: Individuals dynamically take on various roles with specific responsibilities and authorities.
• Self-governance: Teams govern themselves and form circles (think: overlapping teams where a member can be a member in multiple circles) within a framework of defined rules.
• Transparency and accountability: Clear processes and open communication are emphasized.

Imagine a company where teams have the power to make decisions within their areas of expertise, with clear guidelines and regular meetings to address challenges and ensure alignment with overall company goals.

It will have multiple pathways and opportunities for exchane and cross-pollination between teams.

Weak Signal Detection in traditional companies

But maybe it’s not necessary to go all the way to a pure network organization. Companies line Nordstrom, Starbucks or Google are known for their creative use of those technics.

By implementing a systematic approach to weak signal detection, organizations can gain an edge in a rapidly changing world by anticipating future trends and proactively adapting to new challenges and opportunities.

Conclusion

Weak signal detection appears unassuming and at first glance seems obvious. On closer inspection, however, it is on the one hand an important prerequisite for situation awareness and sensemaking, and on the other hand, it takes profound consideration to build the social and technological structures to make it work.

Weak Signal Detectkon and Fiction

In the famous Foundation Series by Science Fiction author Isaac Asimov develops the protagonist Hari Seldon “psychohistory,” a fictional science that predicts the future by analyzing vast amounts of data and identifying subtle trends.

This is an example of weak signal detection on a grand scale, used to guide humanity through a turbulent era.

It treats, however, weak signal detection as the holy grail of precognition. Needless to say, it’s not a holy grail. But it is an important aspect of coping with the sudden developments in the complex world.

The post Weak Signal Detection appeared first on Grado.

What is OODA

The OODA Loop is a strategic tool developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. It’s a decision-making process to help individuals and organizations operate effectively in competitive environments. The loop emphasizes the importance of adapting quickly to changing situations through a continuous cycle of interactions.

Typically, it is drawn like above.

• Observe or Sense (Analysis) – Gathering information and understanding the current environment and situation: In Observe mode, you focus on understanding the current situation. This section helps you dissect and comprehend an organization’s various elements and dynamics, paving the way for insightful analysis.
• Orient (Diagnosis): Analyzing and using the information to update your view of reality. While the analysis does not directly imply an assessment, the main focus of the diagnosis is developing an opinion about the findings.
• Decide (Design) – Making decisions based on observations and orientation: Finally, we delve into organizational design. This part guides you through the critical decisions involved in proposing changes and improvements to an organization’s structure and processes, utilizing the principles of VSM.
• Act (Ways of Change)- Taking action to implement the decision: Last, we choose a procedure to implement the findings. This can mean a traditional change process or an iterative approach. We discuss some of the options and the reasons why you would choose one over the other.

After taking action, the loop restarts with observation to assess the actions’ success and to react to any changes in the situation. 

The process helps to control the “blast radius,” i.e., the impact of an intervention. The loop allows interventions to be treated as experiments. It is intended to be performed rapidly and continuously, allowing quick reactions and flexibility in response to a situation’s dynamics, leading to improved strategic outcomes.

The OODA Loop is not a Loop.

What looks like a linear process in this illustration is much more complex and open. In any case, the OODA loop is not a loop, the popular understanding of the OODA loop as a simple, circular decision cycle that favors speed simply wrong.

However, the OODA process is not circular… Military forces do not in practice wait to observe until they have acted. Observation, orientation and action are continuous processes, and decisions are made occasionally in consequences of them. There is no OODA loop. The idea of getting inside the enemy decision cycle is deeply flawed.

Observation, orientation, and action are continuous processes, the idea of simply “getting inside the enemy’s decision cycle” is flawed.

It is an open system: you can enter and exit it anywhere.

OODA is not a Loop

Any “phase” can become current, depending on the situation. This dynamic nature keeps you engaged and active in the decision-making process. A simple example would be the famous hand on the hob. This certainly does not lead to you orienting yourself, designing the reaction, and then taking your hand off the hob. Instead, it is a sequence of sense -> act.

But there is no automatic cause of pain here, either. I modified the example slightly so that the Christmas tree burns. I may grab it anyway and throw it out of the patio door.

In Boyd’s view, there are many loops at different speeds simultaneously; the opponent reacts in the same way and, in turn, forces me to respond. OODA is a holistic checklist and reminds us not to run off at the first observation but to invest time,  willpower, and energy in assessing the situation. This investment is valuable and can lead to more informed decisions.

Boyd’s concept of orientation went beyond simply understanding the current situation. It involved integrating observed data with existing mental models, cultural biases, and past experiences to develop a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the unfolding situation. This deep level of orientation was essential for making effective decisions and acting swiftly in complex and dynamic environments._

The OODA Loop is a set of Views. Perhaps a better picture than a loop is a situation in which we continuously view the system in focus with different “hats,” i.e., perspectives, and are always ready to integrate contributions from every perspective.

OODA as a set of Viewpoints

A broader view

OODA is part of developing a mental model of the current situation. Creating relevant mental concepts requires constant improvement and adaptability of existing mental models.

Boyd’s view on things is much broader. The OODA Loop is part of a discussion of strategy and gaining a competitive advantage. Boyd uses and incorporates many of the scientific themes of his time (“zeitgeist”), including ideas from physics, biology, and chaos theory. His view includes a view of the shift from the Newtonian paradigm of closed, deterministic systems to a view of the world as a complex adaptive system.

The Importance of “Orientation”

Boyd’s concept of “Orientation” is crucial, he placed significant emphasis on the “Orient” viewpoint. He believed that an individual’s or organization’s ability to rapidly and accurately orient themselves to the situation was the key to gaining a decision-making advantage.

“Orientation, seen as a result, represents images, views, or impressions of the world shaped by genetic heritage, cultural traditions, previous experiences, and unfolding circumstances.”

Boyd about Survival and Adaptivity

Boyd’s concepts revolve around themes of organizational survival and its solution – adaptability.
He portrays Adaptability as a Strategic Imperative: Adaptability is identified as the key to success for organizations and armed forces.

• A system must be able to change and adapt as conditions require.
• adaptability is linked with the need to understand one’s own relative power position (shih).
  “The shih constantly shifts according to what is happening in the internal and external environment of the state. At any one time the shih is formed by intangible factors such as morale, opportunity, timing, psychology and logistics.”

More

• About John Boyd
• The best way to explore the work of John Boyd is probably: Osinga, Frans P. B. 2007. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (Strategy and History). Taylor and Francis
• A deep dive into practical applications of the OODA loop is: OODA Loopers on Youtube

The post The OODA Loop appeared first on Grado.

ohn Boyd (1927-1997) was a famous fighter pilot in the US airforce. He served in Japan and Korea. The lessons he learned and the work he did in Korea formed the foundation for much of his later work, including his theories on air-to-air tactics, energy maneuverability, aircraft design, OODA loops, strategy and maneuver warfare, and his thoughts on time and thinking itself.

John Boyd is best known for his OODA model for situation awareness. Although the popular interpretation focuses on the speed of decision making, Boyd’s original concept was more comprehensive, involving organizational learning, adaptation, and the importance of orientation.

Boyd’s Work

Boyd’s work also included:

• A Discourse on Winning and Losing (also known as The Green Book) which includes four briefings and an essay.
• Patterns of Conflict, a historical analysis of warfare and theories for victory.
• Organic Design for Command and Control, which focuses on cooperation in complex, fast-moving situations.
• The Strategic Game of ? and ?, which emphasizes the mental twists and turns for realizing aims or purposes.
• The Conceptual Spiral which uses examples from science and engineering to discuss self-correcting mechanisms.
• The Essence of Winning and Losing which offers a picture of the OODA loop.

The best way to explore the work of John Boyd is probably:
.Osinga, Frans P. B. 2007. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (Strategy and History). Taylor and Francis.

image: https://www.coljohnboyd.com

The post John Boyd appeared first on Grado.