In Short
Last week, I commented on Dave Snowden's LinkedIN post (you can read it below) Here is a readers digest of the exchange Dave "I think mental models and mindset frame things in the wrong way. I’d look at Andy Clark and his reference to the need for anomalies" Me "how so? Could you elaborate please?" Dave "https://thecynefin.co/a-melange-of-potential-not-a-mindset/ Me "Thank you for this. May I replay back how I'm interpreting your meaning in my own words to confirm I understand your position before twisting it with my own meaning?" Dave "sure always interesting when people do that"
Here we are 1 week later. I have tremendous respect for Mr. Snowden's work, so I wanted to provide my feedback in as structured a way as possible to make it easier him to follow commentary, while also providing some context for how I digest information (I like to try to make it as binary and direct as possible to see if I'm on the same page, then I worry about nuance and toning - this is important to share because this style can drive some people nuts. This is why I publish where I am coming from so its easier to call me out, and I also do not want anyone to get the perception I'm a critic of his work. I am not, quite the oppositive.
My Cynefin Introduction
I’ve been a practitioner of the Cynefin framework since I first encountered it in 1999. At the time, I was working for a research and advisory firm, META Group (now part of Gartner), and was pulled from the field as our company’s #1 salesperson to become the VP of Product Management and Marketing. Prior to that, I tried following the firm’s new sales methodology and found myself frustrated and placed on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) meant to set up termination.
How did I rise from the bottom to the top? I did two things:
I realized my problem wasn’t following the “sales script” but making what we sold more relatable (managing complexity).
I stopped trying to do what my company wanted and became fully transparent with my customers.
I learned that decision-making is hard, human, and complex. In my 20s, I wanted to fire all
the people who told me what to do without having any skin in the game—so I went out to do that.
The CEO and CFO, however, created a new role for me, tasking me to "put my money where my mouth is." I quickly conducted research to help executive leadership “see” the amount of commercial chaos they were creating. To pull it together, a sales peer of mine who managed our relationship IBM told me about Dave Snowden, who was working to rationalize their IP. It sounded like what I was doing.
I’ve never met Mr. Snowden, but I follow what he says and does because my peer was right—this “guy” knows what he’s talking about.
Out of both respect and a bit of imposter syndrome, I’ve resisted writing about his model. Translating it into "business language" (and adding tools to account for the fear of risk in the C-suite of most B2B companies) is daunting. I’ve been trying to engage here and there in comment sections to see if I understand Mr. Snowden’s vision well enough to represent it.
The Most Compelling Thing About the Cynefin Framework
The concept of “sense-making” doesn’t translate well in a boardroom with a CEO, CFO, SCO, CMO, VP HR, and business unit leaders. Under no circumstances will any of these executives concede the need to make “sense.” Around 85% of them have strong cognitive biases, follow “best practices,” and engage in what I call “random acts of activity.”
The cognitive dissonance barriers are so high, and patience so low, that I’ve had to create mechanisms to help these leaders:
See the complexity.
Prevent them from thinking this requires a major transformation.
What resonates with me time and time again is this quote from Mr. Snowden on why he selected the word “Cynefin”:
“Habitat... A place of your multiple belongings”
This concept is something I return to over and over again. In all transformations, I invest about 75% of my energy envisioning the company as a biological organization within its own “habitat.” This vision helps stop the inertia of people trying to “be right” and instead accept that the sum of what they are is a collection of many. Progress happens only when this shift occurs.
To paraphrase F.A. Hayek:
“The pretense of knowledge is a fatal conceit.”
So What?
I’ve noticed a trend. I’ve been successful introducing the idea that each person has their own “mental map” of the world. To make progress, we need to develop a shared forward vision. However, for some reason, calling it “mental maps” creates resistance, while “conceptual models” is more digestible.
Yet, I’ve noticed Mr. Snowden is a public critic of mental models. Does he know something I don’t? Is my terminology better suited for my context? Am I in the same habitat as Mr. Snowden?
Publishing My Conscious Bias
I believe some form of model—based on truth, following first principles, and driving binary choices—is critical scaffolding to help groups navigate complex spaces. This need is compounded by growing ambiguity (many valid interpretations) reinforced by the digital echo chamber and LLM AI models.
I’m publishing my bias not to “be right” but to acknowledge its existence and the influence it has on my perspective. If I want to listen and change my mind, I must first articulate my position. If I don’t write down what I think, I can’t evaluate feedback or its validity within my context.
My Curiosity
I’m curious about Mr. Snowden’s meaning when he discusses concepts like “growth mindset.” Does he have the right forum to share his meaning?
For the record, this article isn’t about me. It’s about understanding Mr. Snowden’s position on “growth mindset.” Personally, I don’t give the concept much credence, have never used it, and find that when a group becomes fixated on it, the change effort is often doomed.
Key Event
Last week, I read a LinkedIn post from Mr. Snowden on this topic (link below) and asked a few questions to provide context for where I was coming from.
His response:
“Scott Santucci I think mental models and mindset frame things in the wrong way. I’d look at Andy Clark and his reference to the need for anomalies.”
He then linked a blog post titled:
“A Mélange of Potential, Not a Mindset.”
How Do I Share My Feedback?
It took me a few days to respond with Thanksgiving and the chaos of family life. How do I provide feedback in a structured way that is valuable to Mr. Snowden while exposing my own “mental map” and sharing how I interpret his work?
My Approach
To apply the structure of a geometric proof as an analogy for bridging Mr. Snowden’s intent with my interpretation.
Givens
Using Claude Shannon’s model from “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”:
Mr. Snowden’s article is the medium.
He is the sender; his article contains the encoding.
I am the receiver, decoding his message.
Communication layers:
Layer A: Technical (did the signal reach the audience?) – Yes.
Layer B: Semantic (was the intended meaning received?) – TBD.
Layer C: Effectiveness (does it drive the desired action?) – Unknown.
Assumptions
I interpret meaning through my biases and experiences.
My goal isn’t to “be right” but to seek meaning and understanding.
I aim to act on insights, avoiding pedantic “knowledge transfer.”
Stream-of-consciousness feedback shows respect for Mr. Snowden’s work.
I am open to correction and learning through this process.
My Structure: Inline Comments
The easiest way to share feedback is to provide inline comments directly within Mr. Snowden’s original document.
Expectations
I have none. This offer is a service to Mr. Snowden. I welcome feedback of this nature on my own work and don’t expect Mr. Snowden to feel obligated.
One Request
Please interpret my comments as literal and straightforward. My objective is clarity, not argumentation.
Sandbox Scope
This discussion focuses on successful outcomes in complex, human-based systems:
What is a mental model?
What are the differences between maps and models, or mental and conceptual?
How important is it to provide an orienting foundation for perspectives?
What am I missing?
How do we confirm shared understanding of the “habitat of meaning” in groups?
Inline Comments
A Mélange of Potential, Not a Mindset
Dave Snowden – May 16, 2022 ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFLECTIONS
Introduction
Just under four years ago, I wrote a blog post where I compared blaming failure on culture, incorrect mindsets, and mental models with Miasma theory during the plague: nice idea, bad science, some good impact, but mostly avoiding the real issue.
My Comments
I’m fascinated with how a group of “mes” becomes a “we.” Is this within the scope of “organizational development”?
“Reflections” resonates with me, but I feel cognitive dissonance when combined with organizational development. I’m not sure why, but I suspect I have a hidden bias against “organizational experts” imposing “VUCA leadership courses” without acquiring insights through sweat equity.
I’ve followed Mr. Snowden long enough to know he’s not one of those experts, so I wonder if I need to reflect on my bias.
The Shift from Agile to Agility
It was one of a series of posts on attempting to shift from Agile (as a thing) to Agility (something with more fluidity and movement). For a similar reason, I prefer sense-making to sensemaking.
My Comments
My interpretation: we must shift from seeing these concepts as static nouns to dynamic verbs. This shift to motive and energy is critical for complex systems.
If this is accurate, I think it’s a very significant distinction.
The Definition of Mindset
The Oxford English Dictionary defines mindset as:
“An established set of attitudes, esp. regarded as typical of a particular group’s social or cultural values; the outlook, philosophy, or values of a person; (now also more generally) frame of mind, attitude, disposition.”
My Comments
One thing I’ve learned because of the “habitat of many belongings” is to connect the Cynefin framework with Jung’s “collective unconcious,” where humans share symbols, concepts, and experiences.
The term “mindset” first appeared in 1909 as “mind-set” in Thaddeus Lincoln Bolton’s article On the Efficacy of Consciousness, defined as “mental inclination or attitude that influences perception and meaning.” The modern meaning aligns with this history.
If we look deeper, the ancient Greek word menos (spirit, resolve, energy) offers a more action-oriented understanding of “mind.” This broad and dynamic lens connects well with Cynefin.
I wonder if this marks a deliberate break from conventional practices. If so, how might standards emerge? Neuroscience, brain chemistry, and anthropology seem to provide rich foundations.
The Problem with Mental Models
The idea of mental models was popularized by Senge, but my impression is that he was working with Forrester’s definition:
“The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. Nobody in his head imagines all the world, government, or country. He has only selected concepts and relationships between them, and uses those to represent the real system.”
The latter gave rise to single- and double-loop learning to disrupt and change said models.
My Comments
I read The Fifth Discipline and initially assumed “Forrester” referred to the research firm (where I worked). In hindsight, this was amusingly off base.
I’ve felt aligned with Cynefin’s emphasis on language and meaning, especially as Mr. Snowden describes the Welsh term “Cynefin.”
This feels overly academic, and I find that academia’s reductionist paradigms often miss the dynamic nature of sense-making. Organizational planning, shaped by industrial-age bureaucracy, struggles to embrace complexity.
I agree strongly with shifting toward action-oriented approaches, but academic framing can feel too constrained.
The Growth Mindset Industry
Then in 2007, we got Carol Dweck’s book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. The title and subtitle explain why this was (and is) a bestseller, spawning an entire industry around it.
My Comments
I’m unclear what the “industry” here refers to. If it includes life coaches, HR management consultants, or professional development programs, I’d agree this trend has been ongoing.
My reaction: the Cynefin framework operates at a much deeper and more substantive level than this framing suggests.
I’d argue for creating clear distinctions between Cynefin and these frameworks. For example, publishing a list of compatible standards could help reinforce its integrity.
Critique of Mindset Tables
In particular, the multiple creations of Manichæian tables comparing fixed mindsets with growth mindsets and so on. To be fair, Dweck has been open about the potential misuse of her ideas (and there has been a lot) and has recognized wider academic criticism, particularly that her experiments have not been consistently replicated.
My Comments
I don’t fully understand this, but it seems like an academic critique of academics.
Cynefin feels unique in its clarity and long-term utility. It’s intuitive yet deeply resonant across domains. I wonder if it needs an entirely new orientation to avoid such entanglements.
My blunt observation: only 5-10% of any group actively engages in driving change (stepping into Cynefin’s “domains”). The rest often critique from the sidelines without true engagement.
Moving Beyond Mental Models
Now I think mental models, mindsets, and double-loop learning all had their place in the wider development of organizational theory and practice. They represent a useful step on a journey that is still ongoing. But I also think it is time to move on.
My Comments
Move on from what, to what?
I sense frustration at those who “noun polish” their way into expertise. Could a new strategy preserve Cynefin’s structural integrity?
We’re now in a digital network unbound by gravity. Cynefin offers a foundation for a new coordinate system that aligns with this reality.
As a strong advocate, I wonder if this critique sets the cause back. Could simple tests for alignment between words and behaviors enhance Cynefin’s practical utility?
The Implicit vs. Explicit Challenge
We also need to recognize that the implicit cannot always be made explicit without significant harm—a theme I will return to.
My Comments
What harm are we referring to here?
I’m unclear about the core thesis. What’s the central argument
The Problem with Ambiguity and Mindsets
But I think this basic discomfort with ambiguity explains some of the attractions of the various ways in which Dweck and other work were taken out of a culturally specific context in education and made into an industrial recipe.
My Comments
I think “the lead” is getting buried right here. Discomfort—and specifically the avoidance of it at seemingly all costs—seems to be the central point of this article. Any change effort within a complex system is going to have discomfort. Knowing the type of change you are embarking on (which is why I’m such a strong believer in the Cynefin framework) is paramount.
My observation/perspective is that, due to a combination of factors—most notably the Dunning-Kruger effect, inattentional blindness, overwhelmed cognitive capacity, and arrogance—there is an expectation to treat all problems as either clear or complicated. Even when challenges are properly diagnosed as “complex,” participants often impose their own meaning of the word “complex” (which, to most people, is a synonym for “complicated”) and then apply “what they know for sure that just ain’t so” upon the group. A complex transformation effort can quickly devolve into a chaotic environment of emotions and expectations without a solid structure in place.
The evidence from neuroscience (e.g., inattention bias, habits, emotion systems, cognitive biases) is overwhelming. When someone doesn’t understand or appreciate how much is happening in a transformative effort and shows up with a simple one-slide diagram they read in a book—or worse, downloaded from LinkedIn—they can make the whole environment toxic.
What I see (and I wonder if this is behind some of your comments) is that the feelings of the group—and the avoidance of discomfort at all costs—become the core driving force. It’s about activities, deliverables, and deadlines. When the desired “change” doesn’t happen, the blame falls on the people being changed. The “academic class” often wiggles out of this and positions themselves as the ones to “point the finger.”
In 2017, I created a public experiment to test these ideas and validate my understanding of many of the concepts related to complex adaptive systems. I’d love to write that up as a case study for these kinds of approaches, but I don’t really know where to start. As expected, only about 20% of the people involved made the program successful. Here’s the interesting part: when you “zoom in” on that 20%, it’s comprised of what I would call “cheerleaders” and “performers.”
Within this group, the performers made up only about 20% of the subset, while the cheerleaders were far more focused on “care” and the “well-being” of the group. Often, the cheerleaders would get offended by the performers—even though the performers created 80% of the value. It became a battle. The cheerleaders became self-righteous and would use concepts from books to justify their actions. Ideas like “VUCA leadership” and, yes, plenty of references to “mindsets” were thrown around. For the cheerleader types, “doing” meant creating things for others to do or follow. The performers, on the other hand, actually DID the thing that was required and would get incredibly frustrated with the cheerleaders. This “wedge” dynamic is something I’ve identified repeatedly in other areas. I think this dynamic is important to the conversation, though I’m not entirely sure why yet.
Here’s an analogy I make: Humans are part of nature, and the patterns of transformative change in complex environments are knowable. In most cases, we’re dealing with both a state shift and the formation of a new operating model. In nature, this is identical to the state shift of H₂O molecules held together in a crystal lattice transitioning to a liquid state. The plot points are straightforward, they are knowable, and the process can be mapped. The forces of entropy work upon the molecules, creating disorganization until equilibrium is achieved. The difference? Humans are the “molecules,” and the human brain is wired to resist change. Humans are both logical and emotive, and the “entropy” phase is heavy on primal reactions. There must—and will—be discomfort because, in the workplace, the expectations are often for little to no risk, which isn’t realistic.
The harm happens when well-intentioned people misappropriate concepts like “growth mindset” and marginalize the very individuals willing to step into “the abyss” of the unknown and do something different.
On Cynefin’s Strategy
I am going to say similar things tomorrow when I look at vertical development theories and the whole maturity model industry, but I just flag that intent for the moment.
My Comments
I appreciate this direction, but it also makes me wonder about Cynefin’s strategy. Are we going too deep into pet projects of “cheerleader” types, instead of focusing on making Cynefin a standard? The digital networked economy thrives on standards and protocols like TCP/IP, HTML, WC3, etc. Cynefin could benefit from becoming its own standard, especially for “complex” environments.
Said differently, I’m struggling to follow the plot line here. Do I need to track down “vertical development”? How does this relate to “mental models”? Specifically, “mental models” and “mindsets” frame things in the wrong way.
For me personally (and I think there are many ways people can make sense that are legitimate), I make sense of things in binary terms. Something is, or it is not. Something is in scope, or it is out of scope. Something exists, or it doesn’t.
I’m pondering these things as I read this:
What makes a “mental model” a “mental model”?
What makes a “mindset” a “mindset”?
If mental models and mindsets frame things the wrong way, then there must be a “right way.” How do we articulate that?
This feels like a fork in the road that must be addressed. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
The Well-Intentioned Work of the Past
I also think a lot of the work was well-intentioned and, in the context of the time of its creation, progressive.
My Comments
A Fork in the Road
This feels like a critical fork in the road: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Is it time to establish minimum standards? The audience for this article seems to include academics and scholars with rigid thinking, and I sense hesitation in pushing them too hard. There may also be fear of backlash from the “LinkedIn echo chamber.”
Perhaps my American bias for directness is at play here. Regardless, what I’m seeking is substance about the RIGHT frame—a frame based on the lived experiences of the man who conceived Cynefin. Are we at a “tipping point” or an inflection point? The digital economy is here, and Cynefin is an outstanding construct.
Cynefin’s Accessibility
Could the next step be to make Cynefin more accessible? This could be akin to Euclid writing the basics of Geometry—creating a foundation that helps orient us in complex, dynamic spaces.
Nurture vs. Nature and the Psychology of Growth Mindset
The idea that you should motivate children, athletes, and so on to develop self-esteem and an ability to overcome obstacles is not something anyone would reasonably object to. Dweck’s work, in particular, falls on the nurture side of an age-old debate with nature, and the ideological attraction of that is interesting.
My Comments
A Systemic Disconnect
This feels irrelevant and distracts from the core point. Dweck’s books are 100% psychology-based (which she openly admits). This creates an over-rotation toward the individual, which runs counter to systems thinking.
The "Me, We, Us" Framework
In our work, we use a simple structure: “Me,” “We,” and “Us.” This creates clear standards for differentiating between a collection of individuals (“Me’s”), the dynamics of a group (“We”), and the larger system (“Us”). Dweck’s focus on individuals doesn’t resonate here and feels out of place, much like a Material Scientist debating with a Chemist about the origins of an element.
Standardization Insight from XBRL
In 2003, I chaired the strategy subcommittee to get XBRL (a financial reporting language) adopted as a standard. The way financial reporting operates is critical to the economy. My appreciation for GAAP principles stems from their blend of rigor, clarity, and flexibility.
Could Cynefin benefit from a similar standardization process? A clear set of enabling constraints might bring the same benefits—simplicity, accessibility, and adaptability.
Enablement: The Two Perspectives
For progressives, it means we are all created equal, but that message is easily twisted (and has been) into a passing of blame or responsibility to the individual. It’s all too easy to move from encouragement to blame, and when your pet change initiative (Agile or otherwise) has just fallen foul of organisational culture (as most do), it is tempting to blame people for having the wrong mindset or mental models rather than admit your programme may just have got it wrong. It’s a temptation that seems to be directly proportionate in use to the enthusiasm of the proponent(s) of change.
My Comments
A Core Issue to Highlight
This is a HUGE problem that needs to be magnified and amplified. I feel uneasy with the term “progressives,” as it feels politically charged (an American bias, perhaps). However, the broader point is clear: What is the true meaning of “enablement”?
Two Perspectives on Enablement
The Helper Approach:
These individuals (often “Cheerleaders”) focus on enabling individuals by doing things for them or to them.
This approach often centers on the helper’s own value and imposes a command-and-control model.
This perspective dominates ~75% of problem-solvers.
The Architect Approach:
These individuals (often Producers or System Designers) focus on understanding whole systems and creating positive feedback loops.
They emphasize observable behaviors over words, clarify dispute mechanisms, and eliminate inefficiencies.
This approach represents ~25% of problem-solvers.
The Real Problem
Leaders funding change efforts overwhelmingly favor “fix my people” approaches and gravitate toward Helpers. Helpers often default to pre-packaged solutions (e.g., “growth mindset”) that result in random acts of enablement and ultimately worsen the system.
Cognitive Dissonance in Executives
Executives increasingly face cognitive dissonance when encountering complex theory. Many mistakenly equate complexity with “complicated,” viewing themselves as “experts” in it. Meanwhile, Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot) reinforce echo chambers by confirming these biases.
The Architect's Struggle
Architect types find themselves caught between:
A rock: Executives demanding short-term fixes to assuage anxiety.
A hard place: The 75% of Helpers quick to implement shallow solutions.
This dynamic creates significant barriers to systemic approaches, leaving Architects marginalized despite their value. Challenges in Complexity and Organizational Development
So why is all of this a problem? Well, there are several reasons, so in no particular order:
Recognizing the Challenge
Here, Mr. Snowden begins to list the challenges. These feel broad but aligned with many recurring issues in applying complexity theory.
1) Like a whole load of methods and theories that came out of the period from the decade or so on either side of the turn of the Century, it confuses emergent properties of multiple interactions over time with causal links.
Industrial-Age Thinking
I interpret this as a critique of industrial-age, mechanical thinking being mistakenly applied to complexity. This belief system persists as an underlying foundation, and if this interpretation is correct, I agree 100%.
2) Attitudes emerge over time, in a main as a result of what happens to us and other people around us of whom we are aware.
Comfort Through Collective Action
This aligns with the idea that comfort develops over time as people adapt and learn to do things differently together. If this is the intended point, I fully agree.
3) Common narratives and beliefs emerge and on reinforcement become held to be true.
Struggles with “Narrative”
The term “narrative” is tricky here. It’s often used interchangeably with storytelling, but that oversimplifies the complex dynamics of belief systems and behaviors. If this point is about shared beliefs and behaviors, it may already have been addressed elsewhere in the argument.
4) Process and other changes in organizations change the affordances within which people work, and the level of agency in individuals and groups changes and is often removed.
Agency and Group Dynamics
Understanding agency versus group dynamics is critical for organizations. Emergence doesn’t happen without authentic, clear, and consistent conditions that support agency. If this is the intended point, I strongly agree, and I feel this concept is central to the Cynefin framework and deserves more emphasis.
5) Its 101 complexity theory says that you can’t directly engineer an emergent property, but you can manage constraints, catalysts, and energy allocation and see if things go in the right direction.
Scope and Mechanisms
I am a firm believer in defining scope, structure, purpose, and principles while publishing constraints as “rules of the game.” Emergence occurs through engagement and interaction but halts when interest wanes.
This concept resonates deeply with me, but the “101 complexity theory” phrasing may lose some readers—especially if they perceive it as too technical or abstract. Perhaps framing it as creating an “encapsulating container or mechanism” could make it more accessible.
6) The idea and the metaphor underpinning it are largely cognitive and very engineering/information processing-centric.
Seeking Clarification
What is the metaphor here? What is “it”?
One way to explain emergence might be through analogy instead of metaphor. For example, an activity like asking participants to draw how toast is made demonstrates how simple concepts are interpreted differently by individuals. This approach creates an enabling constraint that fosters interaction in a tangible, relatable way.
7) Given that most scientists and philosophers would argue for a more distributed model of consciousness, that is an issue.
Consciousness and Mindset
For transformation teams, having a foundational understanding of consciousness is helpful, but its complexity makes it contentious across disciplines. If “mindset” is tied to this, perhaps a specific standard for its application is necessary to avoid confusion.
8) If consciousness is embodied, then the trained and chemically induced responses of the body play a part in things. If consciousness is enacted and/or embedded, then the interactions with our environment are critical, as is what we do. If consciousness is extended into our environment, through social processes and shared narratives, then that too is a constraint.
Human 101 and Complex Tasks
This is well-supported by neuroscience and anthropology. Humans can learn complex tasks at remarkable speeds if the environment allows it.
The connection to mindset feels tenuous here. Without grounding it in behavioral and binary terms (e.g., something is done or not done), mindset risks becoming just another abstract concept. The focus should be on practicing “muscles” like curiosity, listening, and empathy, not merely “knowing” about them.
9) Cartesian and computation models are something natural science has or is in the process of moving away from, and that will mean all of the mindset and mental model stuff will need radical reexamination.
Cartesian Coordinates and Complexity
I don’t fully understand the critique. Cartesian models are still essential for visualizing conceptual relationships, even if they need adaptation. For example, the Cynefin framework itself provides a spatial metaphor for connecting concepts within a complex, dynamic network.
Perhaps the challenge is in moving away from traditional Cartesian applications that reinforce static, gravitational models of reality. Could we instead focus on developing calculation methods that align with ecological complexity?
10) I’d also lump new-cognitivism and humanistic approaches along with associated romanticism and idealism into that criticism.
Too Many “Isms”
This is difficult to parse—there are too many “isms” here. What is the specific criticism being made?
11) We know far more about inheritance, and not just genetics but also epigenetic theory, which does seem to indicate that Lamarckism had, and has, something going for it, as Darwin himself asserted. He said that culture must be inherited—we just don’t know the mechanism; we now know this is biological, not just behavioral.
Beyond My Depth
This goes beyond my expertise. However, I’m unclear how this relates to the discussion on mindset.
12) The various work of the New Materialists, drawing on feminism as well as other sources such as Deleuze, is a growing body of work which gives us a more radical understanding of people and people in society and the nature of the way they operate and the constraints that apply to their various and many actions.
Misplaced Relevance?
Does this mean there’s a risk of radicalized, non-scientific ideas being co-opted into frameworks like mindset? If so, how do we safeguard against misuse?
13) So it’s time to move on, with respect, to something more nuanced, rigorous, and resilient, and dare I say practical.
Moving Forward
Move on from what, exactly? What is the new paradigm being proposed? How do we define pragmatism in this context?
14) We are doing a lot in this area, and the whole constraint mapping to counterfactual and constructors (the practical working through of this recent paper) is underway, with three pilots already undertaken.
Defining “We”
Who is “we” here? Clarity on this is essential to contextualize the work being referenced.
15) I’ll write more on this, but the focus is on fractal mapping of the legitimate zone of operation so that we start with what is possible rather than some idealized vision of the ideal state.
Geometry in Action
This sounds similar to geometry—mapping possibilities and relationships. How does this approach differ from existing frameworks, and how does it address the mindset criticism?
15) As an organisation, we have always focused on mapping attitudes and culture through micro-narratives and observations. That permits a new approach to change: namely, What can we do tomorrow to create more like these, and fewer like those.
Translating to Action
This is an intriguing approach but hard to make concrete. Could more examples or visualizations help illustrate these concepts?
Something I have posted on before but will update. So expect future posts on both of those approaches. But for now, I want to finish with another approach I have been working with, and with some success, which is to take the whole issue of attitudinal management and look at it through the perspective of what is starting to be called the 3As.
Aligning with Mindset Criticism
What is the purpose of the 3As? How does this contrast with or align with the critique of mindset?
The three perspectives are:
Agency: Who or what can make decisions or has the freedom to act, and to what degree?
Affordance: What opportunities are provided or inhibited by the ecosystem of which an individual or a group (mainly the latter) is a part?
Assemblage: What are the patterns of belief and understanding that act as constraints on behavior, that act as attractor wells from which it may be difficult to escape?
Reconciling the 3As
I’m struggling to connect these ideas cohesively. What I’ve gathered so far:
Mindset is problematic because it overly focuses on individuals.
Emergence is key, and systems must foster it holistically.
The 3As appear promising, but their integration with this argument feels incomplete.
Questions to Clarify:
What is the identity of the “old way”?
How do we articulate the “right way” to frame this?
What is the identity of the new paradigm?
How do the 3As fit into this broader context?
Comments