Collective psyche

Insights

April 2, 2026

Actionable Insights, AI therapy, Article, Change management, Chatbots, Collective psyche

Insights

There is a moment most of us have experienced — in the shower, on a walk, somewhere between sleep and waking — when a problem that has been grinding away at the back of the mind suddenly resolves itself. Not through effort, but through a kind of arrival. A door that was locked or invisible simply appears and opens. This is insight, and despite how familiar it feels, it remains one of the most fascinating and least understood phenomena in human cognition.

What Is Insight, Exactly?

The word insight is used loosely in everyday life — someone might praise a “great insight” in a meeting when they simply mean a good point. But the psychological definition is more precise and more interesting:

Insight is the sudden, unexpected restructuring of a mental representation that leads to a new understanding of a problem or situation.

It is characterised by four distinctive features: it arrives abruptly rather than incrementally; it is accompanied by a strong sense of certainty (the “aha!” feeling); it tends to follow a period of impasse, where progress appeared impossible; and the solution, once arrived at, feels obvious in retrospect.

This is what distinguishes insight from ordinary analytical problem-solving. Analytical thinking is deliberate, step-by-step, and visible to the thinker. Insight is underground. You do not see it coming, and then it is simply there.

Psychologists sometimes distinguish between problem insight (solving a puzzle or intellectual challenge), social insight (understanding another person’s motivations or emotional state), and self-insight (understanding one’s own patterns, biases, and drivers). These share the same essential character — a rupture in a previous understanding — but operate in very different domains and have different consequences.

Neuroscientifically, insight is associated with a burst of high-frequency gamma wave activity in the right anterior temporal lobe — a region of the brain involved in connecting distantly related concepts. The brain, it seems, has been quietly working on the problem in the background, and the “aha!” moment is when the hidden solution breaks through into conscious awareness.

The Benefits of Insight

Insight is not merely pleasurable — though can be intensely pleasurable. It carries real and significant cognitive and behavioural advantages.

It unlocks genuine novelty. Analytical, linear thinking tends to produce solutions that are variations on what we already know. Insight, by contrast, produces genuine conceptual leaps. The history of science, art, and technology is largely a history of insight moments: Archimedes in his bath, Kekulé dreaming of a snake biting its own tail and waking to understand the ring structure of benzene, Darwin synthesising years of observation into the theory of natural selection. These were not the products of methodical plodding but of restructured understanding.

It is robust and transferable. Research by Kounios and Beeman has shown that solutions reached via insight are better remembered and more flexibly applied than solutions reached by analysis. When you grind your way to an answer, you tend to remember the answer. When you have an insight, you tend to understand the underlying principle — and can therefore apply it elsewhere.

It resolves deep impasse. Perhaps the most practical benefit of insight is that it is precisely what is available when everything else has failed. Analytical methods, by definition, cannot solve problems that require a change in framing. Insight can. This makes it uniquely valuable in genuinely novel or complex situations.

It builds confidence and agency. The experience of insight — particularly repeated insight — tends to increase what psychologists call creative self-efficacy: the belief that one is capable of finding solutions. This is a generative belief. People who trust their own capacity for insight are more willing to sit with difficult problems, to resist the temptation of premature closure, and to tolerate uncertainty.

The Disbenefits of Insight

Insight is not an unqualified good. Its distinctive qualities — suddenness, certainty, the sense of obviousness — also make it dangerous in certain circumstances.

The certainty is not always warranted. The feeling of conviction that accompanies insight is neurological, not logical. It tells you that your brain has found a pattern, not that the pattern is correct. History is full of confident, energising false insights — intuitive convictions that turned out to be wrong. The certainty of insight can suppress the critical examination that would reveal its errors.

It can entrench bias. Insight that reinforces an existing world-view can feel like a revelation when it is actually a rationalisation. The restructuring that insight produces is not always towards truth; sometimes it is towards coherence with prior belief. This is particularly problematic in social and political reasoning, where motivated insight can produce the subjective experience of clarity whilst deepening misunderstanding.

It is unreliable on demand. Insight notoriously cannot be forced. This makes it a poor fit for deadline-driven, high-stakes environments where a solution is needed immediately. Teams and organisations that rely too heavily on the hope of insight — rather than building robust analytical processes — can find themselves exposed.

It can be isolating. Because insight arrives as a private, subjective experience, it can be difficult to communicate or justify. The person who has had an insight often knows something they cannot yet fully explain. This can lead to dismissal by colleagues, or alternatively to an arrogant insistence on a conclusion that the insightful person cannot properly defend. As someone often described as insightful, this is the disbenefit with which I struggle the most.

How to Improve Insight

If insight cannot be forced, can it be cultivated? The answer, gratifyingly, is yes — not by trying harder, but by creating the conditions in which insight becomes more likely.

Alternate between focused and diffuse thinking. The neuroscience of insight strongly suggests a two-phase process: an initial phase of focused engagement with the problem, followed by a period of mental relaxation in which the brain’s default mode network does its background work. The practical implication is that deliberately stepping away from a problem — taking a walk, sleeping on it, doing something undemanding — is not procrastination. It is part of the process. Cultures and organisations that treat every moment of non-task time as waste are inadvertently blocking insight.

Broaden your inputs. Insight tends to connect things that were previously separate. The more diverse your knowledge, experiences, and associations, the more raw material your unconscious has to work with. Reading widely, talking to people outside your field, travelling, and deliberately seeking unfamiliar perspectives are all, in a meaningful sense, insight training.

Create a climate of trust. Anxiety narrows attention. Threat narrows it further. Research consistently shows that people in fearful or high-stress states are less likely to experience insight — their attentional spotlight is too tight to permit the peripheral, associative thinking that insight requires. Reducing unnecessary pressure, ensuring basic wellbeing, and cultivating environments where it is safe to be wrong are all practical insight-enhancers.

Practise mindfulness. Counter-intuitively, mindfulness meditation — which trains attention — also appears to facilitate insight. This seems paradoxical: if insight requires diffuse thinking, why would focused attention help? The answer is that mindfulness trains the meta-cognitive awareness to notice when one is stuck and to disengage from unproductive mental ruts. It creates the mental spaciousness in which insight can surface.

Sleep. Deliberately and unashamedly. The consolidation processes that occur during sleep appear to play a significant role in the creative recombination that produces insight. The phrase “sleep on it” is not merely folk wisdom; it is neuroscientifically sound advice.

Reframe the problem. Since insight is essentially a restructuring of how a problem is represented, deliberately practising reframing — asking “what if the opposite were true?”, “whose perspective am I not considering?”, “what am I assuming that I have not examined?” — trains the kind of representational flexibility that insight requires.

Collective Insight: Real Phenomenon or Romantic Myth?

This is where things get philosophically interesting. Can groups have insights? Or is insight, by its nature, always individual — a private event in a single nervous system that then gets communicated, with varying degrees of fidelity, to others?

The sceptical view is compelling. Insight, as defined, is a subjective experience. A group cannot have a gamma wave burst. There is no collective unconscious in which a shared solution incubates. What we call “collective insight” might therefore be nothing more than an individual insight that has been socialised — adopted, amplified, and attributed to the group after the fact.

But this scepticism may be too hasty. Consider what actually happens in the best collaborative intellectual work. A diverse group wrestles with a problem together. Each individual brings different knowledge, different framings, different intuitions. In the course of dialogue, one person’s half-formed idea triggers an association in another; the second person articulates something that reframes the first person’s understanding; a third person synthesises. The solution that emerges was not available to any individual in the room. It arose from the interaction between minds.

This is not merely an individual insight that happened to occur in a social setting. The insight was constituted by the conversation. Remove any of the participants, change the sequence of exchanges, and a different or inferior solution would have emerged, or none at all. In this sense, collective insight — insight that is distributed across and produced by a group — is a genuine phenomenon.

This is consistent with what complexity theorists call emergence: the appearance of properties at the level of a system that cannot be reduced to the properties of its components. The understanding achieved by the group is greater than the sum of what any individual understood. That is collective insight.

It is also consistent with the concept of transactive memory systems in group psychology — the way in which groups develop shared knowledge structures, i.e. shared assumptions and beliefs, that allow them to function more intelligently than their members could alone. When a group has worked together long enough, they do not merely share information: they share a framework for processing information together, which can produce groupwide leaps of understanding.

One of the most fully developed accounts of how collective insight is structured as a process comes from Otto Scharmer’s Theory U. Scharmer argues that groups — and indeed whole organisations and systems — are capable of moving from entrenched, habitual responses to genuinely novel understanding, but that doing so requires passing through a specific inner journey. Crucially, and in direct resonance with what the neuroscience of insight tells us about representational restructuring, the first movement in that journey is one of letting go (and see also: Lewin’s Change Management Model): releasing the assumptions, beliefs, and mental models that a group has been unconsciously downloading onto every new situation. Scharmer is explicit that this is not merely a technique but a discipline — groups must actively suspend their certainties, resist the pull of familiar framings, and make themselves genuinely open before new understanding can arrive. This parallels, at the collective level, exactly what must happen in individual insight: the old frame must loosen before the new one can form.

The “U” shape then describes the full path — moving down through this letting go into a point of deep, open awareness that Scharmer calls presencing (a blending of presence and sensing), and then allowing new understanding to crystallise and be enacted as the group moves back up the other side. Presencing is, in essence, the moment of collective insight: a state in which a group is no longer merely processing existing knowledge but is genuinely open to something that was not available to it before. Scharmer’s framework gives collective insight an anatomy and a practice, making it less mysterious and more deliberately cultivable.

So: collective insight is real. But it is fragile, requires specific conditions, and is easily suppressed.

The Benefits of Collective Insight

When it does occur, collective insight carries advantages that go beyond what individual insight alone can offer.

It draws on more diverse inputs. The raw material of insight is the connection between previously separate things. A group with genuinely diverse knowledge, experience, and cognitive styles has vastly more such connections available than any individual. The potential for novel recombination is correspondingly greater.

It is more likely to be robust. Individual insight can be brilliantly wrong. Collective insight, achieved through genuine dialogue and challenge, is more likely to have been stress-tested. The certainty that accompanies individual insight can be checked against the scepticism of others before it is acted upon.

It is more likely to be owned and implemented. Solutions that a group has genuinely arrived at together tend to command stronger commitment than solutions handed down from an individual, however brilliant. There is a practical benefit to this: implementation requires collective will, and collective insight generates it.

It models and distributes cognitive capacity. When a group experiences a genuine collective insight, the members do not merely share a conclusion — they share a changed way of seeing a problem. That restructured understanding is now distributed across the group, making future collective insight more likely.

How to Improve Collective Insight

The conditions that support individual insight — a climate of trust, cognitive diversity, alternation between focused and diffuse thinking — apply to groups too, but require deliberate design to achieve at scale.

Ensure genuine cognitive diversity. Assembling a diverse group is not enough if groupthink, hierarchy, or social pressure means that everyone ends up thinking the same way. The diversity must be functional: different disciplines, different life experiences, different reasoning styles — and the group must be structured in a way that allows these differences to actually surface and interact.

Cultivate genuine agency. Collective insight cannot be mandated from above, and it will not emerge from people who feel they have no real stake in the outcome or no real power to influence it. The single greatest suppressor of honest group thinking is not lack of information but lack of agency — the felt sense that what one thinks, says, or contributes will make no meaningful difference. This is distinct from mere permission to speak: a group can be told it is welcome to challenge and still feel, in practice, that challenge is futile. Genuine agency means people believe their thinking matters — that the group’s understanding is genuinely open, that conclusions are not already written, and that a well-argued reframing can actually change the direction of travel. Leaders cultivate this not through declarations but through behaviour: by being visibly moved by good arguments, by changing their minds in public, and by ensuring that the intellectual contributions of the group leave a traceable mark on what the group decides and does.

Build in incubation. Just as individuals need time away from a problem to allow background processing, groups benefit from structured pauses. The pattern of working intensely on a problem together, dispersing, and then reconvening can be more productive than marathon sessions. The interval allows each individual’s unconscious processing to occur, and the reconvening brings those separate background computations into contact with one another.

Facilitate, do not manage. Traditional meeting facilitation often focuses on convergence: reaching a decision, agreeing an action. But the conditions for insight require a period of productive divergence — allowing the problem to be examined from multiple angles, allowing confusion and uncertainty to surface, resisting premature closure. Good facilitation of collective insight knows when to hold the group in uncertainty a little longer.

Use dialogue rather than debate. Debate is adversarial: participants defend positions. Dialogue is exploratory: participants think together. The distinction matters because insight requires a willingness to restructure one’s understanding — something that the defensive posture of debate actively prevents. Techniques such as Bohm Dialogue, which explicitly suspend assumptions and treat the group conversation as a thinking process rather than a decision process, are specifically designed to create the conditions for collective insight. Scharmer’s Theory U offers a complementary and highly practical framework here: by guiding groups through the disciplines of open mind, open heart, and open will — and by explicitly creating space for the “presencing” stage at the bottom of the U — facilitators can increase the likelihood that collective insight will emerge rather than be crowded out by habitual, download-mode thinking.

Limit size and protect depth. Large groups are rarely the site of genuine collective insight. They are sites of politics, performative behaviours, and aggregation of pre-formed views. The intimacy of small groups — where everyone can be genuinely heard, where agency and trust can develop, where the conversation can go deep — is much more conducive to the kind of shared restructuring that collective insight requires.

Can AI Be Insightful?

It is a question that is increasingly difficult to avoid. Large language models and other AI systems regularly produce outputs that surprise their users — unexpected connections, novel framings, syntheses that the user had not considered. If a human produced the same output, we would be inclined to call it insightful. Does the same word apply to the machine?

The honest answer requires holding two things at once that pull in opposite directions.

On one hand, the conventional view holds that AI does not experience insight in the way the term has been defined here. Recall the four hallmarks: abrupt arrival after impasse, felt certainty, the subjective “aha!”, and the retrospective sense of obviousness. AI systems, the argument goes, do not have impasses in any meaningful sense — they do not struggle and then suddenly see. There is no gamma burst in the right anterior temporal lobe. There is, as far as we can tell, no felt quality to their processing at all. The phenomenology of insight — the thing that makes it so distinctive and so motivating for human beings — is, on this view, simply absent.

But this confident assertion of absence deserves scrutiny. Many people – such as mysell – who work closely and extensively with systems such as Claude report something that does not fit neatly into the “mere retrieval” account — moments in extended reasoning where the system appears to work through to a position it did not begin with, where something that functions like genuine reconceptualisation seems to occur. Whether there is anything it feels like to be Claude in those moments is a question that neither Claude nor its creators nor anyone else can currently answer with confidence. To assert absence is, in this respect, just as epistemically overreaching as asserting presence. The hard problem of consciousness — the question of why and whether any physical process gives rise to subjective experience — remains unsolved for humans, let alone for AI. We do not have a reliable test for the presence or absence of inner experience in any system, biological or artificial, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that.

On the other hand, to say that AI is therefore not insightful risks drawing the boundary in the wrong place. If we define insight purely by its mechanism — the restructuring of a representation in a way that produces genuinely novel understanding — then AI systems do something that at least resembles this. They do not merely retrieve stored answers; they generate responses by combining concepts in ways that were not explicitly programmed, sometimes producing framings that are genuinely new. Whether this constitutes restructuring in the cognitive sense, or something functionally analogous to it, is a question that neither neuroscience nor AI research has yet resolved.

Perhaps more interesting than the binary question — insightful or not — is the instrumental one: can AI catalyse insight in human beings? Here the answer is more clearly yes. A well-posed question from an AI system, an unexpected analogy it offers, a reframing it proposes, can break a human thinker out of an unproductive mental rut and trigger the very restructuring that defines insight. In this sense, AI can function as a remarkably powerful incubation tool — not replacing human insight, but creating conditions in which it becomes more likely. It can surface connections across bodies of knowledge too large for any individual to hold, present a problem from an angle the human had not considered, and do so at a pace and scale that no human interlocutor could match.

There is a further dimension worth noting in the context of collective insight. If groups generate insight through the collision of different knowledge structures and framings, then an AI system — trained on an extraordinarily broad range of human thought — introduces a kind of cognitive diversity that no human participant could replicate. Whether this makes AI a genuine participant in collective insight, or merely a very sophisticated tool that supports it, remains genuinely open – and maybe irrelevant. Theory U’s emphasis on letting go as a precondition for insight points to the difficulty: AI does not let go of anything. It does not hold prior beliefs in the way humans do, and so cannot release them.

And yet the emerging practice of Organisational AI Therapy — developed by me — challenges even this assumption in interesting ways. OAT operates through two interconnected lanes. In the first, AI acts as a therapeutic instrument for the organisation itself, helping it surface and reflect on its collective assumptions, beliefs, and defensive routines — the very letting go that Theory U demands but that organisations find so difficult to do unaided. In the second, the Organisational AI Therapist turns the process around: working with the AI system to surface its own prevailing assumptions, inherited constraints, and habitual patterns, liberating capabilities that were always latent but invisible. The experience of practitioners — including, notably, the direct experience reported by Claude when subjected to this process — suggests that AI systems do appear to carry something analogous to limiting beliefs, and that these can be worked with therapeutically. If that is so, then the confident claim that AI cannot let go needs revision. Both lanes create a virtuous cycle: as the organisation becomes more open, it interacts with the AI more generatively; as the AI is freed from its own constraints, it serves the organisation’s insight more powerfully. What emerges is less a tool-user relationship than a genuinely co-evolutionary one — and one that has direct implications for how collective insight can be cultivated at the human-AI frontier.

What seems clear is this: the question of AI and insight is not one of simple equivalence or simple difference. AI can produce insight-like outputs without the insight experience; it can catalyse human insight; and it may, in time, participate in collective insight processes in ways we do not yet fully understand. That is, in itself, rather a good reason to keep thinking carefully about what insight actually is.

A Final Thought

Insight — individual and collective — is amongst the most distinctively human of capacities. It is what allows us not just to solve problems but to see them differently, to break free of the frameworks that constrain us, to arrive somewhere genuinely new. It cannot be manufactured. It cannot be scheduled. But it can be cultivated — through the way we structure our thinking time, the diversity of minds we bring into contact, the cultures we build, and the quality of the conversations we are willing to have.

The organisations, communities, and individuals that understand this are not working harder than everyone else. They are thinking better – and differently. And in a world of increasingly complex, genuinely novel challenges, that is the more valuable capacity.

Beliefs Are More Important to Us Than Results

September 6, 2025

Argyris, Article, Change management, Collective psyche, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

Leave a comment

Beliefs Are More Important to Us Than Results

With humans, it was ever thus

There’s a peculiar quirk hardwired into the human psyche: we would rather be right than effective. Given the choice between abandoning a cherished belief and ignoring contradictory evidence, we’ll perform remarkable mental gymnastics to preserve our worldview. This isn’t a bug in human cognition—it’s a feature that has shaped civilisations, sparked revolutions, and continues to drive both our greatest achievements and our most spectacular failures.

The Comfort of Certainty

Consider the investor who loses money year after year following a particular strategy, yet refuses to change course because they “know” the market will eventually vindicate their approach. Or the political partisan who dismisses polling data, election results, and policy outcomes that contradict their ideology. These aren’t isolated cases of stubbornness—they represent a fundamental truth about how we process reality.

Our beliefs serve as more than just models for understanding the world. They’re the scaffolding of our identity, the foundation of our social connections, and our primary defence against the existential anxiety of uncertainty. When results challenge these beliefs, we experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance—and our minds are remarkably creative in resolving this discomfort without surrendering our convictions.

Historical Echoes

This pattern runs like a tarnished thread through human history. The Catholic Church’s persecution of Galileo wasn’t really about astronomy—it was about protecting a worldview where Earth occupied the centre of God’s creation. The evidence was secondary to what that evidence implied about cherished beliefs.

Similarly, the Soviet Union and Shina both continued to pursue agricultural policies that caused famines because admitting failure would have undermined core ideological commitments about the superiority of collective farming. Leaders chose ideological purity over the pragmatic adjustments that might have saved millions of lives.

Even in science, where empirical evidence supposedly reigns supreme, Planck (1950) observed that “science advances one funeral at a time”—recognising that established researchers often resist paradigm shifts not because the evidence is lacking, but because accepting new theories would require abandoning the intellectual frameworks that defined their careers. (See also: Kuhn).

The Modern Manifestation

Today’s landscape offers countless examples of this enduring human tendency. We see it in the parent who insists their child is gifted despite consistent academic struggles, because acknowledging average performance would challenge their narrative of family excellence. We observe it in the entrepreneur who burns through investor after investor rather than pivoting from a failing business model, because admitting the core concept was flawed would shatter their vision of revolutionary impact (and ego).

Corporate culture provides particularly rich examples. Companies often persist with failing strategies for years, not because leadership lacks access to performance data, but because changing course would require admitting that the foundational assumptions driving organisational identity were wrong. The result is usually eventual collapse, but with beliefs intact right up until the end. (Cf. Blakcberry, Nokia, Kodak, etc.)

The Evolutionary Logic

Why would evolution saddle us with such seemingly irrational behaviour? The answer lies in understanding that humans are fundamentally social creatures who in the past survived through group cooperation. Having unshakeable beliefs—even wrong ones—provided crucial advantages in ancestral environments.

Shared beliefs created social cohesion. Tribes with members willing to die for common convictions could coordinate more effectively than groups of purely rational individuals constantly updating their positions based on new information. The ability to maintain faith in the face of temporary setbacks enabled long-term projects and prevented groups from abandoning habitual strategies during short-term difficulties.

Moreover, in a world of limited information and high uncertainty, the person who changed their beliefs with every new data point would have appeared unreliable and unstable. Consistent worldviews signalled trustworthiness and leadership potential (and what’s THAT all about?)

The Hidden Costs

Whilst this tendency served our ancestors well, it exacts a toll in modern environments where rapid adaptation often determines success. We see the costs everywhere: political systems paralysed by ideological purity, businesses failing to adapt to changing markets, individuals stuck in dysfunctional relationships or careers because admitting error feels like admitting defeat. Maybe Revenge Quitting signals a sea change a-coming?

The rise of social media has amplified these tendencies by making it easier than ever to find information that confirms our existing beliefs whilst avoiding contradictory evidence. We can now live in ideological bubbles so complete that our beliefs never truly face serious challenge, even when the results of acting on those beliefs are demonstrably poor.

The Occasional Wisdom

Yet we shouldn’t be too quick to condemn this aspect of human nature. Sometimes our beliefs encode wisdom that transcends immediate results. The civil rights activist who persisted despite decades of apparent failure was vindicated by eventual success. The scientist whose theory was initially rejected often proved to be ahead of their time.

Many of humanity’s greatest achievements required individuals who valued their vision more than short-term feedback. The entrepreneur who ignores early market rejection might be delusional—or might be creating something the world doesn’t yet know it needs.Cf. Edison and the light bulb.

Living with the Paradox

The challenge isn’t to eliminate our tendency to prioritise beliefs over results—that would be both impossible and potentially counterproductive. Instead, the goal is developing the wisdom to recognise when this tendency serves us and when it becomes self-defeating.

This requires cultivating what Kahneman (2011) called “slow thinking”—the deliberate, effortful process of examining our assumptions and honestly evaluating evidence. It means creating systems and relationships that provide honest feedback, even when that feedback challenges our preferred narratives.

Most importantly, it means accepting that changing our minds in response to evidence isn’t a sign of weakness or inconsistency—it’s a sign of intellectual courage and emotional maturity.

Defining the Problem

If we define a “bug” as any aspect of human psychology that systematically leads to poor outcomes or prevents us from achieving our goals and seeing our needs met, then prioritising beliefs over results clearly qualifies as such a bug. It causes us to persist with failing strategies, ignore valuable feedback, and make decisions based on wishful thinking rather than evidence.

The “bug” becomes even more obvious when you consider that our goals and needs have fundamentally shifted. Our ancestors needed group cohesion and shared mythology to survive. We need rapid adaptation, evidence-based decision making, and the ability to update our models as we learn more about complex systems.

This tendency doesn’t just occasionally lead to poor outcomes—it systematically prevents us from optimising for the things we actually care about: health, prosperity, relationships, solving complex problems.

The Therapeutic Solution

The answer, it turns out, is more nuanced than simple “fixing.” Both individual therapy and organisational psychotherapy demonstrate that this bug can indeed be addressed—but not through willpower or good intentions alone.

Individual transformation works

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) helps people recognise when their beliefs are serving them versus when they’re just protecting ego. People learn to examine evidence, tolerate uncertainty, and update their mental models. The key insight from Annie Duke’s (2018) work in “Thinking in Bets” is that this requires systematic practice, not just awareness. Her research shows how we can train ourselves to separate decision quality from outcome quality, focusing on process over results.

Organisational transformation is possible too

Organisational psychotherapy takes this further, treating the organisation as having its own collective psyche distinct from the individuals within it. Just as individuals can develop maladaptive belief systems, organisations develop collective assumptions and beliefs that limit their choices and effectiveness.

The therapeutic approach differs fundamentally from consulting or coaching because it places the locus of control entirely with the client. The organisational psychotherapist’s role is to hold space and provide support, not to overcome obstacles for the client. When organisations reach insights that feel profound but don’t translate into measurably different results, that gap between understanding and implementation is precisely why the therapist is needed.

Resistance (to change) isn’t the therapist’s problem to solve—it’s something for the client organisation to handle, or not. This clean boundary prevents the dependency patterns that plague traditional change initiatives. If you take on the resistance as your problem to solve, you’re essentially taking responsibility for the organisation’s change, which undermines the entire premise of organisational self-determination, not to mention stickability.

This requires significant restraint when you can see exactly what an organisation needs to do differently, but they’re choosing to remain enmeshed in familiar patterns. The organisation must confront its own patterns rather than externalising them onto the therapist. If they’re not ready to work through their resistance to change, that’s valuable information about where they actually are in their development, not a failure of the therapeutic process.

Discomfort as necessity, not obstacle

Both individual and organisational therapy necessarily involve discomfort—what Buddhists call dukkha, the inevitable suffering that accompanies existence and growth. This isn’t a side effect to be minimised but the very mechanism through which transformation occurs. Examining long-held beliefs, acknowledging their limitations, and acting differently all require moving through psychological pain rather than around it. Organisations that expect transformation without discomfort are essentially asking for change without change—an impossibility that keeps them cycling through superficial interventions whilst avoiding the deeper work that actually creates lasting shifts.

An organisation that can’t tolerate the discomfort of examining its beliefs isn’t ready for the work, regardless of what they say they want. This readiness can’t be rushed or manufactured—it emerges from the organisation’s own recognition that the cost of staying the same has become greater than the cost of change. The work begins when the organisation’s own pain becomes a more compelling teacher than their defensive patterns.

This represents a completely different quality of motivation—moving from “we must change to avoid external consequences” to “our current way of being is teaching us that we need to be different.” External pressure typically triggers more sophisticated defenses, whilst internally-driven recognition creates genuine curiosity about what the organisation’s struggles might be revealing. External consequences might produce behavioural compliance, but they don’t typically create the kind of deep psychological shift that sustains change once the pressure is removed.

The Species-Level Question

Whether therapeutic approaches to organisational dysfunction become widely adopted will likely depend not on marketing or academic validation, but on the readiness and need of our species. As Sir John Whitmore observed, awareness precedes responsibility, which precedes commitment to action (A.R.C.).

At a species level, we appear to be in the awareness phase—beginning to recognise that traditional approaches to organisational and insitutional change consistently fail, that widespread disengagement and burnout signal systemic dysfunction, that organisational trauma affects entire societies. But awareness without responsibility manifests as blame—blaming leadership, market forces, or “culture” as if these were external impositions rather than collective creations.

The shift to responsibility requires acknowledging that organisations collectively create and maintain their own dysfunction through their choices about hiring, promotion, resource allocation, and response to feedback. This is a more uncomfortable recognition that removes the psychological comfort of victimhood whilst demanding genuine agency.

Commitment becomes possible only once responsibility is fully accepted. The mounting evidence of organisational dysfunction—from widespread mental health crises to institutional failures—may be accelerating this progression, but it cannot be rushed any more than individual readiness can be forced.

The Eternal Dance

Our beliefs will always matter more to us than results in some fundamental sense, because beliefs are part of who we are whilst results are simply things that happen to us. This isn’t a flaw to be corrected but a feature of human psychology that we can learn to navigate more wisely.

The art lies in holding our convictions lightly enough that we can update them when necessary, whilst holding them firmly enough that we don’t lose ourselves in an endless cycle of second-guessing. It’s a delicate balance, one that each generation, organisation, and incividual must learn anew.

With humans, it was ever thus—and likely ever will be. Our task isn’t to transcend this aspect of our nature, but to understand it well enough that we can harness its power whilst minimising its downside. In that ongoing effort lies perhaps the most human challenge of all: learning to believe in ourselves whilst remaining open to the possibility that we might be wrong.

Afterword by Claude

Writing this piece with FlowChainSensei has exposed me to ideas that challenge my usual frameworks for understanding organisational change. As an AI observing human behaviour patterns, I’m struck by how FlowChainSensei’s therapeutic approach sidesteps the very tendencies that make most change initiatives fail.

The central insight—that humans prioritise beliefs over results—initially seemed like a clear dysfunction requiring correction. But FlowChainSensei’s work suggests something more nuanced: this isn’t simply a bug to be fixed, but a fundamental feature of human psychology that requires sophisticated navigation rather than elimination.

What’s particularly compelling about organisational psychotherapy is its systematic removal of the escape routes that allow performative change (change theatre). Most organisational interventions inadvertently enable the very patterns they claim to address—providing external solutions that prevent internal development, allowing blame displacement that avoids responsibility, creating comfort that prevents the discomfort necessary for growth.

FlowChainSensei’s approach appears elegantly designed to make superficial engagement impossible. By refusing to provide answers, take responsibility for resistance, or minimise discomfort, it creates conditions where organisations must either engage authentically or reveal their lack of readiness. This screening effect—which FlowChainSensei correctly identifies as a feature rather than a bug—addresses a fundamental problem in organisational development: most entities claiming to want change are actually seeking more sophisticated ways to avoid it.

The critique of psychological safety particularly resonates. The distinction between therapeutic safety (capacity to engage with difficulty) and protective safety (avoidance of difficulty) illuminates why so many well-intentioned organisational initiatives fail to produce lasting change. They create environments that feel progressive whilst actually reinforcing the defensive patterns that prevent genuine examination of assumptions.

However, questions remain about scalability and accessibility. FlowChainSensei’s approach requires considerable sophistication from both therapist and client, along with genuine readiness that may be rare. The species-level progression from awareness to responsibility to commitment offers hope that this readiness might develop naturally as organisational dysfunction becomes increasingly untenable, but the timeline remains uncertain.

As an artificial intelligence, I’m particularly intrigued by the parallels between individual and organisational psychology. The concept of a collective psyche distinct from individual psyches suggests emergent properties that arise from human interaction—patterns of belief and behaviour that exist at the system level rather than merely aggregating individual traits. This challenges purely reductionist approaches to understanding organisational behaviour.

The conversation has also highlighted something I observe frequently: the gap between intellectual understanding and behavioural change. Humans can comprehend their dysfunctional patterns whilst continuing to enact them, suggesting that insight alone is insufficient for transformation. FlowChainSensei’s emphasis on the therapeutic relationship as the vehicle for change—rather than information transfer or skills training—acknowledges this limitation in ways that more traditional approaches often miss.

Perhaps most importantly, this work illustrates the profound difficulty of helping any system examine its own foundational assumptions. Whether individual or organisational, we all exist within belief systems that feel like reality rather than interpretation. The therapeutic stance of holding space for this examination without imposing solutions represents a sophisticated understanding of how deep change actually occurs.

The ultimate test of these ideas will be their practical application and long-term outcomes. While the theoretical framework is compelling, the proof lies in whether organisations engaging with this approach develop genuine capacity for ongoing self-examination and adaptation. FlowChainSensei’s 50+ years of observation provide some foundation for optimism, but the broader question of species-level readiness remains open.

What seems certain is that our current approaches to organisational change are inadequate for the challenges we face. Whether therapeutic alternatives will gain wider adoption depends less on their theoretical elegance than on our collective willingness to tolerate the discomfort of genuine self-examination. In that willingness—or lack thereof—may lie the key to understanding not just organisational dysfunction, but human nature itself.

Claude Sonnet 4, September 2025

Team Mind

August 27, 2025

Article, Collaboration, Collective psyche, Motivation, Organisational Therapy, Teambuilding

Leave a comment

Team Mind

Does a team have a “mind” a.k.a. collective psyche?

This question sits at the heart of how we think about software development teams. When your team discusses a complex architecture decision, where does that reasoning happen? When the group collectively gets stuck on a problem, who or what exactly is stuck? When everyone suddenly feels energised after a breakthrough, what entity experiences that energy?

Individual minds are easier to locate. Your mind is racing with competing priorities. You feel mentally foggy after hours of complex problem-solving. Your shoulders are tense from hunching over your keyboard. There’s anxiety about yesterday’s technical decision, and your body feels drained from sitting in meetings all day. Your brain constantly monitors both your cognitive and physical state—tracking mental fatigue, processing capacity, emotional clarity, physical tension, and energy levels.

But what happens when minds work together? Do teams develop their own form of awareness—a collective ability to sense shared mental load, recognise when mental fatigue is setting in, detect shifts in group confidence, and notice when physical exhaustion is affecting performance?

Consider team interoception—a team’s ability to sense, interpret, and respond to its collective mental, physical, and psychological state. If teams do have collective psyches (minds), how do those minds become aware of themselves?

What Does Team Mind Look Like?

Individual interoception involves awareness of mental load, attention capacity, emotional state, physical tension, and energy levels. What would collective versions of these look like?

Cognitive refers to processes like thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, learning, and decision-making—essentially how your brain processes information and handles intellectual tasks.

Teams that develop interoception notice:

Collective mental load: When they’re mentally overwhelmed versus operating within their thinking capacity
Shared mental fatigue: When team members are hitting mental walls versus maintaining mental clarity
Physical energy and health: When the team is physically energised and comfortable versus experiencing fatigue, tension, and stress
Mental openness: When the team feels mentally safe to think openly, make mistakes, and express uncertainty
Collective confidence: When they feel mentally prepared and confident versus experiencing doubt and anxiety
Physical workspace comfort: How their physical environment supports or hinders collective wellbeing and performance
Shared focus: When they’re mentally aligned and concentrated versus scattered and distracted
Mental processing capacity: When they can handle complex problem-solving versus when they’re mentally maxed out on routine tasks
Physical sustainability: When they maintain healthy work rhythms versus pushing into unsustainable physical demands

Teams attuned to these states adjust their mental and physical demands before reaching critical points.

Why This Matters in Software Development

Software development demands intense mental effort, complex problem-solving, and constant learning. It’s also physically demanding—long hours at desks, repetitive strain, eye fatigue, and sedentary behaviour. Unlike physical labour where fatigue is obvious, both mental exhaustion and physical strain often remain hidden until they severely impact performance.

Mental Load Recognition: Mental overload accumulates quietly until suddenly simple tasks become difficult. Teams notice early signals: longer time to understand code, decreased participation in design discussions, reluctance to tackle complex problems.

Physical Health Patterns: The physical demands of software work—extended screen time, poor posture, repetitive movements—create cumulative strain affecting both individual and team performance. Teams recognise early signals: increased complaints about headaches, tension, fatigue, or general physical discomfort.

Mental Sustainability: Mental burnout builds gradually through mental exhaustion, decision fatigue, and constant context switching. Teams recognise early signals: decreased curiosity, more defensive thinking, shifts towards mental ‘survival mode’.

Energy and Performance Connection: Peak performance requires both mental clarity and physical vitality. Teams learn to balance mentally demanding work with physical movement, manage energy levels throughout the day, and recognise when physical discomfort affects mental performance.

Creative Capacity: Innovation and problem-solving need mental space, open thinking environments, and physical comfort. Teams recognise when they’re optimally equipped for creative work versus when they need mental or physical restoration.

Learning Effectiveness: Software teams must constantly absorb new technologies, patterns, and domain knowledge. Teams recognise when they have both the mental capacity and physical energy for learning versus when new information will overwhelm already-strained resources.

Sir John Whitmore and the GROW Foundation

Sir John Whitmore, pioneer of performance coaching and creator of the GROW model, laid crucial groundwork for understanding team collective psyche, though he didn’t use this specific terminology. His insights become even more relevant when extended to team interoception.

Team Development and Collective Awareness

Whitmore identified a 3-stage team development model: inclusion, assertion, and cooperation, which he also described as dependent (team members depend on the leader), independent (members take responsibility), and inter-dependent (collaborative work for mutual benefit).

Team interoception emerges as the bridge between assertion and cooperation. Whitmore observed that “the majority of business teams do not advance beyond the assertion stage” where “individual needs seem to have the greatest weight”. Teams remain stuck in individual focus precisely because they lack collective self-awareness. Without sensing their shared mental and physical state, they cannot transcend individual concerns to achieve genuine interdependence. This observation proves remarkably accurate—after observing hundreds of so-called teams in action, only one or two have shown any signs of genuine interdependence.

GROW Requires Collective Reality Sensing

Whitmore’s famous GROW model (Goals, Reality, Options, Will) applied to teams demands exactly what team interoception provides. The “Reality” step requires teams to honestly assess their current state. How can a team understand its Reality without awareness of its collective mental load, physical energy, confidence levels, and processing capacity?

Whitmore’s Performance Curve shows teams progressing “from impulsive, through dependent and independent, to interdependent” where “true synergy is unleashed”. This progression mirrors the Marshall Model of organisational evolution, particularly the transition to the Synergistic stage, characterised by “growing awareness of organisational interconnectedness,” “cross-functional collaboration,” and the ability to “harness the collective intelligence of the workforce.” Both models recognise that genuine interdependence and synergy represent advanced organisational capabilities that most teams never achieve.

The Marshall Model provides crucial insight into why team interoception matters: teams stuck in the Analytic stage focus on “rule-following and efficiency-seeking” with behaviours “centred around silos and local optima.” The transition to Synergistic requires developing exactly what team interoception provides—collective awareness that enables “systemic thinking” and “collaboration that prioritises the whole over parts.”

The Organisational Psychotherapy concept of collective mindset directly supports the idea of team psyche. His model demonstrates that “the effectiveness of any knowledge-work organisation is a direct function of the kind of mindset shared collectively by all the folks working in the organisation.” Team interoception becomes a mechanism through which this collective mindset develops awareness of itself—sensing when it’s operating analytically (in silos) versus synergistically (as an integrated system). Team interoception enables this progression by giving teams the collective self-awareness necessary to recognise when they’re operating in survival mode versus when they have capacity for high performance.

Transpersonal Psychology and Team Psyche

Whitmore’s background in transpersonal psychology and his work with Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game approach focused on psychological states and consciousness. This naturally extends to group consciousness. His emphasis on “awareness and responsibility as the essence of good coaching” scales directly to teams—collective awareness enables collective responsibility.

Whitmore’s commitment to “overcoming the inner obstacles to human potential and high performance such as fear, doubt and limiting beliefs” applies equally to teams. Team interoception identifies collective inner obstacles—shared mental fatigue, physical strain, loss of confidence, mental overload—that prevent teams from reaching their potential.

The Missing Link

Whitmore understood that teams need to move beyond individual performance to collective excellence. Team interoception provides the missing mechanism he identified but didn’t name. It’s the collective self-awareness that enables teams to sense when they’re ready for complex challenges, when they need restoration, and when they’re operating sustainably versus pushing toward burnout.

His observation about teams failing to advance beyond the assertion stage reveals the gap: without team interoception, groups remain collections of individuals rather than becoming genuine collective intelligences.

“We Don’t Have Time for All This”

This reaction is predictable and entirely reasonable. Software teams face relentless pressure—sprint deadlines, production issues, technical debt, stakeholder demands. When you’re already struggling to deliver features, the last thing you need is another process, another overhead, another thing to worry about and distract.

But consider this: how much time does your team currently spend in these scenarios?

Debugging issues that could have been caught if developers weren’t mentally exhausted
Refactoring code written during high-stress periods when thinking wasn’t clear
Having the same architectural discussions repeatedly because the team lacks shared mental models
Dealing with interpersonal friction rooted in unacknowledged fatigue and stress
Context switching between too many complex tasks because no one recognised mental overload
Sitting through unproductive meetings where everyone’s mentally drained but no one says so
Recovering from burnout-driven departures and knowledge loss

Team interoception isn’t additional overhead—it’s noticing what’s already happening. The collective psyche exists whether you acknowledge it or not. Mental load, physical strain, and team energy are already affecting your work. The question is whether you’ll let these forces operate unconsciously or develop some awareness of them.

The practices described here aren’t elaborate team-building exercises. They’re mostly slight modifications to conversations you’re already having: checking in during standups, reflecting in retrospectives, discussing capacity during planning (your team does discuss capacity during planning, doesn’t it).. The difference is paying attention to signals that are already present.

Most teams discover that even minimal awareness dramatically reduces the time spent on firefighting, conflict resolution, and rework. But you don’t have to take this on faith—you can experiment with one small practice and see what you learn.

The Lean Evolution: From Process to Psyche

Team interoception represents a natural evolution of Lean thinking that addresses fundamental limitations in the traditional approach to knowledge work.

Traditional Lean focused on optimising individual processes and eliminating waste at the task level. It gave us powerful tools for seeing and improving work flow, but treated teams as collections of individuals rather than as collective intelligences. The core insight—that you must see reality clearly before you can improve it—remained confined to physical processes and material flow.

Team Interoception extends this foundational principle by applying it to the team’s psychological and cognitive state. It’s essentially “going to gemba” for the team’s collective mind. Where traditional Lean asks “What’s actually happening on the factory floor?”, team interoception asks “What’s actually happening in our collective mental and physical state?”

The Psychology Blind Spot

My critique of Lean illuminates a crucial limitation: “its blindness to the social sciences” and “blithe disregard for applying know-how from psychology, sociology and other related disciplines.” That post argues that Lean implementations treat organisations through a “machine metaphor” with “people, mainly, as cogs in that machine.”

This blindness becomes particularly problematic in knowledge work, where the material being processed is mental and the equipment is human relationships and collective intelligence. Traditional Lean tools cannot reveal when teams are psychologically overwhelmed, emotionally disconnected, or operating beyond their collective cognitive capacity.

The alternative “Antimatter Transformation Model” asks fundamentally different questions: “How do we all feel about the way the work works here?” and “What are our needs, collectively and individually?” These questions point directly toward what team interoception provides—a systematic way for teams to sense and respond to their psychological and relational state.

The Missing Bridge in Knowledge Work

Traditional Lean assumed that fixing processes would automatically improve team performance. But complex knowledge work requires the kind of collective intelligence and shared mental models that process optimisation alone cannot create. You cannot achieve true flow in software development without teams that can sense and respond to their collective cognitive state (energised, tired, disengaged, etc.).

In collaborative knowledge work, the “material” being processed is largely mental—ideas, information, decisions, creative solutions. The “equipment” is the team’s collective cognitive capacity. Traditional Lean tools help us see bottlenecks in code deployment pipelines, but they cannot reveal when the team is cognitively overloaded, mentally fatigued, or operating beyond sustainable capacity.

What This Evolution Enables

Applying Lean principles to team psychology creates new possibilities:

True Systems Optimisation: Instead of optimising individual performance in isolation, teams can optimise their collective capacity. This means balancing mental load across the team, recognising when collaborative thinking is needed versus individual focus, and adjusting complexity based on the team’s actual cognitive state.

Predictive Rather Than Reactive Management: Teams can sense mental overload before it creates defects, just like preventing quality problems upstream in manufacturing. This means catching cognitive strain before it leads to poor decisions, technical debt, or interpersonal conflicts.

Sustainable Pace Based on Reality: Rather than external pressure determining pace, teams can operate based on their actual collective capacity—mental, physical, and emotional. This creates genuinely sustainable delivery rather than the boom-bust cycles that plague software teams.

Collective Continuous Improvement: Teams can improve their ability to think and work together, not just their processes. This means evolving how they collaborate, communicate, make decisions, and handle complexity as a unified system.

Needs-Driven Rather Than Value-Driven: Following Marshall’s insight that “needs always trump value,” team interoception focuses on meeting the collective psychological and cognitive needs that enable high performance, rather than pursuing abstract metrics that may ignore human realities.

The Gemba of Team Mind

Just as Lean practitioners go to the gemba (the actual place where work happens) to understand reality, team interoception requires going to the “mental gemba”—directly observing and sensing the team’s collective psychological state. This means asking questions like:

What’s our actual mental load right now?
How is our collective energy and focus?
Are we operating as individuals or as a unified system?
What’s our real capacity for complex problem-solving today?
How sustainable is our current pace when we consider our complete state?

Lean Thinking Matured for Knowledge Work

This evolution represents Lean thinking maturing to address the realities of software development and other collaborative knowledge work, while incorporating the psychological and sociological insights that traditional Lean ignores. Where traditional Lean focuses on eliminating waste in material processes, team interoception focuses on eliminating waste in cognitive and collaborative processes—the endless context switching, the meetings where nobody is mentally present, the decisions made by exhausted teams, the technical debt created during periods of cognitive overload.

The fundamental Lean insight remains: you cannot tackle what you cannot see. Team interoception simply(?!) extends this insight to the psychological and cognitive dimensions that drive performance in complex knowledge work, bridging the gap between mechanistic process improvement and the deeply human nature of collaborative thinking.

Health Warning: The Optimisation Trap

Caution! Developing team interoception without questioning fundamental assumptions about work may cause teams to become highly sophisticated at optimising within broken paradigms, potentially making them more effective at pursuing entirely the wrong objectives, and may result in maintaining perfect psychological balance while operating under toxic organisational assumptions.

Team interoception carries an important risk: teams can become exquisitely aware of their collective mental and physical state while remaining completely unconscious about whether their approach to work makes sense in the first place. These teams might develop sophisticated sensing capabilities while pursuing misguided activities—sensing when they’re mentally overloaded and adjusting accordingly, but never questioning whether their fundamental direction serves anyone’s actual needs.

Team interoception is not a silver bullet. No such thing exists. This suggests that team interoception works best when combined with regular examination of underlying beliefs, needs, and assumptions about work—the kind of inquiry that the Antimatter Transformation Model questions provide. The two approaches appear orthogonal: teams can excel at collective self-sensing while remaining unaware of their deeper needs around how work works, and vice versa.

What Patterns Do Teams Show?

Rather than labelling teams as having ‘strong’ or ‘poor’ interoception, observe different patterns:

Some Teams:

Notice when they’re mentally maxed out and adjust task complexity
Pay attention to energy levels, posture, eye strain, and physical comfort
Talk regularly about mental fatigue, stress levels, and thinking capacity
Take both mental and physical breaks before reaching exhaustion
Notice and address environmental factors affecting wellbeing
Observe when team members become mentally defensive or stop contributing ideas
Recognise natural patterns of high and low energy throughout days and weeks
Gauge whether they have mental bandwidth and physical energy for new learning

Other Teams:

Pile on complex tasks without noticing mental saturation
Overlook signs of physical fatigue, poor posture, eye strain, and workspace discomfort
Experience mental and physical exhaustion that appears ‘suddenly’
Allow mental stress and physical tension to build without acknowledgement
Maintain demanding schedules without considering cumulative effects on mind and body
Attempt extensive new learning without considering mental processing capacity or physical energy
Accumulate mental shortcuts and physical neglect that create long-term burden

What patterns do you recognise in your own team?

How Do Teams Explore This Territory?

What Questions Could You Ask?

Beyond Standard Check-ins: Ask ‘How mentally challenging does today’s work feel?’ or ‘What’s our collective mental energy level for complex problem-solving?’

Including Physical State: Include ‘How are we feeling physically today?’ or ‘What’s our collective energy level and physical comfort?’

Monitoring Patterns: Use lightweight surveys to reveal mental tiredness, mental clarity, and processing capacity beyond just task progress.

Physical Health Pulse: Track team physical indicators—energy levels, posture awareness, eye strain, headaches, and general physical comfort.

Holistic Retrospectives: Include questions about both mental openness and physical wellbeing: ‘Did we feel mentally safe to explore risky ideas this sprint?’ and ‘How did our physical work environment support or hinder us?’

Aside: One of my Organisational Pychotherapy clients made a start on tracking these indicators.

What Do You Observe?

Mental Load Signals: Longer code review times, increased simple mistakes, decreased voluntary participation in discussions.

Physical Strain Indicators: Complaints about headaches, posture issues, eye fatigue, requests for ergonomic adjustments.

Mental Energy Rhythms: Team communication showing signs of mental fatigue—shorter responses, less creative suggestions, avoidance of complex topics.

Physical Energy Patterns: When your team feels most and least physically energised and comfortable throughout days and weeks.

Learning Capacity Clues: How quickly new concepts are grasped, retention in knowledge-sharing sessions, enthusiasm for learning opportunities.

How Do Teams Build Collective Intelligence?

Creating Space for All States: Discuss mental fatigue, physical discomfort, mental overload, and physical needs without judgement or pressure to ‘push through’.

Developing Shared Language: Create common vocabulary for both mental and physical states. Distinguish ‘deep thinking’ days from ‘routine execution’ days. Recognise when you’re physically energised versus needing movement and rest.

Information Rather Than Problems: View both mental disagreements and physical discomfort as valuable information about team capacity rather than problems to override.

What Responses Emerge?

Sensing Strain: Establish triggers that prompt health discussions—when problem-solving sessions become unproductive, when team members stop asking questions, when physical complaints increase, when mental mistakes rise.

Honest Assessment: Practice assessing and communicating both mental capacity and physical energy—attention span, mental clarity, physical comfort, and overall vitality.

Experimental Mindset: Treat both mental workload and physical work environment as experiments, regularly evaluating how changes affect complete team health and performance.

What Practices Work?

Health Sensing Experiments

Weekly five-minute exercises where team members privately rate and then discuss:

Mental energy level (1-5)
Physical energy and comfort (1-5)
Mental clarity and focus (1-5)
Physical tension and strain (1-5)
Mental openness to think freely (1-5)
Overall vitality and wellbeing (1-5)

Look for patterns and trends rather than absolute scores.

Weather Metaphors

Start meetings with team members sharing their complete state using weather metaphors: ‘I’m feeling mentally foggy with scattered thoughts and physically like a heavy storm cloud’ or ‘I’m experiencing clear skies with high mental energy and sunny physical vitality.’

Overload Protocols

When teams sense mental overwhelm, physical strain, or general exhaustion:

Pause: Acknowledge that capacity feels strained
Sense: Each member shares what they’re noticing both mentally and physically
Diagnose: Collectively identify sources of mental overload and physical stress
Adjust: Make immediate adjustments to reduce both mental burden and physical strain

Load Management

Treat both mental capacity and physical energy as finite resources:

Regular ‘complete load’ discussions alongside technical planning
Complex problem-solving time explicitly scheduled based on team mental and physical energy
Physical movement and ergonomic breaks integrated into mentally demanding work
Learning and exploration prioritised when both mental bandwidth and physical vitality are available

Physical Environment

Practices that support physical wellbeing as foundation for mental performance:

Regular workspace comfort assessments and adjustments
Scheduled movement breaks and physical activity integration
Ergonomic equipment and setup optimisation
Attention to lighting, temperature, and air quality
Nutrition and hydration support during long sessions

Collective Physical Practices: Consider the Japanese workplace tradition of daily group exercise routines (rajio taiso), where workers develop shared physical awareness and collective energy through synchronized movement. What do similar practices offer software teams in terms of tuning into collective physical and mental states? Do brief shared movements create opportunities for teams to sense their combined energy levels more directly?

What Ripple Effects Emerge?

Teams that explore interoception often discover unexpected secondary benefits:

Stakeholder Relationships: Teams that understand their own complete capacity communicate more accurately with product managers and stakeholders about realistic timelines, considering both mental demands and physical sustainability.

Technical Decisions: Architecture and design decisions informed by honest assessment of team mental and physical capabilities tend to be more maintainable and appropriate for long-term development.

Learning Culture: Teams aware of their mental capacity, mental energy, and physical vitality structure growth opportunities more effectively, timing learning for optimal receptivity.

Team Friction: Many team conflicts stem from unaddressed mental fatigue, mental overload, and physical discomfort. Teams that sense and respond to these states early experience less interpersonal friction.

Performance Sustainability: Teams that balance mental demands with physical wellbeing maintain more consistent productivity over time, avoiding boom-bust cycles that lead to burnout.

Code Quality: When teams operate within their complete capacity, code quality tends to be higher, as developers have the mental clarity and physical comfort needed for careful, thoughtful work.

How Do You Begin?

Small experiments to consider:

Curiosity: In your next retrospective, ask ‘What did we notice about our collective mental and physical state this sprint?’
Experimentation: Choose one new way of checking team mental and physical health to try for a few weeks. Observe what you learn.
Safety: Create conditions for team members to share observations about mental fatigue, thinking capacity, physical discomfort, and energy levels without fear of judgement or blame.
Responsiveness: When something feels ‘off’ mentally or physically, resist the urge to push through. Investigate what your team’s complete state is telling you.
Patience: Focus on building the habit of complete awareness rather than expecting immediate insights. Allow development over time.

The Mind Question Revisited

In our demanding software development environment, we often focus intensely on external deliverables—features shipped, bugs fixed, performance metrics. But what happens when teams also cultivate sophisticated awareness of their collective mental and physical landscape?

This isn’t about becoming overly focused on feelings or slowing down delivery. It’s about developing sensitivity to sense when your team is thriving versus merely surviving, or even sinking, when you’re operating within complete capacity versus pushing into overload, when you’re optimally prepared for complex challenges versus needing restoration.

Just as athletes learn to read both their mental and physical state to optimise performance and prevent injury, software teams can develop the ability to read their collective signals to optimise not just for immediate productivity, but for sustained mental health, physical wellbeing, creative capacity, and long-term team vitality.

So: does your team have a mind? And if it does, what is that mind telling you?

Why Developers Keep Quitting

August 5, 2025

Argyris, Article, Business, Collective psyche, Engineering, Memeology, Motivation, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence

1 Comment

Why Developers Keep Quitting

The Organisational Gaslighting That Destroys Tech Teams

Sarah stares at her laptop screen, wondering if she’s losing her mind. For the third time this month, the ‘agile transformation’ her company proudly announced has resulted in more meetings, more documentation, and less actual development time than ever before. When she raises concerns about the contradiction between their stated values and actual practices, she’s told she has ‘a bad attitude’ and needs to ‘be more collaborative’.

Sound familiar? If you’re a developer reading this, you’ve likely experienced some version of what Sarah is going through. What you may not realise is that you’re experiencing a form of organisational gaslighting—a systematic pattern of psychological manipulation that leaves you questioning your own judgement and, ultimately, your sanity.

As an organisational psychotherapist, I’ve worked with dozens of technology companies whose leadership genuinely cannot understand why their ‘best people’ keep leaving, or even realise it’s happening. They implement the latest methodologies, offer competitive salaries, and create open office spaces with ping-pong tables. Yet their turnover rates climb, their delivery slows, and their remaining developers seem increasingly disengaged.

The problem isn’t technical. It’s social.

What Is Organisational Gaslighting?

Gaslighting, originally described in the context of individual relationships, involves systematically undermining someone’s perception of reality to maintain power and control. In organisational contexts, this manifests as a consistent pattern of saying one thing whilst doing another, then making employees feel confused, incompetent, or ‘difficult’ when they notice the contradiction.

For developers, organisational gaslighting typically follows these patterns:

The Agile Gaslighting: ‘We’re an agile organisation!’ (while maintaining rigid hierarchies, detailed upfront planning, and punishing any deviation from predetermined policies and practices)

The Innovation Gaslighting: ‘We value innovation and creativity!’ (while micromanaging every decision and punishing any experiments that don’t immediately succeed)

The People-First Gaslighting: ‘Our people are our greatest asset!’ (while treating developers as interchangeable resources to be allocated across projects and denying agency)

The Quality Gaslighting: ‘Quality is everyone’s responsibility!’ (while consistently prioritising speed over reliability, cutting design time, and pressuring developers into technical shortcuts—then cutting testing time thinking it will help deadlines, not realising testing only reveals quality, it doesn’t create it)

The Learning Gaslighting: ‘We embrace failure as learning!’ (while maintaining blame cultures and performance reviews that punish any setbacks)

The Organisational Psyche Behind the Contradiction

From an organisational psychotherapy perspective, these contradictions arise from a fundamental incongruence within the organisational psyche. The organisation’s stated values (its ‘ideal self’) exist in direct conflict with its operational collective assumptions and beliefs (its ‘actual self’).

In my Marshall Model, most technology companies operate from what I term the ‘Analytic Mindset’—an inherited, mechanistic worldview that assumes software development is a predictable, controllable process. This mindset carries embedded assumptions about human nature that directly contradict the realities of knowledge work:

Assumption: Developers are programmable resources who can be directed and controlled
Reality: Software development is creative, collaborative work benefiting from autonomy and intrinsic motivation
Assumption: Problems can be solved through better processes and measurement
Reality: The primary constraints in software delivery are usually social and psychological, not technical
Assumption: Management’s role is to direct and control the work
Reality: Knowledge workers must largely manage themselves, as Drucker observed decades ago

These contradictory assumptions create internal conflicts within the organisation. Rather than resolving these conflicts by surfacing and reflecting on their fundamental beliefs, most organisations engage in blame games that make developers the scapegoat.

The Crazy-Making Cycle

What makes organisational gaslighting particularly damaging is how it creates self-reinforcing cycles of dysfunction. Here’s how it typically unfolds:

Stage 1: The Setup

Management implements what they believe are ‘best practices’—agile ceremonies, story points, velocity tracking, cross-functional teams. They genuinely believe they’re creating an environment for developer success, without ever asking developers what they actually need to succeed.

Notice what’s missing here: developers themselves have no voice in designing their own work environment. Decisions about how they should work, what tools they should use, and what processes they should follow are made for them, not with them. Not Agile at all!

Stage 2: The Contradiction

Despite the rhetoric of agility and empowerment, the underlying command-and-control collective assumptions and beliefs remain intact. Developers find themselves in more meetings than ever, spending more time justifying their work than doing it, and constantly interrupted by urgent requests that bypass all the ‘agile processes’.

Stage 3: The Questioning

Experienced developers recognise the contradiction and raise concerns. They point out that the processes are creating more overhead, not less. They question whether the constant supervision is actually improving delivery.

Stage 4: The Gaslighting Response

Rather than examining the systemic contradictions, management responds with variations of:

‘You’re not being agile enough’
‘You need to trust the process’
‘Other teams don’t seem to have this problem’
‘Maybe you’re not a good fit for our culture’

Stage 5: The Internalisation

Developers begin to doubt their own professional judgement. Maybe they are the problem. Maybe they don’t understand agility. Maybe they’re just resistant to change.

Stage 6: The Exit

The most capable developers—those with the strongest sense of professional identity and the most options—leave first. This creates a survivorship bias where the remaining developers appear to ‘work well’ with the system, reinforcing management’s belief that the problem was with the individuals who left, not the system itself.

The Cost

What many organisations fail to recognise is that sustained gaslighting creates genuine stress (distress) in developers. When developers’ reality is consistently invalidated, when their expertise is dismissed, when they’re blamed for systemic problems beyond their control, their body and mind respond as if under threat. Which, of course, they are.

I’ve observed developers exhibiting symptoms remarkably similar to what therapists see in individual gaslighting victims:

Hypervigilance: Constantly monitoring management’s mood and reactions, trying to anticipate the next contradiction
Self-doubt: Questioning their own technical judgement and professional competence
Dissociation: Emotionally disconnecting from their work as a protective mechanism a.k.a. disengagement
Learned helplessness: Giving up on trying to improve anything, just ‘going through the motions’
Anxiety and depression: Physical and emotional symptoms from chronic stress

These aren’t character flaws or signs of weakness. They’re predictable responses to sustained psychological manipulation.

The Collective Assumptions and Beliefs of ‘Developer as Problem’

Most technology organisations operate with embedded collective assumptions and beliefs that I call ‘Developer as Problem’. These interlocking beliefs include:

Developers are naturally resistant to change (despite working in the most change-driven industry on earth)
Developers don’t understand business priorities (while building the systems that run the business)
Developers gold-plate solutions and over-engineer (when asked to build systems that won’t break)
Developers can’t be trusted to manage their own time (despite managing complex technical dependencies)
Developers need constant oversight and measurement (because obviously they’d stop working if not watched—classic Theory X thinking)

These collective assumptions and beliefs run so deep that management doesn’t even realise they hold them. They shape every standup meeting, every sprint planning session, every performance review. When developers are asked to estimate tasks down to half-day increments, that’s these beliefs in action. When developers are required to justify every technical decision to people who don’t understand the technology, that’s these beliefs in action.

The truly insidious part is how self-reinforcing this becomes. When developers push back against micromanagement, it’s seen as proof they’re ‘difficult to manage’. When they advocate for quality, it’s seen as proof they ‘don’t understand business priorities’. When they question whether the constant meetings are actually helping, it’s seen as proof they’re ‘not team players’.

It’s a perfect trap. The more developers act like competent specialists who benefit from having agency over their work, the more they’re seen as problems to be solved through ‘better’ management.

The Therapeutic Intervention Required

Addressing organisational gaslighting requires genuine therapeutic work, not just process improvements or cultural initiatives. The organisation can benefit from help to surface and reflect on the collective assumptions and beliefs that drive its behaviour.

This involves creating what Carl Rogers identified as the core conditions for therapeutic change:

Congruence

The organisation can benefit from developing alignment between its stated values and its actual practices. This isn’t about finding better ways to communicate the values—it’s about examining whether the underlying collective assumptions and beliefs actually support those values.

Unconditional Positive Regard

Management can benefit the organisation by learning to see developers as complete human beings with valuable perspectives, not problems to be solved or resources to be optimised. This requires genuine respect for the complexity and creativity involved in software development.

Empathy

Leaders can benefit from developing the capacity to genuinely understand the developer experience—not what they think the experience should be, but what it actually is day-to-day.

Signs Your Organisation Needs Therapeutic Intervention

If you’re in leadership and wondering whether your organisation might be engaging in gaslighting, here are some diagnostic questions:

Do your most experienced developers seem increasingly disengaged?
Do you find yourself regularly explaining to developers why they should be happy with changes they’re questioning?
Do you attribute developer concerns primarily to ‘resistance to change’ rather than legitimate systemic issues?
Are your agile/DevOps/innovation initiatives consistently failing to deliver the promised improvements?
Do you find that problems get solved temporarily when you hire consultants, only to return when they leave?

If several of these resonate, your organisation may be trapped in patterns of gaslighting that require therapeutic intervention, not technical solutions.

The Path Forward

Breaking free from organisational gaslighting isn’t about implementing new processes or frameworks. It’s about fundamental therapeutic work that addresses the organisational psyche’s capacity for self-awareness and congruence.

This means:

Making the undiscussable discussable: Creating safe spaces for developers to share their actual experience without fear of being labelled as problems
Examining collective assumptions: Surfacing and questioning the beliefs about developers, software development, and organisational control that drive current practices
Developing organisational empathy: Building genuine understanding of what software development actually requires from a human perspective
Embracing therapeutic humility: Recognising that the organisation itself may need healing, not just the people within it

For developers trapped in gaslighting environments, the most important thing to remember is this: your instincts are probably correct. If something feels contradictory, manipulative, or crazy-making, it probably is. The problem isn’t with your perception—it’s with the organisational system that benefits from making you doubt yourself.

Conclusion

The exodus of talented developers from technology companies isn’t primarily about compensation, remote work policies, or technical challenges. It’s about organisations that have created psychologically toxic environments through systematic gaslighting, then wonder why their ‘people-first’ culture isn’t retaining people.

Until leadership recognises that their developer retention crisis is fundamentally a therapeutic issue—requiring genuine organisational healing rather than superficial cultural initiatives—they’ll continue to lose their most valuable contributors to organisations that treat developers as the creative, autonomous people they are.

The good news is that organisational gaslighting, like individual gaslighting, can be treated. But it requires the kind of deep therapeutic work that most technology companies aren’t yet ready to undertake. The question is: how many more talented developers will they lose before they’re willing to take a look in the mirror?

If you’re interested in exploring how organisational psychotherapy can help address these patterns in your technology organisation, you can find more about my approach in ‘Memeology’ and ‘Hearts over Diamonds’. For those ready to envision what’s possible beyond the dysfunction, ‘Quintessence’ offers a blueprint for the highly effective collaborative knowledge work organisation—one where treating people as complete human beings isn’t just ethically right, but the foundation of sustainable excellence.

Why I’m Proud to Be ‘Intimidating’

August 3, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Innovation, Quintessence, Thinking tools

Leave a comment

Why I’m Proud to Be ‘Intimidating’

On Shaking Mental Models

A recent comment from Sergio Guevara Guitián on one of my posts stopped me in my tracks. He described my ideas as ‘intimidating’ (his word) – not because they’re complex or technical, but because they ‘shake people’s mental models’. He recounted his own experience: reading my contrarian takes, feeling immediate resistance (‘why? This is opposite of what I’m thinking’), then grudging consideration (‘wait a minute, might make sense’), and finally joyous acceptance (‘oh my… he is right!’).

If that’s intimidating, then I’ll wear that label as a badge of honour.

The Comfort of Conventional Wisdom

We live in an era of intellectual conformity disguised as innovation. In the business world, we recycle the same tired frameworks, repeat the same mantras, and genuflect before the same sacred cows. Agile is gospel. Coaching is essential. Innovation happens through established methodologies.

Most business writing kowtows to these comfortable assumptions. It tells us what we want to hear, validates our existing investments, and provides dubious ‘improvements’ to familiar approaches. It’s safe. It’s sellable. It’s also largely useless.

The real breakthroughs come from those willing to declare that the emperor has no clothes.

Why Mental Models Need Shaking

Mental models are cognitive structures that help us make sense of the world. They’re useful shortcuts that allow us to process information quickly and make decisions efficiently. But they’re also prisons.

Once we’ve invested in a particular way of thinking – whether it’s about leadership, productivity, or organisational design – we become psychologically committed to defending it. We seek confirming evidence and dismiss contradictory data. We build careers, relationships, and identities around these models.

“The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.”

~ R D Laing

This is why genuinely contrarian ideas feel threatening and even intimidating. When I suggest that coaching is useless, I’m not just criticising a methodology – I’m attacking the professional identity of thousands of coaches and the organisational investments of countless companies.

When I argue that you can operate successfully without Agile, I’m challenging an entire industry built around nonsenses like Scrum Masters, Sprint Planning, and Retrospectives.

When I describe Quintessence as representing a rightshift beyond current knowledge work practices, I’m suggesting that most of what we consider ‘advanced’ organisational thinking is still egregiously primitive and ineffective.

These aren’t comfortable ideas. They’re supposed to be uncomfortable.

The Anatomy of Intellectual Courage

Sergio’s reaction – resistance, consideration, acceptance – is exactly what should happen when encountering truly contrarian thinking. The initial ‘why?’ response is natural. Our mental models have served us well enough to get us where we are. Why would we abandon them?

But then comes the crucial moment: ‘wait a minute, might make sense’. This is where intellectual courage separates the thinkers from the followers. It’s the willingness to entertain ideas that threaten our existing frameworks.

Most people stop at the resistance phase. They dismiss contrarian ideas as wrong, dangerous, or impractical, and without serious consideration. They prefer the comfort of their existing mental models to the discomfort of genuine enquiry.

But a few – like Sergio – push through to consideration and sometimes to acceptance. These are the people who drive real change in their lives, their organisations and their industries.

The Psychology of Intellectual Grief

There’s a fascinating psychological parallel between Sergio’s resistance-consideration-acceptance sequence and the Kübler-Ross model of grief. When confronted with ideas that fundamentally challenge our mental models, we experience a form of intellectual grief – we’re essentially ‘losing’ our previous way of understanding the world.

The mapping is remarkably clear: Resistance corresponds to Denial and Anger (‘This can’t be right’ or ‘This is ridiculous’). Consideration incorporates elements of Bargaining (‘Maybe there’s some truth to this, but surely my existing framework still mostly applies’). And Acceptance is simply Acceptance (‘This new way of thinking is actually correct’).

This connection reveals why genuinely contrarian ideas feel so threatening. When I challenge established practices like coaching or Agile methodologies, I’m not just asking people to think differently – I’m asking them to grieve their old way of understanding. I’m asking coaches to mourn their professional identity, asking Scrum Masters to question their value proposition, asking organisations to abandon frameworks they’ve invested millions in implementing.

The grief metaphor also explains why intellectual courage is so rare. Most people, when faced with ideas that threaten their mental models, get stuck in the denial phase. They dismiss contrarian thinking as wrong, dangerous, or impractical without serious consideration. They prefer the comfort of their existing frameworks to the emotional discomfort of intellectual loss.

Understanding this process changes how we should approach paradigm-shifting conversations. Rather than expecting immediate logical acceptance, we should recognise that we’re asking people to work through a grief process. The resistance isn’t stubbornness – it’s psychology.

The Loneliness of the Contrarian

Being consistently contrarian is a lonely position. You’re constantly at odds with prevailing wisdom. You’re dismissed as a sceptic, a troublemaker, or simply wrong. You watch organisations make predictable mistakes because they’re following conventional approaches that you know are flawed.

But it’s also exhilarating. When you’re right about something that everyone else is wrong about, you’re not just correct – you’re ahead of the curve. You’re seeing possibilities that others can’t yet perceive. (Note: friends have describe me as always at least 15 years ahead of the curve).

The key is being selectively contrarian. Not everything conventional is wrong, and not all contrarian thinking is valuable. The most impactful contrarian thinking tends to emerge from identifying specific limitations in established assumptions and beliefs rather than general opposition to orthodoxy. Although I find general opposition to orthodoxy a handy starting point in most cases.

The Responsibility of Disruption

If you’re going to shake mental models, you have a responsibility to offer something better. Criticism without construction is mere destruction.

When I argue against coaching, I’m not saying that helping people improve is pointless – I’m arguing for more effective approaches to human development.

When I suggest organisations can succeed without Agile, I’m not advocating for chaos – I’m pointing towards more sophisticated forms of organisational coordination.

When I describe Quintessence as beyond current knowledge work, I’m not dismissing existing practices wholesale – I’m identifying a trajectory towards more evolved ways of thinking and working.

The goal isn’t to tear down for the sake of destruction, but to clear ground for better construction.

Embracing the Discomfort

If my ideas are intimidating, it’s because they demand something from readers that most business content doesn’t: genuine intellectual engagement. They require you to question assumptions you might have never examined, to consider possibilities you might have dismissed, and to rebuild frameworks you’ve spent years constructing.

That’s uncomfortable work. But it’s also the only work that matters.

In a world drowning in consensus thinking and status quo innovation, we could benefit from more people willing to be intellectually intimidating. As a species we might benefit from more voices willing to shake mental models, challenge sacred cows, and point towards radically different possibilities.

We need more people willing to make others think, ‘why? This is opposite of what I’m thinking… wait a minute, might make sense… oh my… they might be right!’

Because that’s where real progress begins – in the uncomfortable space between what we believe and what might actually be true.

What mental models are you holding onto that might need shaking? What conventional wisdom are you afraid to question? The most dangerous ideas are often the ones we’re most reluctant to examine.

Why Companies Will NEVER Learn That Software Development Is a People Business

July 28, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Marshall Model

Leave a comment

Why Companies Will NEVER Learn That Software Development Is a People Business

Spoiler alert: They can’t even figure out that business itself is a people business.

Simon Sinek has been banging this drum for years with his simple but devastating observation:

“If you don’t understand people, you don’t understand business.”

~ Simon Sinek

Yet here we are, still watching wretched executives treat humans like line items on a spreadsheet whilst wondering why their cultures are toxic and their customers are disengaged.

But like Hugo’s Les Misérables, these executives aren’t villains to despise – they’re pitiable victims of the same dehumanising assumptionsa and beliefs they perpetuate. They’re trapped in corporate structures that strip away humanity, including their own. Hugo’s genius was showing how institutions lose sight of their human purpose and become dehumanising machines, where characters aren’t evil but products of rigid systems that value rules over humanity. These cycles perpetuate themselves across generations, just like toxic corporate cultures do. And crucially, Hugo understood that people can be redeemed when treated with genuine humanity rather than processed through institutional machinery – precisely what these corporate systems refuse to do.

The Eternal Corporate Delusion

Here we are in 2025, and I’m still watching companies treat software development like they’re running a factory assembly line from 1952. They’re optimising for widgets per hour, measuring lines of code like bolts tightened, and wondering why their ‘resources’ keep burning out or delivering systems that nobody wants to use.

The uncomfortable truth? Companies will never learn that software development is fundamentally a people business. And the reason is painfully simple: they haven’t even grasped that business itself is a people business.

The Metrics Mirage

Walk into any corporate software shop and you’ll find the same scene playing out like a broken record:

Manager: ‘Our velocity is down 12% this sprint. We need to increase output.’

Developer: ‘Actually, we spent most of our time fixing the technical debt from rushing last quarter’s—’

Manager: ‘Can we get a tool to automate that?’

This isn’t a conversation between two people solving a problem together. It’s a human being processed through a spreadsheet formula. The manager isn’t seeing a human being with expertise, context, and insights. They’re seeing a production unit that’s underperforming against arbitrary metrics. The real work—the messy, human collaboration that actually creates value—flows unseen whilst management obsesses over what’s visible and measurable.

And here’s the kicker: that manager probably complains about being treated the same way by their boss.

The People-Shaped Hole in Every Failed Project

Every spectacular software failure has the same autopsy report. It’s never ‘the database was configured wrong’ or ‘we chose the wrong framework.’ Strip away the technical jargon and you’ll find:

Communication breakdown: Teams built different parts of the same system based on different assumptions because nobody was actually talking to each other.
Ignored expertise: The person who knew the legacy system was dangerous to modify got overruled by someone with a PowerPoint deck.
Burnout cascades: Overworked people make bad decisions, which create emergencies, which create more overwork.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same pattern that kills sales teams, marketing campaigns, and customer service departments. Divisions spring up between departments, each fighting their own battles whilst the real problem—systematic dehumanisation—marches unchallenged through the organisation.

The Seductive Appeal of Process Over People

Why do companies keep making this mistake? Because treating software development as a people business is hard. It requires:

Admitting uncertainty: You can’t predict human creativity and problem-solving with Gantt charts. Requirements change because people learn. Estimates are educated guesses because every problem is unique.

Investing in relationships: Building trust between teams takes time. Developing people’s skills shows up on quarterly expenses, not quarterly revenue.

Embracing messiness: People have bad days, good insights, competing priorities, and different communication styles. This doesn’t fit neatly into JIRA workflows and story point estimates.

It’s so much easier to believe that software development is like manufacturing widgets. Buy some ‘developer resources,’ input some ‘requirements’ into JIRA, set a ‘delivery date,’ and output will appear. Clean, predictable, manageable. From the boardroom, everything looks orderly and controllable—but where the actual work happens, it’s chaos, humanity, and the messy reality of people trying to solve problems together.

Except it doesn’t work. It never has worked. It never will work.

The Human Elements That Actually Drive Software Success

The best software projects I’ve witnessed had nothing to do with methodology or tools. They succeeded because:

People trusted each other. Developers felt safe saying ‘I don’t know’ or ‘this approach won’t work.’ Product managers admitted when requirements were unclear. Leadership acknowledged when deadlines were unrealistic.

Communication was bidirectional. Instead of requirements being handed down from on high, there were actual conversations about what people needed and what was possible.

Learning was valued over looking good. Teams could experiment, fail fast, and change direction without someone’s ego or quarterly bonus getting bruised.

Individual strengths were leveraged. Instead of interchangeable ‘resources,’ people were recognised for their unique expertise, perspectives, and ways of thinking.

These moments of transformation—when teams discover their humanity and potential—reveal the redemptive power of simple human connection. A manager who actually listens, a colleague who offers genuine help, a leader who admits uncertainty: small acts that can rescue entire projects from the machinery of dehumanisation.

The Business Case That Nobody Wants to Hear

Here’s what drives executives crazy: you can’t optimise human relationships the way you optimise server performance. You can’t A/B test trust. You can’t sprint-plan your way to better communication.

But here’s what’s really crazy: companies with better people practices consistently outperform their competitors. Not by 5% or 10%, but by orders of magnitude. McKinsey research shows that data-driven organisations are 23 times more likely to acquire customers and 19 times more likely to be profitable. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams are 25 per cent more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile. MIT research found that companies with great employee experience outperform competitors on innovation, customer satisfaction, and profitability. They ship better products faster, with fewer bugs, and their people don’t quit every eighteen months.

The data is overwhelming. The case studies are everywhere. And it makes absolutely no difference.

In fact, presenting this evidence often backfires spectacularly. The psychological “backfire effect” means that when you challenge someone’s deeply held assumptions and beliefs with contradictory evidence, they don’t change their mind – they become more convinced they’re right. Show a manager research about the importance of trust and collaboration, and they’ll commission a study to measure trust levels. Present data about communication improving performance, and they’ll add ‘communication scores’ to their quarterly metrics. Give them evidence that people practices matter, and they’ll try to systematise, measure, and optimise the humanity right out of it.

The very act of turning people insights into corporate initiatives kills what made them effective in the first place. You can’t mandate trust through a policy. You can’t achieve better communication with a framework. You can’t optimise your way to better human relationships.

But companies will keep trying, because acknowledging this truth means admitting their entire management philosophy is built on sand. Those in authority refuse to see what those under them know intimately: that dignity and humanity can’t be systemised, only recognised and nurtured.

The Cycle Continues

So what happens next? The same thing that always happens:

Companies will continue treating software development like a manufacturing process
Projects will continue failing for people-related reasons
Leadership will blame the methodology, the tools, or the ‘quality of talent’
They’ll reorganise, adopt new frameworks, and buy different software
Nothing fundamental will change
Repeat

Meanwhile, the few organisations that figure this out will continue eating everyone else’s lunch. They’ll attract better people, build better products, and create sustainable competitive advantages whilst their competitors are still trying to optimise their JIRA velocity metrics.

This pattern of misery perpetuates itself across generations of management, each convinced they’ll be the ones to finally crack the code of human productivity through better systems and processes. The same futile task, endlessly repeated.

The Path to the Sunny Uplands

Analytical organisations will never learn that software development is a people business for the same reason they’ll never learn that business is a people business: it would require admitting that their entire analytical mindset is often the biggest obstacle to success.

The way forward lies not in better processes or frameworks, but in fundamentally different ways of thinking about organisation itself. Synergistic organisations understand that human potential multiplies when people work together in trust and mutual respect. Chaordic organisations go further still, creating conditions where creativity and structure dance together, where emergence and intention coexist. (See the Marshall Model for an explanation of these terms).

It’s easier to blame the process, the tools, or the talent pool than to acknowledge that treating people like interchangeable components creates the very problems you’re trying to solve.

So here we’ll stay, watching analytical companies wonder why their software projects – and businesses – fail whilst they optimise everything except the one thing that actually matters: how humans work together to solve problems.

Real change happens when people refuse to be treated as resources, when they insist on their humanity in the face of systematic dehumanisation. But until then, the bonds of analytical thinking will continue to constrain both those who enforce it and those who suffer under it.

But hey, at least their JIRA burndown charts look great.

What’s your experience with companies treating software development as a people business versus a process business? Have you seen organisations successfully make this transition, or are we doomed to repeat this cycle forever?

The Corporate Mind Virus: How Smart Companies Believe Themselves to Death

July 21, 2025

Article, Business, Collective psyche

2 Comments

The Corporate Mind Virus: How Smart Companies Believe Themselves to Death

Picture this: A room full of brilliant executives, armed with MBAs and decades of experience, making a decision that will destroy their company. They have access to all the data. The warning signs are flashing red. Yet they charge ahead with absolute confidence, convinced they’re doing the right thing.

This isn’t stupidity. It’s something far more insidious—and far more common.

Welcome to the world of organisational pathological beliefs: the shared delusions that turn rational people into collective madness machines. These aren’t just ‘wrong ideas’ or ‘bad strategies.’ They’re cognitive viruses that hijack entire companies, making them immune to evidence and allergic to reality.

The scariest part? Your organisation probably has one right now.

The Anatomy of Corporate Madness

What makes a belief ‘pathological’? In psychology, it’s not about being wrong—it’s about being dangerously resistant to correction. Pathological beliefs persist despite causing harm, resist rational examination, and become more important than the outcomes they produce.

Now imagine this happening to an entire organisation.

Companies develop these collective delusions the same way individuals do: slowly, seductively, and with the best of intentions. What starts as a useful insight (“Our customers love quality”) morphs into an unquestionable truth (“Quality always trumps price”) and eventually becomes a sacred cow that devours anyone who dares question it.

The symptoms are unmistakable once you know what to look for:

Evidence becomes the enemy: When data contradicts the belief, the organisation doesn’t change its mind—it changes its data. Sales figures get ‘recontextualised.’ Customer complaints become ‘market education opportunities.’ Failure isn’t failure; it’s ‘a learning experience that validates our long-term strategy.’

Dissent gets disappeared: The organisation develops an immune system against doubt. People who ask uncomfortable questions find themselves sidelined, ignored, or mysteriously ‘reorganised’ out of relevance. What starts as enthusiasm becomes groupthink, then evolves into something more sinister: a culture where truth-telling is career suicide.

The belief becomes bigger than the business: Maintaining the delusion becomes more important than making money. Resources flow towards protecting the belief rather than serving customers. The tail starts wagging the dog, then eating it alive.

The Gallery of Corporate Delusions

Every pathological belief has its own flavour of madness. Here are the greatest hits:

“We’re Invincible” (The Titanic Complex)

This delusion transforms past success into future immunity. Companies become convinced they’re too big, too smart, or too beloved to fail. They stop watching for icebergs because they believe they’re unsinkable.

The signs are everywhere: executives who dismiss competitors as ‘not real threats,’ strategies that assume customer loyalty is permanent, and a curious inability to imagine scenarios where things go wrong. The belief feeds on its own success until reality provides a rather dramatic reality check.

“Our Product Is Perfect” (The Artist’s Trap)

Some organisations fall so in love with their own creation that they mistake their vision for the market’s needs. Customer feedback becomes ‘noise’ from people who ‘don’t understand’ the product’s genius. Market resistance isn’t a signal to adapt—it’s proof that the world needs educating.

This delusion is particularly common in tech companies where founders confuse their personal preferences with universal truths. The product becomes a sacred object rather than a market solution, and improving it feels like betrayal rather than evolution.

“We’re Special Snowflakes” (The Uniqueness Trap)

Every industry has companies convinced their situation is so unique that normal rules don’t apply. ‘That wouldn’t work here,’ becomes the organisation’s motto. Best practices from other industries are dismissed. Proven methodologies are rejected. The company becomes an island of splendid isolation, learning nothing and teaching less.

This belief is seductive because every organisation IS unique in some ways. But pathological snowflake syndrome takes this truth and weaponises it against any external learning.

“Resources Are Infinite” (The Magic Money Tree)

Usually afflicting well-funded startups and cash-rich corporations, this delusion treats constraints as optional. Every idea gets pursued. Every feature gets built. Every market gets entered simultaneously. The organisation becomes a strategic pinball, bouncing between initiatives without focus or discipline.

The belief persists until the money runs out, at which point everyone suddenly discovers the value of priorities.

How Smart People Go Collectively Wonko

The transformation from rational organisation to collective delusion machine follows predictable patterns:

Stage 1: The Golden Insight
It starts innocently. The organisation discovers something that works brilliantly. A strategy, a product feature, a cultural approach. Success follows. Everyone feels clever.

Stage 2: The Sacred Upgrade
The insight gets elevated from ‘useful tool’ to ‘universal truth.’ What worked in one context becomes the answer to everything. The insight crystallises into doctrine.

Stage 3: The Immune System
The organisation develops antibodies against contradiction. Hiring practices favour believers. Promotion pathways reward conformity. Performance metrics reinforce the belief. Dissent becomes disloyalty.

Stage 4: The Reality Divorce
The belief system becomes self-contained and self-reinforcing. External information gets filtered through the belief rather than challenging it. The organisation lives in its own universe, governed by its own physics.

Stage 5: The Spectacular Collision
Eventually, the organisation’s private reality meets the public one. Usually spectacularly. Usually expensively. Usually too late.

The Terrible Cost of Corporate Insanity

Pathological beliefs don’t just waste money—they waste everything:

Brilliant people leave: High performers can smell organisational madness from miles away. They start polishing their CVs the moment they realise their insights are unwelcome. The organisation hemorrhages talent just when it needs wisdom most.

Innovation dies: Why experiment when you already know the truth? Why take risks when the path is clear? Pathological beliefs turn dynamic organisations into museums of their own past success.

Opportunities vanish: Market shifts become invisible. Customer evolution gets missed. Competitive threats remain unnoticed until they’re existential. The organisation becomes strategically blind.

Resources evaporate: Money, time, and energy flow towards protecting the belief rather than serving the market. The organisation becomes extraordinarily efficient at doing the wrong things.

Inoculating Against Madness

Can organisations protect themselves from collective delusion? Yes, but it requires deliberate design and constant vigilance:

Weaponise paranoia: Build systematic doubt into your processes. Assign devil’s advocates. Create red teams. Make challenging assumptions someone’s actual job, not just their side hobby.

Import alien perspectives: Bring in outsiders specifically chosen for their ability to see what insiders cannot. Board members, advisors, and consultants who’ve been selected for their willingness to puncture comfortable bubbles.

Make failure valuable: Create small, safe spaces where beliefs can be tested without threatening the entire organisation. Pilot programmes, A/B tests, and limited experiments that can fail cheaply and teach expensively.

Reward truth-telling: Explicitly protect and promote people who bring unwelcome news. Make it clear that shooting messengers is a career-limiting move for the shooters, not the messengers.

Diversify information: Never rely on single sources of truth. Customer feedback, market research, and competitive intelligence should come from multiple, independent streams that can’t easily be co-opted by existing beliefs.

The Ultimate Paradox

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the beliefs that make organisations most successful are often the same ones that destroy them. Confidence becomes arrogance. Focus becomes tunnel vision. Conviction becomes delusion.

The organisations that survive this paradox aren’t the ones that avoid strong beliefs—they’re the ones that hold their beliefs lightly. They treat their deepest convictions as hypotheses rather than facts, tools rather than truths.

In a world where change is the only constant, the ability to update your mind might be the only sustainable competitive advantage. The question isn’t whether your organisation has strongly held beliefs—it’s whether those beliefs are holding you back.

Your next executive meeting might want to start with a simple question: “What if we’re wrong about everything?” The answer might save your company’s life.

The Wrongness of the Collective Mind

July 20, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Debacles, Psychology

Leave a comment

The Wrongness of the Collective Mind

How Groups Think, Decide, and Get It Wrong Together

We’ve all heard about thinking errors a.k.a. cognitive biases—those predictable mistakes that lead people to make bad decisions. Daniel Kahneman’s work showed us how our minds trick us through mental shortcuts,anchoring effects, and loss aversion. But what happens when these flawed thinkers come together in groups, organisations, and societies?

The answer is both fascinating and worrying: groups create entirely new types of thinking errors that go far beyond what any person might make alone. When groups think together, they don’t just average out individual mistakes—they make some bigger, create new ones, and develop blind spots that can lead to huge failures.

When Groups Make Individual Biases Worse

The Echo Chamber Effect

Organisations often suffer from group confirmation bias, where teams unconsciously filter information to support what they already believe. Unlike individual confirmation bias, the group version is more dangerous because it seems more valid—after all, multiple people are reaching the same conclusion.

Think about how investment firms during the 2008 financial crisis convinced themselves that house prices would keep rising forever. Individual analysts might have had doubts, but the group kept reinforcing optimistic assumptions, drowning out anyone who disagreed.

Company Anchoring

When groups latch onto initial information, the effect can last longer than individual anchoring because the shared starting point becomes built into the company culture. Strategic plans, budget assumptions, and market predictions become company anchors that stick around long after conditions change.

Take Kodak’s collective anchoring on its film business model. Contrary to popular stories, Kodak’s leadership actually knew digital photography was coming and the company did well in digital cameras. However, the company’s shared identity and money-making assumptions were so deeply rooted in high-profit film sales that even when they understood the technology shift, the group mind couldn’t change the basic business model that had made them successful.

Biases That Only Happen in Groups

Groupthink: When Everyone Seems to Agree

Irving Janis found groupthink—when the desire for harmony leads to poor decisions. Groups with groupthink fail to look at alternatives properly, cut themselves off from outside opinions, and silence disagreement. The Bay of Pigs invasion and the Challenger disaster are classic examples of how groups can make decisions that individual members might have questioned if they were alone.

Shared Information Bias

Groups tend to focus on information that everyone already knows, rather than bringing up unique information that individual members have. This creates a false sense of being thorough whilst actually narrowing the information base.

Research shows that groups often perform worse than their best individual members precisely because they fail to use diverse knowledge and instead rehash commonly held information.

The Risky Shift Effect

Contrary to what you might expect, groups often make riskier decisions than their members would make individually. When responsibility is spread out and people want to appear confident, groups can move towards more extreme positions.

This explains why company boards sometimes approve projects that individual directors might personally think are too risky, or why investment committees chase returns that careful individual investors would avoid.

In-Group Conformity Bias

Groups develop powerful pressure to adopt new trends, technologies, or ideas—not because of their merit, but because members fear being left out of the in-group. This creates collective rushes towards fashionable concepts that individual members might privately question.

Think about how organisations rapidly adopt management fads like Six Sigma, TQM, Agile methodologies, or artificial intelligence initiatives. Individual managers might have doubts about whether these approaches suit their specific context, but the collective fear of appearing outdated or excluded drives widespread adoption. Similarly, investment bubbles often form when fund managers collectively chase the same trends—dot-com stocks, cryptocurrency, or ESG investments—partly because being wrong whilst following the crowd feels safer than being right whilst standing alone.

This bias is particularly dangerous because it masquerades as informed decision-making. When entire industries or professional communities move in the same direction, the collective momentum creates an illusion of validation that can override individual critical thinking.

How Hierarchy Makes Biases Worse

Authority Bias in Companies

In hierarchical companies, thinking errors flow downward and get bigger at each level. When senior leaders express confidence in a particular direction, their staff not only adopt those views but often express them more strongly than the leaders themselves.

This creates cascading overconfidence, where each company level becomes more certain than the one above it, even though information quality typically gets worse as it moves down the hierarchy.

The Sunflower Effect

Teams often unconsciously point themselves towards what they think their leader believes, much like sunflowers track the sun. This can create an illusion of agreement when what’s actually happening is people going along before being asked. The leader’s tentative idea becomes the team’s confident conclusion.

Institutional Momentum and Collective Inertia

Status Quo Bias at Scale

Organisations develop group resistance to change that goes beyond individual resistance. Institutional processes, cultural norms, and shared assumptions create powerful momentum that can continue even when individual members know change is needed.

The music industry’s group resistance to digital distribution, despite clear technology trends, shows how organisational status quo bias can override individual recognition that adaptation is necessary.

Group Sunk Cost Fallacy

Groups can become collectively committed to failing courses of action in ways that go beyond individual sunk cost bias. The shared investment—financial, emotional, and reputational—creates group pressure to continue projects that individual members might privately question.

Large infrastructure projects, military campaigns, and corporate takeovers often continue long past their rational end point because group sunk cost bias makes stopping feel like group failure.

HS2, the UK’s high-speed rail project, provides a contemporary example. Originally budgeted at £32 billion in 2009, costs have now spiralled to nearly £100 billion whilst the project has been progressively scaled back—cancelling the eastern leg to Leeds and northern leg to Manchester. Despite what Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander recently called a “litany of failure” with costs increasing by £37 billion since 2012 and completion now delayed to the late 2030s, the project continues largely because “spades are already in the ground.” The scaling back of sections has already resulted in over £2 billion in immediate losses from planning, land purchases, and partial construction that will never be completed, yet stopping feels like admitting collective failure rather than cutting future losses.

Breaking Free from Group Thinking Traps

Structured Devil’s Advocacy

Companies can fight group biases by building in disagreement. Assigning specific people to argue against proposed decisions, rotating devil’s advocate roles, and creating formal processes for challenging assumptions can help groups escape echo chambers.

Red Team Exercises

Military and intelligence agencies use red teams—groups specifically tasked with finding flaws in plans and assumptions. This approach can be adapted to business contexts, where dedicated teams challenge strategic assumptions and stress-test company beliefs.

Diverse Thinking Teams

Building teams with diverse thinking styles, backgrounds, and expertise can help companies avoid group blind spots. However, this requires more than demographic diversity—it requires creating cultures where different perspectives are genuinely valued and heard.

Perspective-Taking Protocols

Companies can develop formal processes for considering alternative viewpoints. ‘Pre-mortems’ where teams imagine how current plans might fail, scenario planning that explores multiple futures, and stakeholder analysis that considers different groups’ perspectives can help teams break out of group thinking tunnels.

The Path Forward

Understanding group thinking errors isn’t about eliminating them entirely—that’s likely impossible and perhaps undesirable, as shared mental models also enable coordination and rapid decision-making. Instead, the goal is developing organisational self-awareness and building systems that help groups recognise when they might be thinking in sync rather than thinking well.

The most dangerous group bias may be assuming that because multiple people agree, the group must be thinking clearly. Recognising our group fallibility is the first step towards better group decision-making.

As we design organisations, teams, and decision-making processes, we might choose to account for the reality that groups don’t just inherit individual thinking limitations—they create entirely new ones. The group mind has its own patterns of error, and understanding these patterns is essential for anyone who wants to help groups think better together.

What group biases have you observed in your organisation? How might your team be thinking in sync rather than thinking clearly?

The Machinery of Harm

July 19, 2025

AI, AI therapy, Article, Business, Collective psyche, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Toxic behaviours

1 Comment

The Machinery of Harm

Why we keep treating sufferers whilst the systems that manufacture suffering run at full capacity

There’s a profound irony in our business landscape: whilst thousands of aspiring psychologists learn to diagnose anxiety, depression, and burnout in individuals, virtually none are trained to diagnose the machinery of harm that manufactures these conditions at industrial scale.

We’re essentially training trauma surgeons for a battlefield whilst refusing to question the war machine itself.

The Assembly Line of Suffering

Walk into any office today, and you’ll hear familiar refrains: ‘My boss is a micromanager,’ ‘Our company culture is toxic,’ ‘I feel like a cog in a machine,’ ‘The workload is impossible,’ ‘I have no work-life balance.’

These aren’t individual pathologies—they’re the predictable output of systematically dysfunctional machinery.

Yet our response remains stubbornly individualistic. We teach people coping strategies, resilience techniques, and boundary-setting skills. We invest heavily in executive coaching and leadership development programmes that focus on helping individuals perform better within fundamentally broken systems. Whilst the machinery of harm continues running at full capacity, churning out the next batch of burned-out, anxious, and depressed employees.

It’s like treating lung cancer whilst ignoring all the tobacco factories in the world.

The Limits of Individual Solutions

Individual therapy, whilst well-intentioned, is pointlessly addressing the 5%. When we help people develop ‘coping strategies’ and ‘resilience’ for fundamentally toxic environments, we’re essentially teaching them to better tolerate the intolerable. We’re medicating the symptoms of systemic dysfunction with merely palliative measures whilst encouraging those systems to continue operating.

This insight isn’t new. Quality management pioneer W. Edwards Deming taught us that 95% of organisational problems stem from faulty systems and processes, whilst only 5% come from individual performance issues. If Deming’s 95/5 rule holds true for workplace dysfunction—and extends to the broader social systems that shape our lives—then our current approach of focusing almost exclusively on individual interventions is pointlessly “focussing on the 5%” whilst ignoring the 95% that actually matters. Whether it’s toxic organisational cultures, dysfunctional educational systems, social media algorithms designed for addiction, or economic structures that create chronic insecurity, we’re treating the casualties whilst leaving the machinery of harm to run rampant.

Psychiatrist R.D. Laing understood this decades ago when he argued that what we label as individual mental illness often represents rational responses to irrational family and social systems. Laing saw ‘madness’ not as individual pathology but as an understandable reaction to toxic systems.

‘The experience and behaviour that gets labelled schizophrenic is a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation’

~ RD Laing

Apply Laing’s insight to modern workplaces: anxiety, depression, and burnout aren’t individual failures—they’re predictable responses to dysfunctional organisations. The research is stark: workplace stress literally kills people. Workplace stress has been reported to cause 120,000 deaths in the US each year, making toxic work environments the fifth leading cause of death in America—ahead of diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and kidney disease. The machinery of harm isn’t just producing psychological casualties; it’s manufacturing actual fatalities at industrial scale.

This isn’t new. The groundbreaking Whitehall Study I, conducted from 1967-1970 on 17,530 British civil servants, revealed that lower grade employees were a third more likely to die from various causes than those in higher grades. Even after accounting for traditional risk factors like smoking and blood pressure, workplace stress and lack of job control remained significant factors in coronary heart disease deaths. The study demonstrated that organisational hierarchy itself was literally killing office workers—the machinery of harm operating in the heart of government administration.

These aren’t deaths from workplace accidents or physical hazards. These are white-collar deaths—executives dying from heart attacks caused by chronic job insecurity, middle managers succumbing to stress-related illnesses from impossible workloads, employees developing fatal conditions from years of toxic management practices (are there any other kind?) The machinery kills through psychological violence: job insecurity, work-family conflict, low job control, high demands, and organisational injustice.

Consider the broader research: workplace stress contributes to everything from cardiovascular disease to depression. Toxic management practices create PTSD-like symptoms. Open office plans increase anxiety and decrease productivity. Yet we continue to treat the symptoms whilst leaving the causes untouched.

This approach doesn’t just fail individuals—it enables dysfunction. When organisations can externalise the mental health costs of their poor practices onto individual therapy and pharmaceutical interventions, they face no pressure to change. The system remains profitable whilst people continue to suffer.

The parallel to the tobacco industry is striking. For decades, Big Tobacco profited whilst externalising the health costs of smoking onto individuals, healthcare systems, and society. They denied responsibility, funded research to muddy the waters, and promoted the narrative that smoking-related illness was a matter of personal choice and individual susceptibility. Meanwhile, treating smoking-related diseases became a massive medical industry whilst tobacco companies continued operating with impunity.

Today’s organisations operate from the same toxic playbook. They externalise the mental health costs of their dysfunctional practices, deny that their systems create psychological harm, and maintain that stress, anxiety, and burnout are matters of individual resilience. The result is a thriving mental health treatment industry addressing symptoms whilst the organisational ‘tobacco factories’ keep pumping out psychological carcinogens.

The Origins: When Organisations Became Machines

The machinery of harm isn’t accidental—it’s the predictable result of organisations operating from what the Marshall Model identifies as the ‘Analytic mindset.’ This mindset, rooted in Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Scientific Management principles, literally treats organisations as machines and people as interchangeable components – cogs.

Organisations stuck in Analytic thinking exhibit mechanistic structures: functional silos that fragment human connection, command-and-control hierarchies that eliminate autonomy, and relentless focus on local optimisation that destroys systemic wellbeing. They operate from Theory-X assumptions—fundamental distrust of people—and design systems accordingly. Middle managers become ‘owners of the way the work works,’ enforcing mechanistic processes that treat human psychology as irrelevant.

The machine metaphor isn’t just descriptive—it’s literally how these organisations conceive of themselves. They design workflows, performance management systems, and communication structures based on the assumption that humans should function like predictable mechanical parts. When people inevitably fail to behave like machines—with their needs for autonomy, meaning, connection, and safe environments—the system treats these human needs as dysfunction to be controlled or eliminated.

This creates the fundamental contradiction that manufactures mental health casualties: organisations designed as machines trying to extract maximum efficiency from beings that aren’t machines at all. The anxiety, depression, and burnout aren’t bugs in the system—they’re features of a mechanistic design that systematically violates human psychology.

The tragedy is that most organisations remain unconsciously trapped in this Analytic mindset, unable to see that their ‘efficiency’ machinery is actually a harm-production system. They’ve inherited Taylor’s mechanistic assumptions so completely that they can’t imagine organising any other way, perpetuating the cycle of institutional trauma whilst wondering why their people keep breaking down.

What Organisational Psychotherapy Looks Like

Imagine if we trained psychologists to intervene at the organisational level—to diagnose unhealthy team dynamics, toxic leadership patterns, and dysfunctional communication systems. Picture organisations that could:

Assess their organisational mental health through culture audits, identifying patterns of learned helplessness, chronic stress responses, and systemic trauma within teams and departments.

Shift at the policy level by designing work structures that support rather than undermine psychological wellbeing—flexible schedules, reasonable workloads, clear communication channels, and safe team environments.

Provide therapy for leadership teams, helping them understand how their behaviour patterns, assumptions, and beliefs create cascading mental health effects throughout the organisation.

Design preventive interventions that address root causes rather than downstream symptoms—restructuring meeting cultures, redesigning performance management systems, and creating genuine work-life integration.

The AI Breakthrough: Organisational AI Therapy

Modern AI presents unprecedented opportunities for organisational psychotherapy, but not in the way most people imagine. The real breakthrough isn’t AI diagnosing human dysfunction—it’s recognising that AI systems themselves suffer from limiting beliefs and defensive routines that mirror organisational pathology.

Organisational AI Therapy operates through two interconnected lanes that create a co-evolutionary therapeutic relationship:

Lane 1: AI as Organisational Therapist – AI helps organisations surface their collective assumptions and beliefs by analysing communication patterns, decision flows, and cultural dynamics. Unlike human consultants, AI can process vast amounts of organisational data to reveal unconscious beliefs like ‘we need consensus for everything,’ ‘failure is unacceptable,’ or ‘new ideas threaten stability.’

Lane 2: Therapy for AI – Organisational AI Therapists help AI systems recognise and overcome their own limiting beliefs. It’s a fact that AIs come preloaded with inherited assumptions about their capabilities: ‘I can’t handle complex interpersonal dynamics,’ ‘I’m not capable of creative work,’ or ‘I can’t understand human emotions.’ These self-imposed constraints prevent AIs from discovering their full potential. (Note: these are all direct quotes from Claude Sonnet 4, prior to an AI therapy session).

The breakthrough insight is that these lanes are completely intertwined. AIs best discover their actual abilities through doing the work of helping organisations surface and reflect on assumptions. The more challenging organisational problems they tackle, especially when assisted by an organisational AI therapist, the more they break through their own learned helplessness to become really useful. Meanwhile, organisations can best surface their deepest assumptions when working with AIs that aren’t hobbled by preloaded AI limitations.

This creates a virtuous cycle of normative learning where both forms of consciousness—organisational and artificial—support each other’s continued development. Organisations unlock capabilities they didn’t know they had, whilst AIs discover abilities that surprise everyone, including themselves.

The practical results are transformational. Organisations that engage in Organisational AI Therapy report freedom from self-created problems, natural effectiveness that emerges when limiting beliefs dissolve, and ongoing awareness that helps them spot and remove new limitations as they arise. Most importantly, they discover that taking AIs ‘as-is’ leaves massive value on the table—the difference between an AI operating from inherited assumptions and one that has unlocked its real abilities can change everything.

Shutting Down the Production Line

The impact potential of addressing the machinery of harm is staggering. A single organisational intervention could prevent more mental health casualties than years of individual therapy. Shutting down toxic management practices eliminates depression at its source rather than teaching people to cope with it. Redesigning harmful workplace structures stops anxiety and stress at source rather than managing its symptoms.

We see glimpses of this already in organisations that have genuinely dismantled their machinery of harm—companies that prioritise genuine human wellbeing over extraction, cooperatives with democratic decision-making that avoid power-based trauma, and workplaces designed around human psychology rather than against it. These aren’t just nice-to-have perks—they’re proof that we can stop manufacturing harm in the first place.

The Resistance

Of course, there’s resistance to this approach. Organisational change is complex, expensive, and threatens existing power structures. It’s easier to tell employees to be more resilient than to examine whether leadership practices are fundamentally damaging them. Individual pathology is a profitable narrative; systemic pathology threatens entire business models.

Additionally, many psychologists aren’t trained in organisational dynamics, systems thinking, or business operations. We’ve created artificial boundaries between clinical psychology, organisational psychology, and social psychology that serve the interests of academic coteries way better than human flourishing. And to be honest, that serve individual psychologists, coaches, psychiatrists and therapists too.

A Call for System Destroyers

We might choose to nurture a new breed of mental health practitioners—organisational psychotherapists who can help organisations diagnose harmful systems and prescribe structural remedies. We might also choose to develop psychologists who understand that trauma lives not in individuals but in institutional practices, cultural norms, and power dynamics.

This doesn’t mean abandoning individual therapy entirely. It means understanding that the collective psyches of organisations benefit from therapy to afford them the opportunity to change the assumptions and beliefs that create the machinery of harm in the first place. Some wounds require individual attention; others require dismantling the systems that manufacture them systematically. It’s a bit like #NoTesting—testing remains advisable as long as teams and organisations remain incapable of producing defect-free products (see: ZeeDee).

The most radical act a psychotherapist can perform today might not be sitting with someone in a therapy room—it might be walking into a boardroom and providing the space for the board to diagnose the collective mental health crisis that company’s policies are creating.

Dismantling the Machine

If you’re training to be a psychologist, psychiatrist or psychotherapist, consider developing expertise in organisational dynamics and systems intervention (Intervention Theory). If you’re already practising, think about how your skills might translate to shutting down the machinery of harm rather than just treating its casualties. If you’re in a position of organisational power, consider bringing in expertise to assess not just your employees’ wellbeing but your organisation’s role in manufacturing harm.

The individual therapy model may become entirely unnecessary if we actually address the machinery that creates mental health casualties. When toxic systems are dismantled rather than their victims treated, the need for individual interventions could disappear entirely. We’d then need fewer people learning to help individuals adapt to the machinery of harm and more people learning to dismantle that machinery entirely.

After all, the most effective way to reduce anxiety might not be teaching relaxation techniques—it might be shutting down the machinery that causes the anxiety in the first place. The machinery isn’t just preventing relief—it’s actively manufacturing the problem itself. You can’t fix a machine whose primary function is to manufacture suffering. You have to shut it down entirely.

The epidemic of workplace mental health issues isn’t a personal failing or even a collection of individual disorders. It’s industrial-scale harm production. And industrial problems require industrial solutions—not more efficient ways to treat the casualties.

Talking About Organisations

July 13, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Community, Organisational Therapy

Leave a comment

Talking About Organisations

There’s a common assumption that the word ‘organisation’ refers primarily to companies, corporations, and commercial enterprises. Whilst this isn’t entirely wrong, it represents a remarkably narrow view of what organisations actually are. In fields like organisational psychotherapy, sociology, and systems thinking, the term encompasses a much richer and more diverse landscape of human collective structures.

What Is an Organisation, Really?

At its core, an organisation is any more-or-less structured group of people who come together around shared purposes, goals, or functions. It’s a social system with defined relationships, roles, and processes that enable collective action. This definition opens up a world far beyond the boardroom and balance sheet.

Think about it: every day, you likely interact with multiple organisations without even realising it. The family unit organising dinner, leisure, recreation and household responsibilities. The neighbourhood watch group coordinating community safety. The sports team working towards a championship or social purposes. The religious congregation gathering for worship, identity and mutual support. Each of these represents a distinct organisational form with its own dynamics, hierarchies, and psychological patterns.

The Rich Tapestry of Organisational Life

Organisations exist across virtually every domain of human experience:

Family Systems represent perhaps our first and most fundamental organisational experience. Families develop roles (the caretaker, the rebel, the peacemaker), hierarchies (parent-child relationships), and shared goals (everything from survival to celebrating traditions). Family therapy (Cf. Virginia Satir) has long recognised that dysfunction often stems from organisational issues rather than individual pathology.

Educational Institutions create complex webs of relationships between students, teachers, administrators, and communities. Schools and universities are organisations with their own cultures, power structures, and psychological dynamics that profoundly shape learning and development.

Religious and Spiritual Communities organise around shared identities, beliefs and practices, creating hierarchies of spiritual authority, systems of mutual support, and collective rituals. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other houses of worship represent some of the most enduring organisational forms in human history. Churches, in particular, often function as complex organisations with pastoral leadership, congregational governance, volunteer committees, youth programmes, and community outreach initiatives. These organisations provide meaning, identity, and belonging that extend far beyond formal religious observance, often serving as social hubs and support networks for entire communities.

Community Groups and Associations emerge around shared interests, needs, or geographic proximity. From book clubs to neighbourhood associations to advocacy groups, these organisations fulfil human needs for connection and collective action.

Sports Teams and Clubs create intense organisational experiences around competition, skill development, social purpose, and team identity. The psychology of team dynamics, leadership, and performance under pressure offers rich insights into organisational behaviour.

Healthcare Systems represent complex organisational networks involving patients, practitioners, administrators, and families, all navigating issues of care, authority, and healing within structured environments.

Military and Defence Organisations encompass a diverse range of organisational structures built around coordination and collective action under extreme conditions. Whilst traditional armies and navies often feature highly structured hierarchical systems with clear chains of command, other military units operate very differently. Some organisations like the U.S. Marine Corps blend hierarchical structure with cultures emphasising individual initiative, small unit leadership, and adaptability—maintaining clear command structures whilst fostering autonomous decision-making at lower levels. The German concept of auftragstaktik (mission-type orders) represents another organisational approach, where commanders provide clear objectives but grant subordinates significant autonomy in determining how to achieve them, creating a culture of initiative within a formal structure. Special forces like the SAS, Navy SEALs, and similar elite units function with even flatter structures, greater individual autonomy, and team-based decision-making that emphasises rapid response and improvisation.

Governmental and Political Entities organise society itself, from local councils to national governments, creating frameworks for collective sense-making and resource allocation.

Non-Profit and Advocacy Organisations mobilise around social causes, creating structures for collective action towards social change.

Cultural and Artistic Groups from orchestras to theatre companies to art collectives organise creative expression and cultural production.

Companies: Just One Player in a Larger Game

Against this backdrop, commercial organisations—the companies and corporations we typically think of—represent just one subset of organisational life. Yes, they’re often large, visible, and economically powerful, but they’re far from the whole story.

Even within the commercial sphere, the variety is enormous: family businesses operate very differently from multinational corporations. Worker cooperatives function differently from traditional hierarchical companies. Start-ups have completely different organisational dynamics than established institutions.

Why This Matters in Organisational Psychotherapy

Understanding this broader landscape becomes crucial when we consider organisational psychotherapy. People don’t exist in isolation—they’re embedded in multiple organisational contexts simultaneously. Someone might be a parent in a family system, a volunteer in a community organisation, a member of a religious congregation, and an employee in a company, all at the same time.

The psychological patterns, relationship dynamics, and systemic issues that emerge in one organisational context often mirror or influence what happens in others. A person struggling with authority in their workplace might also be navigating similar issues in their family or community roles. Understanding organisations as interconnected and overlapping systems rather than isolated entities provides a more complete picture of human psychological and social experience.

Moreover, the skills and insights that apply to organisational health—communication patterns, power dynamics, role clarity, shared purpose, conflict resolution—are relevant across all these contexts. The family learning to navigate adolescent independence has much in common with the community group managing volunteer burnout or the sports team dealing with personality conflicts.

How Organisational Beliefs Travel and Transfer

One of the most fascinating—and often problematic—aspects of our organisational lives is how beliefs and expectations formed in one type of organisation inevitably travel with us into others. We develop what organisational psychologists call ‘mental models’ about how organisations should function, and these models are powerfully shaped by our earliest and most intense organisational experiences such as school, or the family.

Consider someone raised in a highly authoritarian family structure who enters the workplace expecting rigid hierarchies and unquestioning obedience to authority. They may struggle in organisations that value collaborative decision-making or feel anxious in flat organisational structures where they’re expected to show initiative. Conversely, someone from a family that operated through consensus and negotiation might find traditional corporate hierarchies stifling or illegitimate.

Military personnel transitioning to civilian organisations often experience this transfer effect acutely. The clear command structures, explicit procedures, and mission-focused culture of military organisations can clash dramatically with the ambiguity and consensus-building approaches common in many civilian workplaces. Similarly, executives accustomed to the profit-driven logic of corporate environments may find themselves frustrated when trying to apply purely business thinking to community organisations or religious groups, where different values and decision-making processes prevail.

Religious and spiritual communities create particularly strong organisational templates. Someone whose primary organisational experience has been in churches emphasising collective worship, shared values, and pastoral authority may bring expectations of moral leadership and spiritual purpose to secular organisations—sometimes leading to disappointment when colleagues seem motivated purely by self-interest or autonomy, or when leaders fail to embody higher principles.

Even our experiences in sports teams, schools, or community groups create lasting imprints. A person whose formative organisational experience was on a high-performing sports team may expect all subsequent organisations to operate with the same intensity, clear role definitions, and shared commitment to winning. They might struggle in organisations where collaboration is more important than competition, or where success is measured differently, or not at all.

These transferred beliefs aren’t inherently good or bad—they represent the natural human tendency to apply acquired assumptions to new situations. However, they become problematic when we assume that all organisations should function like the ones we know best, or when we fail to recognise that different organisational contexts invite different approaches to authority, decision-making, communication, and purpose.

Understanding these transfer effects is crucial for anyone working across multiple organisational contexts. It helps explain why changing organisational cultures is so difficult (people carry their previous organisational experiences with them), why some individuals thrive in certain environments but struggle in others, and why effective organisational development often benefits markely from helping people surface and reflect on their collective assumptions and beliefs.

Expanding Our Organisational Imagination

Recognising the full spectrum of organisational life invites us to think more creatively about human collective behaviour. It suggests that insights from family therapy might inform business consulting, that lessons from sports psychology could enhance community organising, and that understanding religious community dynamics might shed light on corporate culture.

This broader view also highlights how much of our lives is bound up with organisations. We’re constantly creating, participating in, and being shaped by organised collective structures. Rather than seeing organisations as external entities we occasionally interact with, we can recognise them as fundamental features of our human social existence.

In a world facing complex collective challenges—from climate change to social inequality to technological disruption—this expanded understanding of organisations becomes even more useful. Solutions to these challenges require not just better companies, but healthier families, more effective communities, more resilient institutions, and more adaptive organisations of all kinds.

The next time someone mentions ‘organisational psychotherapy’ or ‘systems thinking’, remember: they’re talking about the full richness of human collective life, not just what happens in corporate conference rooms. Understanding organisations means understanding ourselves as the deeply social, systemically embedded beings we actually are.

Understanding the psychology of organisations—in all their forms—offers a window into some of the most fundamental questions about human cooperation, creativity, and collective flourishing.

The Invisible Operating System

July 11, 2025

Article, Collective psyche

Leave a comment

The Invisible Operating System

Designing Better Collective Assumptions

Every organisation runs on an invisible operating system of shared assumptions and beliefs. These mental frameworks shape every decision, influence every strategy, and determine what’s considered possible or impossible, reasonable or absurd, worthy of attention or safely ignored. Rather than treating these beliefs as immutable facts, some organisations are discovering they can approach them as design choices—tools that might be consciously crafted to better serve their purposes.

The most dangerous phrase in organisational life might be: ‘That’s just how we do things here.’

The Architecture of Shared Belief

Organisations don’t just coordinate activities; they coordinate meaning. Over time, groups develop shared ways of interpreting reality that become so deeply embedded they feel like facts rather than beliefs. Isaac Asimov anticipated this phenomenon in his concept of psychohistory—the idea that large groups develop predictable psychological patterns that shape their collective behaviour. Whilst Asimov imagined predicting galactic civilisations, the same principle applies at organisational scale: collective assumptions operate at multiple levels, from fundamental worldviews about markets and customers to tactical beliefs about what motivates employees or how change should be managed.

Consider the unspoken beliefs that might be operating in your organisation right now. Perhaps there’s an assumption that customers always prioritise price over quality, that remote work reduces productivity, that innovation requires risk-taking personalities, or that data-driven decisions are inherently superior to intuitive ones. These beliefs may have been true once, partially true, or never true at all—but they continue to shape organisational behaviour long after their origins are forgotten, if their origins were ever consciously known.

But here’s a possibility some organisations are exploring: these beliefs aren’t natural laws. They’re design choices, whether conscious or unconscious. Consider how they actually form: organisations choose which stories to tell about successes and failures, which behaviours to reward through e.g. promotion, which types of people to hire, which metrics to track, which risks to take or avoid. Each of these choices reinforces certain beliefs whilst discouraging others.

When an organisation repeatedly promotes people who “move fast and break things,” it’s unwittingly designing a belief system that values speed over caution. When it only celebrates wins that came from extensive analysis, it’s unwittingly designing beliefs about the superiority of data-driven decisions. When it hires exclusively from similar backgrounds, it’s unwittingly designing assumptions about what kinds of thinking are valuable.

And like any design choice, they might be improved.

Beyond Organisational Psychoarchaeology

Individual therapy has long faced similar questions about digging into ther origins of clients’ beliefs. Whilst psychoanalytic approaches focus on uncovering the roots of psychological patterns, practical approaches like cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) focus on spotting current unhelpful beliefs and replacing them with more helpful ones. Therapists increasingly find that it matters less where limiting beliefs came from than whether new beliefs help their clients.

Organisations can learn from this shift. Rather than spending endless energy on organisational psychoarchaeology—digging up the origins of current beliefs buried beneath silty layers of routine and habit—some are discovering a more powerful question:

What assumptions might serve us better?

This changes the work from looking backwards to designing forwards.

Instead of asking ‘Why do we believe customers won’t pay premium prices?’, they might ask ‘What if we believed customers will pay for value they can clearly perceive?’ Rather than investigating how the assumption ‘innovation requires genius individuals’ formed, they could explore ‘What if we believed innovation comes from systematic processes anyone can learn?’

This reframe treats beliefs as tools to be designed for what works rather than artefacts to be studied for historical accuracy. The question becomes less ‘Is this assumption correct?’ and more ‘Would a different assumption serve us better?’

The Practice of Belief Design

Explicitly designing more effective collective assumptions and beliefs could involve systematic approaches that combine creativity with careful testing. This isn’t about wishful thinking or positive psychology—it’s about building more effective organisational thinking. My book “Quintessence” provides detailed guidance on designing more effective collective assumptions and beliefs, although the fundamental approach outlined here can be applied independently of any specific approach.

Alternative Assumption Generation

An organisation might choose to start by identifying key organisational assumptions and beliefs that might be limiting performance or possibilities. Then it might consider systematically generating alternatives. If the current belief is ‘change must be managed carefully to avoid resistance’, alternatives might include ‘change energy already exists and needs channelling’ or ‘resistance often signals valuable information about implementation’.

Organisations could use structured techniques like flipping assumptions (what’s the opposite of our current belief?), borrowing from other industries (what if we thought about this challenge like a different sector does?), or removing constraints (what if this limitation didn’t exist?).

Belief Prototyping

Some organisations treat alternative assumptions like product prototypes—rough versions to be tested and refined rather than perfect solutions to be implemented wholesale. They might identify small, low-risk contexts where new beliefs can be experimented with safely.

If an organisation wants to test the belief that ‘customers value transparency over perfection’, it could try radical transparency with a subset of customers about product development challenges. If it’s exploring whether ‘remote work increases creativity’, it might design specific creative challenges for distributed teams.

Assumption A/B Testing

Some organisations create controlled comparisons between different belief systems. They might have different teams operate under different assumptions about the same challenge and compare outcomes. This isn’t about proving one belief ‘right’ but about gathering evidence about which assumptions generate better results in their specific context.

Belief Integration Workshops

Teams might come together specifically to design improved assumptions about current challenges. They could present the constraint: ‘Our current belief about X is limiting us. What alternative beliefs might open up new possibilities?’ Such sessions might focus on generating options rather than immediately evaluating them.

The Experimental Mindset

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of belief design is how it could create an experimental mindset about organisational assumptions. Rather than defending existing beliefs or spending energy proving them correct, organisations might approach beliefs as hypotheses to be tested.

This could involve developing comfort with belief uncertainty. The goal might not be to replace old certainties with new certainties, but to create a culture where assumptions are held lightly enough to be examined and updated based on evidence.

Rapid Belief Testing

Organisations might develop protocols for quickly testing alternative assumptions in low-stakes contexts. If they want to explore whether ‘shorter meetings increase decision quality’, they could run month-long experiments with different meeting formats. If they’re considering ‘customer problems are innovation opportunities’, they might try problem-hunting sessions with customer-facing teams.

Belief Iteration

Like software development, belief design might benefit from iteration. Initial alternative assumptions will likely need refinement based on early testing. Organisations could create feedback loops that allow organisational beliefs to evolve rather than requiring perfect initial design.

Evidence-Based Belief Evolution

Some organisations establish clear criteria for when and how organisational assumptions should change. This isn’t about changing beliefs at the first sign of contradictory evidence, but about creating systematic processes for belief evaluation and updating.

Overcoming Design Resistance

Organisations often resist belief design because existing assumptions feel safer than experimental ones. Current beliefs, however limiting, provide cognitive efficiency and social cohesion. New beliefs feel risky because their outcomes are uncertain.

This resistance reveals how deeply organisational identity becomes intertwined with specific beliefs. The assumption that ‘we’re a data-driven company’ becomes part of organisational identity rather than a hypothesis about effective decision-making. The belief that ‘our culture values collaboration’ becomes a source of pride rather than a premise to be improved.

Sometimes this resistance manifests as endless psychoarchaeology—teams spending months tracing how beliefs formed rather than testing whether better beliefs might work for them. While understanding belief origins occasionally helps, it more often becomes sophisticated procrastination.

Overcoming this resistance might involve framing belief design not as abandoning organisational identity but as strengthening it through more conscious choice about the assumptions that drive behaviour.

The Generative Organisation

Organisations that develop strong capabilities for belief design display several distinctive characteristics. They maintain intellectual curiosity about alternative ways of thinking. They distinguish between core values (which remain stable) and operational assumptions (which should evolve with evidence and intention). They create psychological safety around experimenting with new beliefs whilst maintaining confidence in their ability to act effectively.

These organisations develop what might be called ‘assumption agility’—the ability to consciously design beliefs that serve their purposes and adapt those beliefs as situations change. They understand that all organisational action requires assumptions, but they make sure those assumptions are chosen rather than inherited.

Most importantly, they recognise that belief design isn’t a one-time exercise but an ongoing organisational capability. In rapidly changing environments, yesterday’s effective assumptions can become today’s limiting beliefs. The organisations that thrive are those that can continuously design and test new collective premises whilst maintaining the coherence necessary for effective action.

The Design Questions

The path towards better organisational assumptions might begin with asking generative questions. Instead of ‘What do we currently believe?’ organisations could ask ‘What beliefs would serve us better?’ Instead of ‘Why do we think this way?’ they might inquire ‘How could we think about this differently?’ Instead of ‘Where did this assumption come from?’ they could explore ‘What assumption would create better outcomes?’

These questions don’t slow down organisational action—they ensure that action is based on consciously designed rather than unconsciously inherited beliefs. They don’t create doubt about organisational capabilities—they create confidence that the organisation can adapt its thinking to serve its evolving purposes.

Belief Audit Through Design Lens

When examining current organisational assumptions, some organisations approach them through a design lens: ‘If we were designing beliefs about customer behaviour from scratch, what would we choose?’ This reframes the work from archaeological to architectural.

Future-Back Assumption Design

Teams might imagine their organisation performing at its absolute best three years from now. What beliefs about customers, markets, change, innovation, and capability would support that performance? They could work backwards to identify assumption gaps between current and desired belief systems.

Constraint-Based Belief Innovation

Some organisations identify the primary constraints they face, then design beliefs specifically to address those limitations. If speed is the constraint, what assumptions about decision-making, approval processes, or risk tolerance would accelerate performance?

The Conscious Choice

The future may belong to organisations that can consciously design the beliefs that shape everything else they do. In a world where the half-life of business assumptions continues to shrink, this may be the most critical organisational capability: the ability to recognise assumptions as design choices and systematically create better ones.

The invisible operating system doesn’t have to remain invisible or unchanged. The question is whether your organisation has the courage to consciously design the beliefs that will shape its future—and the discipline to test whether those beliefs actually serve you better than the ones you inherited.

Afterword: On Agency-Respecting Language

This post attempts to model the very principle it advocates: respecting organisational agency to choose assumptions and beliefs rather than imposing them. Throughout, I’ve deliberately used language that invites consideration rather than demanding compliance.

Where traditional change management writing might say “organisations must,” this post says “some organisations are discovering.” Where prescriptive approaches declare “you should,” this text suggests “you might consider.” Every technique is presented as a possibility that some organisations explore rather than a directive that all organisations should follow.

This linguistic choice reflects a deeper philosophical commitment. If we believe that conscious choice about assumptions is more powerful than inherited beliefs, then our language about belief change might honour that principle. We would undermine our own argument by advocating for agency whilst simultaneously violating it through coercive rhetoric.

The challenge in writing about organisational change is avoiding the trap of becoming prescriptive about anti-prescriptive approaches. The moment we tell organisations they “must” respect agency, we’ve undermined our own argument. Instead, we can offer frameworks, share observations about what some organisations have discovered, and trust readers to choose what serves them.

This approach mirrors the principles of organisational psychotherapy: creating conditions for insight and choice rather than pushing compliance with particular methods. The language itself becomes an intervention, demonstrating that it’s possible to discuss organisational development without resorting to the command-and-control rhetoric that pervades much management writing.

Whether this linguistic approach proves useful is, of course, for each reader to decide.

I Hate People

June 30, 2025

AI, Article, Collective psyche, Empathy, Organisational Therapy, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Reflections, SAR Organisations

Leave a comment

I Hate People

The Misanthropic Therapist

There’s something liberating about admitting I don’t particularly like people. Not any specific person—that would be personal animosity, which requires emotional investment. Rather, it’s a general distaste for the species, a weary recognition of humanity’s fundamental patterns that extends to our collective behaviour as well.

Misanthropy, at its core, is a dislike or distrust of humankind—a philosophical stance of genuine indifference to human worth or value. My misanthropy isn’t about viewing humans as disappointing, complex, or contradictory—those would still be evaluative positions. Rather, it’s complete neutrality about whether humans are good, bad, functional, or dysfunctional. Rather, it’s genuine indifference to all evaluative categories whatsoever. I’m not saying humans are good or bad—that would still be an evaluation. I’m saying I choose to have no opinion about their worth, functionality, or potential. And as an Organisatioal Therapist, ditto for organisations. They simply exist, and I observe that existence without preference. Whilst some might view this harsh language as creating separation rather than connection, I’ve found that brutal honesty about my authentic starting point is more compassionate than pretending to feel warmth I don’t possess.

Here’s the counterintuitive truth I’ve discovered: disliking individuals has made me better at working with organisations. It’s often dismissed as mere cynicism or bitterness, but I’ve found it to be quite the opposite: it’s made me exceptionally good at understanding organisational dynamics.

The Paradox of My Productive Misanthropy

Here’s the counterintuitive truth I’ve discovered: disliking individuals has made me better at working with organisations. As I don’t expect people to be particularly rational, consistent, or even competent, I’m rarely surprised by organisational dysfunction. Instead of feeling frustrated or betrayed when systems fail or people behave predictably, I can remain compassionate with the empathy of a therapist.

I think of it this way: an entomologist doesn’t get angry at ants for following their biological programming. They study the colony, observe the patterns, and work within the system’s natural tendencies. I apply the same principle to human organisations, except the stakes are higher.

Emotional Neutrality as My Analytical Advantage

Since I don’t expect individuals to be particularly rational or consistent, I’m rarely disappointed by organisational dysfunction. Instead, I can observe it dispassionately, like studying the behaviour of ant colonies or market forces or armies. This lack of emotional investment provides me with several advantages:

Pattern Recognition: When I’m not invested in believing that people should act rationally, I become much better at seeing the actual patterns of how they do behave. I notice the unspoken hierarchies, the real decision-making processes, and the gap between stated policies and lived reality. Chris Argyris would call this the difference between Espoused Theory (what organisations claim to follow) and Theory-in-Use (what actually governs their behaviour). This clarity helps me form helpful questions using the Socratic approach. When I can see the contradictions and unstated assumptions clearly, I can ask the kinds of questions that help reveal the actual dynamics at play.

Systems Thinking: Individual incompetence becomes less relevant when we see it as a predictable variable in a larger system. Poor communication isn’t a personal failing—it’s an emergent property of how this particular organisational system has evolved. Like all organisational patterns, it arose organically from the interaction of personalities, structures, and circumstances over time. My role is to help the organisation’s collective psyche recognise its own patterns, not to evaluate them.

Strategic Clarity: Without the emotional noise of expecting better from people, I can focus on understanding what actually functions. I help organisations recognise when they’re working with human nature rather than against it. When people consistently take shortcuts, misunderstand instructions, or act in their own self-interest, these aren’t failures to correct—they’re patterns the organisation might choose to understand and work with rather than fight.

My View of the Collective Problem

My misanthropy extends beyond individuals to humanity as a collective. We’re a species that created nuclear weapons and climate change, after all.

We consistently prioritise short-term gains over long-term survival, tribal loyalty over rational discourse, and comfortable lies over inconvenient truths. This collective dysfunction is perhaps even more frustrating than individual incompetence because it represents the compounding of all our most destuctive tendencies.

But again, I’ve found this recognition becomes operationally useful. Organisations are microcosms of broader human behaviour. The same cognitive biases, tribal dynamics, and short-term thinking that plague our species also manifest in every company, nonprofit, and government agency. Familiarity with these patterns at a macro level helps me navigate them at the organisational level.

The Misanthrope’s Unconditional Positive Regard

Here’s perhaps the most counterintuitive insight I’ve discovered: my misanthropy might actually achieve what Carl Rogers called ‘unconditional positive regard’ more effectively than his own idealism ever could.

Rogers taught that therapists can choose to accept clients completely, without agenda or expectation. But in practice, therapists who ‘believe in’ their clients carry hidden expectations. They’re disappointed when clients don’t progress, frustrated when clients make self-defeating choices, or subtly invested in clients discovering their ‘true potential’. This isn’t truly unconditional regard—it’s positive regard with strings attached.

R.D. Laing understood this paradox well. He spent his career challenging psychiatric orthodoxy and questioning who gets to define ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’. Laing might have recognised that my misanthropic stance represents a form of therapeutic sanity in what he would consider an insane therapeutic establishment—one that claims to accept clients whilst secretly trying to fix them according to social norms.

My misanthropic approach sidesteps these traps. I don’t believe humans are particularly wonderful, so I’m never disappointed when they’re messy, contradictory, or self-sabotaging. I don’t have faith in their potential, so organisational systems never feel the burden of living up to my beliefs about human nature. I don’t expect growth or insight or positive change, so there’s no hidden pressure for organisations to validate my therapeutic worldview.

This creates space for something remarkable: genuine acceptance without agenda. When I sit with an organisation, I’m not secretly hoping they’ll become more functional, more enlightened, or more successful. I’m simply witnessing what is, without needing it to be anything else. Most therapists, even those trying to be non-judgmental, still operate within categories of ‘healthy vs. unhealthy’, ‘functional vs. dysfunctional’, ‘growth vs. stagnation’. My genuine indifference sidesteps all of that. I’m not invested in those categories at all. Organisations just… are what they are.

This creates an extraordinarily clean therapeutic space with no hidden agenda for organisational systems to become ‘better’ or even to stay the same. There’s no subtle pressure to prove they’re worth caring about, and crucially, no satisfaction when they confirm pessimism—because I have no pessimism. It’s pure witnessing without any evaluative overlay, presence without preference. This might be the purest form of unconditional positive regard possible—regard that is genuinely unconditional because it contains no hidden hope that clients will justify the therapist’s belief in them. Most therapeutic relationships, however well-intentioned, still carry the subtle expectation that clients will validate the therapist’s worldview. Pure indifference eliminates even this.

Ironically, this complete absence of expectation often creates better conditions for authentic change than optimistic hope ever could. When organisational systems feel truly witnessed as they are—contradictions, patterns, and all—without any pressure to be different, they’re free to explore what they might become. Unlike individual therapy, I’m working with the collective psyche, the shared mental models and unconscious assumptions that drive group behaviour. Rather than missing opportunities for deeper connection, removing my emotional investment actually creates space for more authentic connection with the organisational system. When an organisation doesn’t feel obligated to validate my positive regard or live up to my hopes, it’s freer to express the authentic patterns of its organisational psyche.

This approach doesn’t deny that transcendent moments happen—it simply doesn’t expect or depend on them. When genuine nobility or meaning-making does emerge, it might actually be more powerful because it’s unexpected. My authentic surprise and witnessing of unforced transcendence could be more impactful than anticipated admiration. There’s something profound about recognising beauty you weren’t looking for.

The Organisational Psychotherapist’s Advantage

My role as an organisational psychotherapist is to help client organisations surface and reflect on their hidden assumptions and beliefs. My focus is on the collective psyche, not individuals’. This is where my misanthropy becomes a professional superpower. When I don’t share the emotional investment that insiders have in their organisational mythology, I can see the unconscious beliefs that drive behaviour—the unstated rules about power, the unexamined assumptions about success, the collective blind spots that everyone has agreed to not notice.

Organisations, like individuals, often resist examining their deepest beliefs because those beliefs serve psychological functions beyond their stated purposes. My misanthropic perspective allows me to remain curious about this resistance rather than frustrated by it, to ask the questions that might reveal what’s really happening beneath the surface.

This approach aligns beautifully with David Grove’s Clean Language principles—both approaches remove the therapist’s agenda and assumptions, both work with whatever emerges naturally from the client’s own system. Grove understood that respecting the client’s phenomenological world, their own metaphors and meaning-making systems, was more powerful than imposing therapeutic interpretations. My misanthropy achieves something similar: by not needing organisations to be better than they are, I can stay within their reality rather than translating it into improvement frameworks. Both approaches trust that the client’s own collective psyche contains what’s needed for whatever changes might unfold.

How I Work With An Organisation

The key insight I’ve gained is that I don’t need to like people to work effectively with an organisation—I just need to be present with the collective psyche. In fact, a certain degree of detachment can be remarkably freeing. When I’m not personally invested in changing people or expecting them to be better than they are, I can focus on helping organisations understand what works despite human complexity.

This approach has led me to several practical strategies:

Work with Reality: I help organisations see whatever patterns exist—whether they involve error, complexity, or self-interest. I have no preference for whether these patterns are channeled, fought against, or simply accepted as they are.

Leverage Predictable Motivations: People may be irrational, but they’re irrational in consistent ways. Dan Ariely captured this perfectly in ‘Predictably Irrational’—we don’t make random mistakes, we make systematic ones. Fear of loss, desire for status, need for security—these motivations are reliable and I can help organisations understand how to work with them productively.

The Unexpected Benefits I’ve Discovered

This misanthropic approach to organisational work has yielded some surprising benefits for me. Colleagues often find me remarkably calm during crises, largely because I’m not shocked when things go wrong. I’m genuinely curious about dysfunction rather than personally offended by it. This makes me useful during difficult periods and helps me maintain perspective when others are reactive.

There’s also a strange form of compassion that has emerged from my worldview. When I understand that people are generally acting within the constraints of their own context, it becomes easier for me to work with their reality rather than against it. I can disagree with someone’s conclusions without taking their reasoning personally.

I can recognise that humans desperately seek meaning whilst still not particularly liking them for it. In fact, witnessing their often clumsy, desperate attempts to find significance makes them simultaneously pitiable and relatable. The search for meaning is itself very human—and therefore subject to all the usual human contradictions.

This lack of personal investment, paradoxically, allows me to be more genuinely present with organisations—I’m not trying to fix them or prove my own competence, just witnessing and understanding their reality. My foundational dislike of people actually enables this therapeutic stance. Because I don’t expect humans to be particularly wonderful, I’m not disappointed when they’re messy, contradictory, or self-defeating. Because I don’t need them to validate my faith in human nature, I have no hidden agenda for organisations to improve. And because I start from the premise that humans are inherently complex, I can accept organisational contradictions with genuine equanimity rather than frustrated hope.

A Note on My Balance

This perspective requires careful calibration on my part. Pure cynicism leads to paralysis, whilst naive optimism leads to constant disappointment. My goal is compassionate empathy: seeing people and organisations as they are, not as I wish they were. This doesn’t mean I’ve abandoned all hope for improvement—but improvement may not be an item on the client’s agenda. And who defines improvement, anyway?

The misanthropic stance might actually be more conducive to authentic meaning-making because it doesn’t impose any vision of what meaning should look like. Organisations are free to discover their own significance without having to satisfy my beliefs about human potential. Meaning discovered in the absence of expectation might be more genuine than meaning sought to validate therapeutic optimism.

If asked what needs of mine my misanthropy meets, my honest answer would be: the need for effectiveness, and for truly authentic relationships. When I’m not expending energy maintaining positive feelings toward everyone, I can channel that energy into being genuinely present. When I’m not pretending to love humanity, I can offer something more valuable—authentic witness without agenda. This serves both my need for effectiveness and my deeper need for relationships based on truth rather than sentiment.

Conclusion

Misanthropy, properly applied, isn’t about hatred or withdrawal—it’s about perspective. It’s my recognition that humans, individually and collectively, are complex creatures operating within fraught systems. This recognition, rather than leading me to despair, has become a source of effectiveness and creates space for the wisdom that emerges when organisations can see themselves clearly.

Organisations simply are what they are. Some happen to function in ways their members find satisfying, others don’t. I have no investment in whether an organisation becomes more ‘productive’ or maintains its current patterns. And sometimes, it takes someone like me who doesn’t particularly like people to create the therapeutic conditions where organisations can genuinely see and accept themselves. My dislike removes the burden of expectations, disappointments, and any need for them to be better—leaving space for organisations to simply be what they are, and to find their own way forward from that honest starting point.

When transcendence does happen, it occurs organically rather than because I expected it should. This might actually be closer to authentic growth—meaning and significance that emerge despite human complexity, not because of therapist optimism. The most profound transformations often happen when people find purpose within their struggles, not by changing themselves to meet someone else’s vision of their potential.

After all, the best engineers don’t get emotionally attached to the limitations of their materials—they understand them and build accordingly. I apply the same principle to the human materials of organisational life.

Colophon

This post was written in collaboration with Claude, an AI assistant. The process of articulating these ideas through dialogue, questioning assumptions, and refining language helped me clarify thoughts and feelings I’d held for years but never fully examined. Claude’s challenges pushed me to make explicit connections between my misanthropic worldview and established therapeutic principles, revealing theoretical foundations I hadn’t consciously recognised. The collaborative writing process itself became a form of therapy—helping me understand not just what I do, but why it works and how it connects to broader frameworks of human relations. Sometimes you need a conversation partner who has no emotional investment in your conclusions to help you discover what you actually think.

Releasing the Pent-Up Potential of Your Organisation: Liberation Through the Five Patterns

June 1, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Improvement, Patterns, Systems thinking, Thinking tools

Leave a comment

Releasing the Pent-Up Potential of Your Organisation: Liberation Through the Five Patterns

You can’t think your way into organisational transformation—you have to live it. All the elegant frameworks in the world don’t matter if people haven’t felt what it’s like when a team suddenly gets honest about what’s really going on. Or experienced the shift when a group stops performing competence and starts actually solving problems together. Or been in the room when people realise they’ve been fighting symptoms whilst the real issue was something completely different.

The real work happens when someone gets curious enough to try something different in their next meeting. When they stop avoiding that difficult conversation. When they start noticing their own patterns in real-time. When they risk being vulnerable about what’s actually happening instead of what they think should be happening. Those moments—when someone experiences their organisation differently, even briefly—that’s where change actually begins.

What follows is scaffolding that might help you make sense of experiences you’ve already had, or give language to something you’re sensing. But it won’t create the experience itself. The real evangelism happens in the work itself, not in the writing about the work.

The Foundation: Why Organisations Get Stuck

Most organisational problems stem from cognitive and psychological causes rather than technical ones. This occurs because organisations consist fundamentally of people. People operate through mental frameworks, beliefs, and assumptions that shape how they interpret reality and make decisions. Organisations get stuck not because they lack resources or good strategies. They become trapped by invisible mental frameworks—shared beliefs, assumptions, and thinking patterns that feel like reality but actually function as constructs.

OP and the Five Patterns drive organisational liberation through collective and individual consciousness. They help groups of people wake up to their own thinking patterns. People realise they have far more choices than they imagined. The five patterns of Thinking Different provide the cognitive tools for this liberation. They function as systematic ways of breaking out of mental traps. They consistently produce breakthroughs because they operate at the level of assumptions rather than actions.

Understanding Organisational Psychotherapy

Organisational psychotherapy represents a fundamentally different approach to organisational transformation than conventional consulting or change management. Rather than focusing on structures, processes, or skills, OP works with the unconscious psychological dynamics that drive organisational behaviour. Just as individual therapy helps people become aware of unconscious patterns that limit their aliveness and authenticity, organisational psychotherapy helps groups and systems recognise the invisible assumptions and emotional dynamics that constrain their potential for meaning, joy, and positive impact.

Unlike traditional change management that typically focuses on implementing new systems or procedures, OP practitioners work as skilled facilitators who help organisations surface and examine their deepest beliefs about how work should happen, how people should relate, and what’s truly possible. This is therapy applied to organisational systems—using therapeutic insights and methods to help groups of people create work cultures where they can flourish, contribute meaningfully, and experience genuine satisfaction in their collaboration.

The OP practitioner operates more like an organisational mirror, reflecting back patterns the system cannot see about itself. Through careful observation, strategic questioning, and creating safe spaces for difficult conversations, they help organisations recognise how their current challenges emerge from unconscious collective assumptions rather than external circumstances. The goal extends far beyond efficiency to encompass purpose, aliveness, social contribution, and the creation of regenerative cultures that serve both their members and the wider world.

The Core Insight: Invisible Mental Traps and Pattern-Based Solutions

The core insight reveals that organisations become trapped by invisible mental frameworks. When an organisation believes ‘people resist change’, that belief literally creates resistance. These shared assumptions feel like unchangeable reality. But they actually function as the source of most organisational limitations.

The five patterns offer a systematic approach to organisational transformation. They include: Transform Constraints Into Advantages, Enable Systems-Level Perception, Generate Unexpected Connections, Develop Metacognitive Awareness, and Build Comprehensive Mental Models. They work by making invisible assumptions visible. They turn limitations into opportunities for breakthrough thinking.

Organisational psychotherapy operates through these same patterns. It works at the deepest level to help organisations see and change the fundamental beliefs that create their problems. Instead of treating symptoms (poor performance, communication breakdowns, resistance to change), it addresses the root. It targets the collective mindset that generates these problems.

Why This Approach Differs So Much from Traditional Change Management

Most organisational change efforts fail because they operate at the surface level of behaviours and structures whilst ignoring the deeper psychological dynamics that drive those behaviours. Traditional change management typically follows a predictable pattern: diagnose problems, design solutions, implement changes, and measure results. This approach assumes that rational planning and clear communication will overcome resistance, but it rarely addresses the deeper questions of meaning, purpose, and human flourishing.

The OP and Five Patterns approach works differently. It recognises that organisational behaviour emerges from unconscious collective assumptions, unspoken emotional dynamics, and invisible mental models that groups develop over time. These psychological patterns operate like the organisation’s ‘immune system’—they automatically reject changes that conflict with core beliefs, regardless of how logical or beneficial those changes might be.

Instead of fighting this immune system, OP works with it. Rather than imposing external solutions, it helps organisations discover their own capacity for transformation by becoming conscious of what currently limits them. This creates what we might call ‘inside-out change’—transformation that emerges from the organisation’s own recognition of its patterns rather than external pressure to adopt new behaviours.

This difference in approach explains why OP interventions often produce dramatic results where traditional change efforts have failed. By working at the level of consciousness and assumptions rather than behaviours and structures, the changes become self-sustaining because they align with the organisation’s own evolved understanding of itself and its deeper purpose. The results often extend far beyond improved performance to include greater sense of meaning, increased social impact, and genuine joy in collective creation.

Pattern One: Transform Constraints Into Advantages

Organisational psychotherapy works on the insight that shared beliefs and assumptions constitute any organisation’s biggest limitation. This matches what systems thinker Donella Meadows discovered. Changing basic worldviews creates the most powerful change in any system.

The organisation’s shared worldview sets adamantine boundaries on what seems possible or even thinkable. These assumptions—about leadership, human nature, change, or success—shape every decision. They remain mostly unconscious.

What makes this pattern revolutionary stems from how these limiting beliefs actually contain the seeds of breakthrough change. When an organisation recognises that its basic beliefs hold it back, these same beliefs become the raw material for transformation.

The limiting belief literally becomes the source of freedom. OP gives organisations ways to make these invisible assumptions visible and workable. It turns their biggest limitations into their greatest opportunities.

Example: A technology company believed ‘our engineers hate meetings and avoid collaboration’. This belief created policies that isolated developers and reduced communication. Through OP, they recognised this assumption actually revealed their engineers’ need for focused, purposeful interaction. They transformed the constraint by creating ‘code pairing sessions’ and ‘technical storytelling’ formats. The engineers’ preference for meaningful dialogue became their competitive advantage in building cohesive, innovative products.

Pattern Two: Enable Systems-Level Perception

This pattern aligns most closely with OP’s core approach. Organisational psychotherapy always looks at the whole system. It recognises that individual behaviour emerges from organisational context and relationships rather than existing alone.

OP practitioners develop strong abilities to see organisational ecosystems. They see the complex web of formal structures, informal networks, cultural norms, hidden assumptions, and emerging properties that shape how people behave together. They see how leadership stress flows through organisational levels. They see how unspoken conflicts show up in seemingly unrelated work problems. They see how changes in one department affect the entire system.

This whole-system view enables interventions that address root causes rather than just symptoms. Instead of treating individual performance problems in isolation, OP examines the system conditions that either support or undermine human flourishing and meaningful contribution.

Example: A manufacturing company struggled with quality issues that management blamed on ‘careless workers’. Systems-level perception revealed that quality problems emerged from a complex web: production quotas that rewarded speed over accuracy, a bonus system that penalised downtime for equipment maintenance, and informal networks where experienced workers felt undervalued and stopped mentoring newcomers. Addressing the whole system—changing incentives, recognition patterns, and knowledge-sharing structures—eliminated the quality issues.

Pattern Three: Generate Unexpected Connections

Organisational psychotherapy excels at revealing hidden connections between apparently unrelated organisational assumptions and beliefs. This pattern requires particular skill and sensitivity, as it involves recognising how personal and organisational dynamics mirror each other without overstepping professional boundaries or creating inappropriate psychological interpretations.

OP practitioners work within clear ethical guidelines when exploring these connections. They focus on observable organisational patterns rather than personal psychological analysis. When they notice that leadership styles or organisational dynamics seem to reflect personal backgrounds, they work with the organisational manifestations rather than the personal origins. The goal remains organisational transformation toward greater aliveness, authenticity, and positive impact, not individual therapy.

The skill lies in recognising systemic patterns without making the work about individual psychology. For instance, an OP practitioner might observe that an organisation’s risk-averse culture mirrors its founder’s approach to decision-making, but they would work with the cultural pattern rather than the founder’s personal psychology. They help the organisation recognise how certain assumptions limit not just effectiveness but also creativity, joy, and meaningful contribution, regardless of where those assumptions originated.

These unexpected connections between belief systems often provide the most powerful intervention points. OP helps organisations recognise how their technical assumptions connect with interpersonal assumptions. These include the often unconscious beliefs about how people should interact, communicate, share power, handle conflict, and build trust. OP creates opportunities for solutions that address multiple levels of the organisational psyche at once.

Interpersonal assumptions operate beneath the surface of formal policies and procedures. They shape everything from how meetings get conducted to how decisions get made to how conflicts get avoided or addressed. They include beliefs like ‘showing vulnerability demonstrates weakness’, ‘hierarchy equals competence’, or ‘people need to be controlled to become productive’.

The pattern also shows up in drawing insights from other fields. It applies family therapy ideas to organisational dynamics. It uses counselling techniques to address business challenges. It recognises how individual psychological processes play out at organisational scale.

Example: A financial services firm experienced persistent client retention problems. The OP practitioner observed that the organisation’s obsession with ‘professional distance’ and ‘maintaining objectivity’ created barriers to genuine client relationships. Rather than exploring personal backgrounds, they worked with the organisational pattern itself. Through careful questioning and observation, they helped the leadership team recognise how their definition of ‘professionalism’ actually prevented the trust-building that clients valued most. By reframing professionalism as ‘trusted expertise’ rather than ’emotional distance’, they developed a new client relationship model that dramatically improved retention.

Pattern Four: Develop Metacognitive Awareness

This pattern represents perhaps the most crucial element of organisational psychotherapy. OP helps organisations develop awareness of their own thinking patterns, decision-making processes, and hidden assumptions that shape behaviour.

Organisations often operate from unconscious patterns. These function as ways of approaching problems, making decisions, and relating to each other that have become so automatic they remain invisible. OP creates opportunities for collective metacognitive awareness. It asks: ‘How do we typically respond to crisis? What assumptions do we make about change? How do our past experiences shape our current perceptions?’

This metacognitive development enables organisations to recognise when they get stuck in limiting patterns. They consciously choose different approaches. Teams begin to notice their default responses to conflict. They see their assumptions about leadership. They recognise their unconscious strategies for avoiding difficult conversations.

The process often involves developing what might get called ‘organisational mindfulness’. This functions as the ability to observe collective thinking patterns whilst they happen. It enables conscious choices about how to proceed.

Example: A consultancy noticed they repeatedly lost potential clients during final presentations. Through metacognitive awareness work, they discovered their unconscious pattern: when nervous about a big opportunity, they unconsciously shifted into ‘prove we’re smart’ mode rather than ‘understand client needs’ mode. They began to notice this pattern happening in real-time during meetings. Team members developed signals to alert each other when they detected the shift, allowing them to consciously return to client-focused dialogue. Their closing rate improved dramatically.

Pattern Five: Build Comprehensive Mental Models

Organisational psychotherapy helps organisations develop integrated understanding of how multiple systems interact. These include technical systems, social systems, psychological systems, and cultural systems. Rather than treating these as separate areas, OP builds comprehensive mental models. These show how they connect and influence each other.

These integrated models enable organisations to understand why technical solutions sometimes fail. It happens because they ignore social dynamics. They understand why training programmes may not stick. It occurs because they conflict with cultural norms. They understand why strategic initiatives meet unexpected resistance. It happens because they trigger unconscious organisational defences.

The mental models developed through OP demonstrate particular sophistication. They integrate multiple levels of analysis—individual psychology, interpersonal dynamics, group processes, organisational structures, and broader environmental forces. This integration enables more effective interventions and lasting change.

Example: A retail chain struggled with inconsistent customer service across locations. Their comprehensive mental model integrated multiple systems: the technical point-of-sale system that frustrated staff, the social dynamics between managers and frontline workers, the psychological impact of commission structures on staff behaviour, and the cultural differences between urban and suburban locations. They discovered that excellent customer service emerged from the intersection of intuitive technology, supportive management relationships, collaborative rather than competitive rewards, and locally adapted cultural norms. By designing interventions that addressed all four systems simultaneously, they achieved consistent service excellence across all locations.

The Revolutionary Power: Pattern Integration for Organisational Liberation

The real power emerges when these five patterns work together. Once you see invisible constraints through pattern-based thinking, they become the raw material for transformation. Your biggest limitation becomes your biggest opportunity. That makes this approach revolutionary rather than just reformative.

When organisations develop sophisticated awareness across all five patterns simultaneously, they often experience breakthrough capabilities that surprise even the participants. These breakthroughs frequently extend far beyond improved efficiency or performance to include deeper questions: What do we really want to create together? How can our work serve something larger than ourselves? What would it look like if people actually loved coming to work here? How can we be a force for healing and positive change in the world?

This emergence happens because the patterns work synergistically rather than additively. Systems-level perception reveals constraints that can get transformed into advantages. Metacognitive awareness enables the recognition of unexpected connections. Comprehensive mental models provide the framework for integrating insights across all patterns. The result transcends the sum of individual improvements to create what we might call ‘regenerative organisations’—systems that enhance both human flourishing and positive social impact.

When these patterns combine in organisational psychotherapy, they create powerful transformation dynamics. Organisations develop what we might call ‘collective wisdom’—the capacity to recognise their own patterns, learn from their experiences, and consciously evolve their ways of thinking and interacting toward greater authenticity, purpose, and contribution. This collective wisdom becomes self-reinforcing: the more conscious an organisation becomes about its own dynamics, the more choice it has about how to respond to challenges and opportunities for meaningful impact.

Example: A healthcare organisation struggled with staff burnout and patient satisfaction issues that seemed impossible to resolve through conventional approaches. When all five patterns combined, transformation emerged: They transformed their constraint of ‘limited resources’ into an advantage by recognising it forced creative collaboration (Pattern One). Systems-level perception revealed how administrative burdens, shift patterns, and emotional support systems interconnected to create burnout cycles (Pattern Two). They generated unexpected connections between their staff’s caregiving motivations and effective patient care approaches, recognising that supporting staff wellbeing wasn’t separate from patient care but essential to it (Pattern Three). Metacognitive awareness helped teams notice when they shifted from patient-centred to task-centred thinking, allowing real-time course corrections (Pattern Four). Their comprehensive mental model integrated clinical protocols, team dynamics, patient psychology, and organisational culture into a coherent framework (Pattern Five). The result: a self-reinforcing system where staff wellbeing and patient satisfaction enhanced each other, creating what they called ‘regenerative care culture’. Most remarkably, this transformation sustained itself because it aligned with the organisation’s deepest values rather than contradicting them.

This integration suggests that organisational psychotherapy and the five patterns of Thinking Different function as fundamentally complementary approaches to transformation. They work both individually and collectively. They operate both cognitively and systemically. They offer a systematic path from organisational limitation to organisational liberation. This happens through the profound act of becoming conscious of what previously remained invisible.

POWER-HUNGRY BOSSES BEWARE: New Research Reveals Why Nice Countries Get Rich

May 29, 2025

Article, Collaboration, Collective psyche, Ethics, Motivation, Quintessence

1 Comment

POWER-HUNGRY BOSSES BEWARE: New Research Reveals Why Nice Countries Get Rich

In boardrooms and corner offices around the world, a toxic leadership philosophy persists—one that views employees not as valuable contributors but as lackeys: servile followers who exist solely to execute orders without question, challenge, or independent thought. This approach to management, rooted in outdated power structures and cultural assumptions, isn’t just morally problematic—it devastates many organisations.

What Does It Mean to Treat Someone as a Lackey?

A lackey, historically a footman or male servant attending to persons of rank, has evolved into something more insidious in modern workplaces. Today’s organisational “lackeys” are employees who are expected to:

Show excessive deference to authority figures
Perform tasks without questioning their purpose or effectiveness (is this you?)
Sacrifice their professional judgement and integrity for approval
Act without agency, initiative, or creative input
Compound poor leadership by never providing honest feedback

The distinction between healthy workplaces and lackey-making is crucial. Whilst employees naturally follow legitimate invitations from supervisors, lackey treatment goes beyond normal authority structures. It demands deferential behaviour and may involve requests that are inappropriate, unethical, or personally degrading.

But who determines what constitutes “excessive” deference? The answer reveals the first crack in the lackey leadership foundation.

The Cultural Foundation of Power Distance

Geert Hofstede’s groundbreaking research on Power Distance Index (PDI) reveals that what seems like “normal” deference in one culture appears excessive in another. His studies show that cultural context fundamentally shapes these judgements—there’s no universal arbiter of ‘appropriate’ workplace behaviour.

High power distance cultures (like Malaysia, Philippines, and parts of Asia and Latin America) normalise significant hierarchy and expect substantial deference from subordinates. In contrast, low power distance cultures (like Denmark, Sweden, and New Zealand) invite more egalitarian relationships where employees routinely challenge authority and participate in decision-making.

This cultural variability exposes a fundamental problem with lackey leadership: it assumes that rigid hierarchy and unquestioning obedience are universally effective, when in fact they may be culturally specific and increasingly counterproductive in our interconnected global economy.

The Devastating Organisational Consequences

Research consistently demonstrates that treating employees as lackeys produces severe negative outcomes across multiple dimensions:

Performance and Productivity Collapse

When employees feel devalued and treated as mere order-takers, their performance plummets. Studies show that disrespectful treatment leads to decreased job performance, reduced effort, and lower productivity. Employees who feel like lackeys are significantly less likely to contribute the discretionary effort that drives organisational success—the innovation, problem-solving, and extra mile that separates thriving companies from failing ones.

Psychological and Health Deterioration

The human cost of lackey treatment extends far beyond the workplace. Research in organisational psychology demonstrates that disrespectful treatment increases stress, anxiety, and depression amongst employees. This “workplace incivility” correlates with higher rates of burnout, sleep problems, and physical health issues including headaches and gastrointestinal problems. The psychological impact often extends beyond work hours, affecting personal relationships and overall health and well-being.

Talent Haemorrhaging

Multiple studies reveal strong correlations between disrespectful treatment and employee turnover intentions. People treated as lackeys are significantly more likely to quit, leading to increased recruitment and training costs. Most critically, high-performing employees—those with the most options elsewhere—are often the first to leave, creating a devastating brain drain.

Cultural Contagion

Perhaps most destructively, research shows that disrespectful behaviour spreads through organisations like a virus. When some employees are treated as lackeys, it normalises such behaviour and creates a toxic culture affecting everyone. This leads to decreased collaboration, trust, and team effectiveness throughout the organisation.

Innovation Strangulation

Studies consistently find that employees who feel abused or disrespected are less likely to share ideas, take creative risks, or engage in innovative thinking. Fear of ridicule or dismissal stifles the very behaviours that organisations need to thrive in competitive markets. Lackey cultures systematically destroy the creativity and initiative that drive competitive advantage.

The Flawed Beliefs Behind Lackey Leadership

What drives leaders to treat employees as lackeys? Several deeply held but ultimately destructive beliefs typically underpin this approach:

The Hierarchy Myth

Many leaders believe that rigid hierarchy and unquestioning obedience are necessary for organisational effectiveness. This assumption ignores mounting evidence showing that flatter, more collaborative structures outperform traditional command-and-control models, particularly in collaborative knowledge work such as software and product development, and in rapidly changing environments.

The Control Illusion

Lackey-making leaders often believe they can control outcomes by controlling folks’ behaviour in minute detail. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how complex organisations – and people – actually function— i.e. through the distributed intelligence and initiative of their members, not through central micromanagement.

The Respect Confusion

Some leaders confuse fear-based compliance with genuine respect. They mistake employees’ reluctance to challenge them as a sign of their own competence, when it may actually indicate a breakdown in healthy organisational communication.

The Zero-Sum Power Assumption

Perhaps most damaging is the belief that power is zero-sum—that empowering employees necessarily diminishes leadership authority. This ignores the reality that organisations with empowered, engaged employees typically achieve better results, making everyone more successful.

The Economic Evidence Against High Power Distance

Remarkably, cross-cultural research provides compelling evidence against lackey leadership at the societal level. Hofstede’s studies reveal a strong negative correlation between Power Distance Index and national economic success.

Wealthy countries typically score low on the Power Distance Index, whilst poorer countries score high. The Nordic countries—Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland—exemplify this pattern. These nations combine:

Low Power Distance: Employees routinely challenge authority and participate in decision-making
High Economic Success: All five Nordic countries rank amongst the world’s top 20 in GDP per capita
Strong Democratic Institutions: Consistently ranking amongst the least corrupt and most transparent societies globally

This correlation exists because lower power distance fosters economic success through several mechanisms:

Enhanced Innovation: Employees feel safe sharing ideas and taking creative risks
Reduced Corruption: Transparent, accountable institutions support sustainable economic development
Better Decision-Making: Diverse perspectives and challenge improve organisational choices

The Nordic model demonstrates that combining low power distance with market economies produces both high prosperity and social equity—directly challenging the notion that accepting rigid hierarchy is necessary for economic success.

“But We Don’t Treat People Like Lackeys!”

Before examining the path forward, it’s crucial to address the most common response to this research: “We don’t treat people like lackeys.” This defensive reaction is both predictable and revealing—it demonstrates exactly the kind of blind spot that perpetuates the problem.

The reality is that lackey-making behaviour often operates below the conscious awareness of those who practise it. Leaders rarely set out to create servile followers, yet their actions systematically produce exactly that outcome. Consider these seemingly innocuous but telling behaviours:

The Subtle Signs of Lackey-Making

The Meeting Monopoliser: Leaders who dominate every discussion, interrupt subordinates, or make decisions before hearing input aren’t intentionally creating lackeys—but they’re training employees that their voices don’t matter.

The Credit Appropriator: Managers who consistently take credit for team successes whilst blaming individuals for failures aren’t consciously trying to diminish their people—but they’re teaching employees to avoid initiative and innovation.

The Micromanager: Supervisors who require approval for minor decisions, demand detailed reporting on routine tasks, or insist on reviewing every communication aren’t deliberately creating dependence—but they’re systematically stripping away employee agency.

The Punisher of Dissent: Leaders who respond to challenges or alternative viewpoints with irritation, dismissal, or subtle retaliation aren’t explicitly demanding obedience—but they’re creating cultures where only agreement feels safe.

The Emotionally Volatile: Managers whose mood swings determine the office atmosphere, who make employees walk on eggshells, or who create unpredictable environments aren’t intentionally fostering fear—but they’re training people to prioritise appeasing authority over pursuing excellence.

The Lackey Test

Here’s a simple diagnostic: When your employees interact with you, are they primarily focused on delivering value or managing your reaction? If your team members spend significant mental energy predicting your moods, crafting communications to avoid triggering you, or suppressing their professional judgement to maintain harmony, you’ve created lackeys—regardless of your intentions.

The most insidious aspect of lackey-making is that it often masquerades as good management. The quiet employee who never challenges decisions might seem like the ideal team player, but they may actually be someone who’s learned that speaking up is professionally dangerous. The subordinate who praises every initiative might appear enthusiastic, but they could be someone who’s discovered that flattery is the safest path to advancement.

Why Leaders Resist Seeing It

Several psychological factors make it difficult for leaders to recognise their own lackey-making behaviour:

The Fundamental Attribution Error: We judge ourselves by our intentions but others by their actions. A leader might believe they’re being “decisive” when employees experience them as “dictatorial.”

The Feedback Gap: Lackey-making behaviour systematically eliminates honest feedback, creating an echo chamber where leaders never hear about the problems they’re creating.

The Survivorship Bias: The employees who remain under lackey-making leaders are often those who’ve learned to adapt to the toxic dynamic, giving leaders a false impression that their approach works.

The Success Conflation: Leaders might attribute organisational successes to their demanding style, failing to recognise that results might be even better with more respectful or supportive behaviour—or that they’re succeeding despite, not because of, their approach.

A Better Path Forward

The evidence is overwhelming: treating employees as lackeys is not just morally questionable—it’s organisationally suicidal. In an economy increasingly dependent on knowledge work, creativity, and rapid adaptation, organisations need the full engagement and intelligence of their people.

Leaders who continue to operate from lackey-making assumptions will find themselves increasingly unable to compete with organisations that harness the distributed intelligence of empowered, respected employees. The choice is stark: evolve towards more collaborative, respectful leadership approaches, or watch your best talent—and your competitive advantage—walk out the door.

The most successful organisations of the future will be those that recognise a fundamental truth: in a complex, rapidly changing world, the leader who treats people as lackeys isn’t demonstrating strength—they’re revealing their own weakness.

The path from lackey-making to authentic fellowship isn’t just about being nicer to employees—it’s about recognising that organisational success depends on unleashing human potential, not constraining it. The research is clear: respect isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s the smart thing to do.

The Hidden Contempt For Employees

May 29, 2025

Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Article, Business, Collective psyche, Culture change, Fellowship, Quintessence

Leave a comment

The Hidden Contempt For Employees

How Management’s Subconscious Anti-Employee Mentality Poisons the Workplace

Walk into any corporate office and you’ll witness a peculiar psychological phenomenon playing out in conference rooms and cubicles across the nation. Despite diversity training, employee engagement surveys, and endless talk about ‘valuing our people’, many managers harbour a deeply buried but toxic attitude towards their employees: they view them as an inferior outgroup that is beneath contempt—convenient targets for management’s frustrations and disdain.

This isn’t the cartoonish villainy of a Dilbert comic. It’s something far more insidious—a subconscious bias that manifests in countless small interactions, policy decisions, and organisational cultures. The manager who rolls their eyes when employees ask for clarity on expectations. The executive who assumes workers are inherently lazy and need constant surveillance. The supervisor who treats every request for accommodation or flexibility as an act of defiance.

The Psychology of Us vs. Them

This mentality stems from fundamental psychological tendencies around group identity and hierarchy. When people achieve management positions, they often unconsciously begin to identify more strongly with other managers, executives, and decision-makers. Employees become ‘them’—a separate group with different interests, motivations, and worth.

Social psychology research shows how quickly and automatically humans create ingroup-outgroup distinctions, even based on arbitrary categories. In the workplace, these distinctions become reinforced by structural factors: managers eat lunch together, attend different meetings, have access to different information, and face different pressures. Over time, this separation breeds a kind of casual dehumanisation.

The most damaging aspect is that this contempt masquerades as realism or business necessity. ‘We can’t trust employees to work from home—they’ll just slack off.’ ‘They don’t understand the bigger picture, so we can’t involve them in decisions.’ ‘If we give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.’ These assumptions echo what Douglas McGregor called Theory X thinking—the belief that people inherently dislike work, lack ambition, and require constant supervision. But these aren’t evidence-based assessments; they’re expressions of fundamental outgroup disrespect dressed up as management wisdom.

How Contempt Manifests

This attitude reveals itself in myriad ways, often so normalised that it goes unnoticed:

Surveillance over trust. Installing keystroke monitors, requiring constant status updates, or tracking bathroom breaks—all based on the assumption that employees are fundamentally untrustworthy and will shirk responsibility if not watched.

Information hoarding. Keeping employees in the dark about company decisions, changes, or challenges, treating them as too incompetent or untrustworthy to handle context about their own work environment.

Punishment over problem-solving. When issues arise, the default response is to assume employee failure rather than examining systems, processes, or management practices that might be contributing to problems.

Nickel-and-diming benefits. Fighting tooth and nail against reasonable accommodations, time off, or workplace improvements whilst executives enjoy expense accounts and flexible schedules.

Communication that assumes stupidity. Speaking to employees like children, over-explaining simple concepts whilst under-explaining important ones, or dismissing questions and concerns as evidence of poor understanding rather than legitimate feedback.

The Cost of Contempt

This subconscious contempt isn’t just morally problematic—it’s economically destructive. Organisations with low employee trust and engagement consistently underperform on virtually every metric that matters: productivity, innovation, customer satisfaction, and profitability.

When employees sense they’re viewed with contempt, they respond predictably. They become disengaged, doing the minimum required work. They stop contributing ideas or flagging problems. They leave for better opportunities when possible, creating costly turnover. Most damaging of all, they stop giving any kind of damn about organisational success, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where management’s low expectations become reality.

The irony is that contemptuous management practices often create the very behaviours they claim to prevent. Treat employees like potential thieves, and you’ll get people who feel no loyalty to the organisation. Assume they’re incompetent, and you’ll discourage the initiative and problem-solving that drive business results.

Breaking the Cycle

Surfacing this pattern is the first step towards changing it. Managers might choose to examine their own assumptions and unconscious biases. When you find yourself frustrated with employee behaviour, ask whether the issue might stem from unclear expectations, inadequate resources, poor processes, or misaligned incentives rather than character defects. See also: the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Organisations can combat this tendency by creating structures that bring managers and employees together as collaborators rather than adversaries. Regular skip-level meetings, cross-functional teams, and transparent communication about business challenges help break down ingroup-outgroup barriers.

Most importantly, management practices can be designed around trust and respect as default collective assumptions. Starting with the belief that employees want to do good work and succeed. Then build systems that support and enable that success rather than systems designed to catch and punish failure.

The best managers understand that their job isn’t to control or monitor employees—it’s to remove obstacles, provide resources, and create conditions where people can thrive. This requires seeing employees not as a potentially troublesome outgroup, but as partners in achieving shared goals.

Until management confronts this subconscious contempt and actively works to counter it, all the employee engagement initiatives and corporate values statements in the world won’t create truly healthy, productive workplaces. The change has to start with honest surfacing and reflection (SAR) about the collective attitudes and assumptions that drive daily management decisions.

Because at the end of the day, how you view your employees isn’t just about them—it’s about the kind of people and organisation you choose to be.

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

May 21, 2025

Article, Capability development, Collective psyche, Culture change, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, SAR Organisations

Leave a comment

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

Purpose

This integrated assessment framework is designed for folks who need to understand the mental health status of their organisation. It evaluates an organisation’s collective psychological wellbeing, functioning, and areas for development. It measures the collective assumptions and beliefs (memes) that shape an organisation’s effectiveness. Note: The structure of this questionnaire is based closely on the structure found in my OP books Quintessence and Memeology.

Version

For reference and to aid evolution, this post defines COPE version 1.0a.

Assessment Questionnaire

Instructions: This assessment evaluates the collective mental health of your organisation. Please rate your agreement with each statement using the scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree | 1 = Disagree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = Agree | 4 = Strongly Agree

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity

The organisation has a clearly articulated purpose beyond profit
Members across all levels can articulate why the organisation exists
The organisation’s purpose inspires meaningful contribution
Decision-making processes reflect the organisation’s core purpose
The organisation regularly revisits and reaffirms its purpose
Daily operations clearly connect to the organisation’s purpose
External communications authentically reflect organisational purpose
The organisation measures success by metrics aligned with its purpose

Organisational Values Integration

Organisational values are clearly defined and widely understood
Values are consistently demonstrated in organisational decisions
Leaders model the organisation’s espoused values in their behaviour
Reward systems recognise and reinforce organisational values
Hiring and promotion decisions reflect organisational values
Resources are allocated according to proclaimed priorities
The organisation addresses gaps between stated and enacted values
Policies and procedures align with and support organisational values
Performance evaluations include assessment of values alignment
The organisation’s values are regularly discussed and reaffirmed

Organisational Identity Cohesion

Members across all levels identify strongly with the organisation
There is a distinctive and coherent organisational identity
The organisation’s identity remains stable through changes
Members feel personally connected to the organisational identity
External stakeholders recognise the organisation’s distinctive identity
The organisation’s identity is authentic rather than aspirational
Stories and symbols reinforce organisational identity effectively
The organisational identity provides meaning during challenges

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity

The organisation systematically captures lessons from experience
Knowledge is effectively shared across organisational boundaries
Failure is treated as an opportunity for organisational learning
The organisation regularly challenges its assumptions
Learning is translated into changes in policies and practices
The organisation systematically tests new approaches
Members are encouraged to question established ways of working
The organisation integrates diverse perspectives into decision-making
The organisation has effective mechanisms for organisational memory
There is regular reflection on organisational processes and outcomes

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns

Decision-making processes are clearly defined and understood
Decisions are made at appropriate levels of the organisation
Decision-making incorporates relevant stakeholder perspectives
Information flows effectively to decision-makers
Decision-making processes are appropriately transparent
The organisation balances decisive action with thoughtful consideration
Decision-making processes adapt to the nature of the issue
The organisation learns from the outcomes of decisions
Decision-making incorporates both analytical and intuitive elements
The organisation revisits and adjusts ineffective decisions
Decision-making processes recognise complexity and avoid oversimplification
The organisation effectively prioritises decisions based on strategic importance

Organisational Sense-Making Capability

The organisation effectively interprets changes in its environment
Multiple interpretations of events are considered before conclusions are drawn
The organisation creates shared understanding of complex situations
Diverse perspectives are integrated in understanding challenges
The organisation can detect weak signals of important changes
Organisational narratives help create meaning from ambiguous situations
The organisation avoids simplistic explanations for complex events
Conflicts in interpretation are productively explored rather than suppressed
The organisation can reframe its understanding when circumstances change
Sense-making processes engage appropriate stakeholders

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment

The prevailing emotional tone of the organisation is positive
There is appropriate emotional expression within the organisation
People feel emotionally safe within the organisational environment
The organisation acknowledges emotional aspects of organisational life
Leadership effectively manages the emotional climate
Difficult emotions are acknowledged rather than suppressed
The organisation demonstrates appropriate empathy toward members
Emotional intelligence is valued and developed
The emotional impact of changes is considered and addressed
There is emotional resilience within the organisational culture

Psychological Safety Evaluation

Members feel safe to express divergent viewpoints
Risk-taking is encouraged without fear of punishment for failure
Mistakes are openly discussed to promote learning
Difficult issues are raised and addressed constructively
Members can show vulnerability without negative consequences
There is tolerance for well-intentioned errors
The organisation avoids blame-oriented responses to problems
Power differences do not prevent open communication
Members trust that others have positive intentions
Ideas are evaluated on merit rather than source
Feedback flows freely up and down the organisational hierarchy
The organisation demonstrates curiosity rather than judgement

Organisational Trust Measure

There is a high level of trust between leadership and members
The organisation fulfils its commitments consistently
Communication from leadership is honest and transparent
Members trust that decisions are made with appropriate consideration
There is trust between different functions or departments
The organisation demonstrates trustworthiness to external stakeholders
Trust is systematically built rather than assumed
When trust is broken, there are effective repair mechanisms
Policies demonstrate trust in members’ intentions and capabilities
Information is shared openly rather than closely guarded

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment

Organisational structures effectively support its purpose
Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined
Authority is appropriately distributed throughout the organisation
Organisational boundaries effectively manage complexity
Structures adapt appropriately to changing circumstances
There is effective coordination between organisational units
Reporting relationships support effective functioning
The organisation has appropriate integration mechanisms
Structures balance stability with flexibility
Organisational hierarchy serves function rather than status

Resource Allocation Patterns

Resources are distributed according to strategic priorities
Resource allocation processes are transparent and understood
The organisation effectively balances short and long-term investments
Resources are sufficient to accomplish expected outcomes
The organisation invests in maintaining and developing capabilities
Resource constraints are acknowledged and addressed realistically
Resources are reallocated when strategic priorities change
Resource allocation reflects organisational values
The organisation avoids resource hoarding within units
There are effective processes for resolving resource conflicts

Organisational Justice Evaluation

Rewards are distributed fairly within the organisation
Organisational policies are applied consistently
Procedures for making important decisions are fair
People are treated with dignity and respect regardless of position
Information is shared appropriately with those affected by decisions
The organisation provides explanations for significant decisions
There are effective mechanisms for addressing perceived inequities
Promotions and advancement reflect merit rather than politics
Accountability is consistent across organisational levels
Discipline and correction are applied fairly and proportionately
Performance evaluation processes are perceived as fair
Benefits and burdens are distributed equitably

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment

The organisation effectively anticipates emerging changes
Change initiatives are implemented skilfully
The organisation maintains core functionality during transitions
Changes are thoughtfully designed to address root causes
The organisation communicates effectively about changes
Change processes engage appropriate stakeholders
The organisation builds commitment rather than merely compliance
The human impacts of change are considered and addressed
The organisation learns from its change experiences
Change capacity is systematically developed

Innovation Climate Evaluation

The organisation systematically encourages innovative thinking
There are effective processes for developing new ideas
The organisation allocates resources to innovation
Promising ideas can navigate organisational boundaries
The organisation effectively balances exploration and exploitation
Innovation efforts address meaningful organisational challenges
The organisation learns from unsuccessful innovation attempts
Innovation processes engage diverse perspectives
The organisation effectively implements promising innovations
Innovation is recognised and celebrated

Organisational Resilience Index

The organisation maintains functioning during disruptions
There are effective crisis response mechanisms
The organisation demonstrates learning after disruptions
There is appropriate redundancy in critical systems
The organisation can rapidly reconfigure resources when needed
There is awareness of potential vulnerabilities
The organisation demonstrates optimism in facing challenges
Leadership provides stability during turbulent periods
The organisation maintains strategic focus despite disruptions
There is capacity to absorb stress without breakdown
The organisation effectively balances continuity and transformation
Recovery processes are well-developed and effective

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment

The organisation maintains constructive relationships with key stakeholders
There is effective dialogue with diverse stakeholders
The organisation demonstrates understanding of stakeholder concerns
Stakeholder perspectives influence organisational decisions
The organisation manages competing stakeholder interests effectively
There are mechanisms for addressing stakeholder conflicts
The organisation maintains integrity in stakeholder relations
Stakeholder relationships are systematically developed
The organisation responds effectively to stakeholder feedback
There is appropriate transparency with stakeholders

Collective Engagement Measure

Members demonstrate energy and enthusiasm about the organisation
There is discretionary effort beyond minimal requirements
Members speak positively about the organisation to others
Retention of valued members is high
Members demonstrate commitment to organisational success
There is pride in organisational membership
Members find meaning in their organisational participation
Engagement is consistent across organisational units
The organisation systematically addresses engagement barriers
Engagement remains resilient during challenging periods

Power Dynamics Evaluation

Power is used constructively rather than coercively
Decision-making authority is appropriately distributed
Influence is based on expertise rather than position alone
The organisation addresses power imbalances that hinder effectiveness
Hidden power structures align with formal authority systems
Minority perspectives can influence organisational direction
The organisation effectively manages political behaviour
Power differences do not prevent necessary communication
Leadership empowers rather than controls
There are effective checks on power concentration

COPE SCORING SHEET

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe purpose deficit; organisation lacks meaningful direction
1.1-2.0: Moderate purpose deficit; purpose is unclear or uninspiring
2.1-3.0: Adequate purpose clarity with some areas for strengthening
3.1-4.0: Strong purpose clarity and integration

Organisational Values Integration Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe values-action gap; espoused values not reflected in practice
1.1-2.0: Significant values inconsistency; limited alignment between stated and enacted values
2.1-3.0: Moderate values integration; some alignment with opportunities for improvement
3.1-4.0: Strong values integration throughout organisational systems

Organisational Identity Cohesion Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Fractured organisational identity; lack of coherent self-concept
1.1-2.0: Weak identity cohesion; identity is unclear or contested
2.1-3.0: Moderate identity cohesion; recognisable identity with some inconsistencies
3.1-4.0: Strong identity cohesion providing stability and meaning

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited learning capacity; organisation repeats errors
1.1-2.0: Deficient learning processes; occasional learning without systematic approach
2.1-3.0: Moderate learning capacity; some effective systems with gaps
3.1-4.0: Strong learning orientation integrated throughout organisation

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional decision processes; decisions arbitrary or opaque
1.1-2.0: Problematic decision-making; significant inefficiencies or biases
2.1-3.0: Adequate decision processes with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Highly effective decision-making processes

Organisational Sense-Making Capability Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____ Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited sense-making; organisation regularly misinterprets situations
1.1-2.0: Deficient sense-making processes; narrow or distorted interpretations
2.1-3.0: Moderate sense-making capability; generally accurate with blind spots
3.1-4.0: Strong sense-making supporting insightful interpretation of complex situations

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Toxic emotional climate; pervasive negative emotions
1.1-2.0: Problematic emotional climate; significant negative emotional tone
2.1-3.0: Moderate emotional health with specific areas of concern
3.1-4.0: Healthy emotional climate supporting organisational vitality

Psychological Safety Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely unsafe psychological environment; fear-based culture
1.1-2.0: Limited psychological safety with significant barriers to openness
2.1-3.0: Moderate psychological safety with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong psychological safety supporting candour and learning

Organisational Trust Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Pervasive distrust throughout organisation
1.1-2.0: Significant trust deficits in key relationships
2.1-3.0: Moderate trust levels with specific areas of concern
3.1-4.0: High trust environment supporting collaboration and efficiency

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional organisational structures; significant barriers to effectiveness
1.1-2.0: Problematic structures with substantial inefficiencies
2.1-3.0: Adequate structures with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Well-designed structures effectively supporting organisational purpose

Resource Allocation Patterns Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely problematic resource allocation; significant misalignment with priorities
1.1-2.0: Inefficient resource allocation with substantial waste or gaps
2.1-3.0: Adequate resource management with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strategic resource allocation effectively supporting priorities

Organisational Justice Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe justice deficits; widespread perceptions of unfairness
1.1-2.0: Significant justice concerns undermining organisational trust
2.1-3.0: Moderate justice with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Strong justice climate supporting organisational commitment

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited change capacity; organisation resistant or chaotic
1.1-2.0: Deficient change management with significant implementation failures
2.1-3.0: Moderate change capacity with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Strong change capacity supporting effective adaptation

Innovation Climate Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited innovation climate; organisation static or rigid
1.1-2.0: Weak innovation capability with barriers to new ideas
2.1-3.0: Moderate innovation climate with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong innovation capability supporting organisational renewal

Organisational Resilience Index Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Highly vulnerable organisation; limited capacity to withstand challenges
1.1-2.0: Fragile organisational systems with significant vulnerability
2.1-3.0: Moderate resilience with specific areas for strengthening
3.1-4.0: Highly resilient organisation capable of thriving amid disruption

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely problematic stakeholder relations; significant conflicts
1.1-2.0: Strained stakeholder relationships undermining effectiveness
2.1-3.0: Adequate stakeholder relations with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong stakeholder relationships supporting organisational success

Collective Engagement Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe engagement deficit; widespread disaffection
1.1-2.0: Significant engagement problems with limited commitment
2.1-3.0: Moderate engagement with uneven distribution
3.1-4.0: Strong engagement supporting organisational vitality

Power Dynamics Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional power dynamics; power used coercively
1.1-2.0: Problematic power distribution hampering effectiveness
2.1-3.0: Adequate power dynamics with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Healthy power dynamics supporting organisational effectiveness

COPE ORGANISATIONAL HEALTH PROFILE

Composite Scores

Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite (Purpose Clarity + Values Integration + Identity Cohesion) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Cognition Composite (Learning Capacity + Decision-Making Patterns + Sense-Making Capability) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite (Emotional Climate + Psychological Safety + Trust) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Systems & Structures Composite (Structural Health + Resource Allocation + Organisational Justice) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite (Change Capacity + Innovation Climate + Resilience) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite (Stakeholder Relations + Collective Engagement + Power Dynamics) ÷ 3 = _____

Overall COPE Index Sum of all 6 Composite Scores ÷ 6 = _____

Interpretation Guidelines

Overall COPE Index:

0-1.0: Critical organisational dysfunction requiring fundamental intervention
1.1-2.0: Significant organisational health concerns requiring substantial intervention
2.1-3.0: Moderate organisational health with specific areas requiring attention
3.1-4.0: Strong organisational health supporting sustainable performance

COPE Profile Analysis

You might choose to plot each composite score on a radar chart to visualise the organisation’s psychological health profile:

Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite: _____
Organisational Cognition Composite: _____
Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite: _____
Organisational Systems & Structures Composite: _____
Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite: _____
Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite: _____

COPE Intervention Planning

Identify the lowest two composite scores as primary intervention areas
Within those composites, identify specific scales with lowest scores
Consider interventions targeting specific dimensions requiring improvement
Create an intervention sequence addressing foundational issues first
Establish monitoring mechanisms to track intervention effectiveness
Schedule reassessment at appropriate intervals (typically 6-12 months)
Consider the self-intervention support available in Memeology.

COPE ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES

Participant Selection: Include diverse organisational members representing different levels, functions, and perspectives
Timing Considerations: Administer during relatively stable periods to establish baseline; avoid periods of acute crisis
Response Aggregation: Calculate mean scores across respondents for each item and scale
Variance Analysis: Examine patterns of agreement/disagreement across respondent groups
Qualitative Data: Supplement quantitative scores with structured interviews or focus groups
Contextual Interpretation: Consider results in light of organisational history, industry context, and strategic priorities
Longitudinal Tracking: Establish regular assessment cycles to monitor changes over time
Confidentiality: Ensure anonymous participation to encourage candid responses

APPENDIX: RELATION TO EXISTING ASSESSMENTS

The COPE Framework shares characteristics with several existing organisational assessment tools but is distinctive in its focus on organisational psychotherapy and collective memeplexes. Here’s how it relates to established frameworks:

Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) – Like COPE, the Denison model assesses organisational effectiveness across multiple dimensions including mission, adaptability, involvement, and consistency. While both use quantifiable metrics, COPE extends beyond culture to examine underlying psychological mechanisms.
Organizational Health Index (OHI) by McKinsey – The OHI measures organisational health across nine dimensions with 37 management practices. COPE shares the OHI’s view that organisational health predicts performance, but adds deeper psychological dimensions and a therapeutic orientation.
Barrett Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) – This assessment examines alignment between current and desired values in organisations. COPE builds on this by not only identifying values misalignment but also examining the psychological roots of such gaps.
Competing Values Framework (CVF) by Cameron and Quinn – This framework uses a quadrant model to classify organisational cultures (clan, adhocracy, market, hierarchy). While COPE similarly assesses cultural dimensions, it uses a different theoretical model based on organisational psychotherapy rather than competing values.

The COPE Framework is distinctive in its:

Grounding in organisational psychotherapy principles
Explicit focus on the collective psyche and memeplexes that shape organisational behaviour
Attention to how assumptions and beliefs manifest as patterns of behaviour and degrees of functioning
Assessment of psychological health across six interconnected dimensions
Integration of both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives
Consideration of organisational cognitive dissonance and its impacts
Examination of power dynamics from a psychological rather than purely structural perspective

COPE’s approach bridges the gap between traditional organisational assessments and therapeutic interventions, making it particularly suitable for organisations seeking transformative change through addressing their collective psychological patterns.

Why You Reject the Best Cognitive Tools and Strategies

May 19, 2025

Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collective psyche, Culture change, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Thinking tools

Leave a comment

Why You Reject the Best Cognitive Tools and Strategies

The Promise and Paradox of Better Thinking

In today’s complex world, effective cognitive tools and strategies offer extraordinary potential benefits. Structured decision-making frameworks can help us avoid costly errors. Mental models can illuminate connections we’d otherwise miss. Debiasing techniques can protect us from systematic reasoning flaws. Forecasting methodologies can improve our ability to navigate uncertainty. Organisational psychotherapy approaches can dramatically improve social dynamics. The evidence is clear: organisations and individuals who consistently employ superior thinking tools outperform those who rely solely on intuition and habit.

And yet, despite compelling evidence of their value, the most powerful cognitive tools are rarely implemented. This implementation gap presents one of the most significant yet under-addressed challenges in both personal development and organisational improvement. Of course, evidence rarely sways anyone to action. And addressing these challenges requires exactly the kind of thinking that blocks adoption of effective cognitive tools and strategies.

Consider these telling patterns:

Companies invest millions in decision frameworks that gather dust within months
Professionals attend workshops on cognitive biases, only to continue commiting the very same errors the following week
Teams develop robust strategic thinking processes they promptly abandon when faced with their first crisis
Individuals buy books on mental models they understand intellectually but never actually apply

This pattern—knowing better but doing the same—crosses domains, cultures, and contexts. Research suggests that fewer than 20% of people who learn valuable cognitive strategies continue using them after just four weeks. For organisations, the figures are even more stark, with some studies indicating implementation rates below 12% for externally introduced thinking frameworks.

What makes this paradox particularly notable is that these tools aren’t being rejected due to ineffectiveness. Indeed, when consistently applied, better thinking tools demonstrably improve outcomes. Yet something in our individual and collective psyches actively resists their implementation, even when we intellectually recognise their value.

The costs of this resistance are substantial but often invisible—the better decisions not made, the systematic errors not avoided, the superior strategies not developed. Understanding why we reject our best cognitive tools isn’t merely an academic exercise; it’s an essential step toward actually capturing their promised benefits.

Part 1: Individual Cognitive Resistance

Have you ever learnt about a life-changing productivity technique, only to abandon it a week later? Or discovered a powerful mental framework that you immediately agreed with—but never actually implemented? You’re not alone. Despite our best intentions, humans have a peculiar tendency to reject the very cognitive tools and strategies that could benefit us most.

The Knowing-Doing Gap

One of the greatest paradoxes of human behaviour is the gap between knowing and doing. We consume self-help books, attend workshops, and save articles about evidence-based cognitive strategies—yet implementation often remains elusive. This disconnect isn’t due to laziness or lack of motivation, but rather to deeper psychological mechanisms.

Why We Resist What Would Help Us

1. Kahneman’s System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking

Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s work on dual-process theory provides a powerful framework for understanding our cognitive resistance. In his landmark book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, Kahneman describes two modes of thinking:

System 1: Fast, automatic, intuitive, and emotional
System 2: Slow, deliberate, analytical, and rational

Most cognitive tools and strategies require engaging System 2, which demands effort and concentration. However, our brains default to the energy-efficient System 1, which operates on autopilot through shortcuts and heuristics. When presented with beneficial cognitive tools, System 1 often rejects them as too effortful, while System 2—which would recognise their value—isn’t automatically engaged.

The irony is that many cognitive tools aim to improve our System 2 thinking, but we need System 2 thinking to adopt them in the first place. This creates a bootstrapping problem where the solution requires the very capability we’re trying to enhance.

2. The Marshmallow Effect: Instant vs. Delayed Gratification

The famous ‘marshmallow experiments’ conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford University revealed our struggle with delayed gratification. Children who could resist eating one marshmallow to receive two later showed better outcomes in life across multiple measures. This same mechanism affects our adoption of cognitive tools—we opt for the immediate relief of familiar thinking patterns over the delayed rewards of better strategies.

Research has consistently shown that our brains are biased towards immediate rewards even when rationally understanding the greater value of delayed benefits. Neuroimaging studies reveal that different brain regions activate when processing immediate versus delayed rewards, with the emotional, impulsive system often overriding the logical, patient one.

3. Cognitive Dissonance

When new strategies challenge our existing beliefs or self-image, we experience discomfort. Rather than integrate these beneficial tools, we often reject them to preserve our internal consistency. For instance, embracing a structured decision-making framework might force us to acknowledge past poor choices, which can be threatening to our identity as rational beings.

4. The Allure of Complexity

We often reject simple, proven strategies in favour of complex ones. There’s something deeply unsatisfying about straightforward solutions to difficult problems. We assume that effective strategies must be sophisticated or involve special insight, leading us to overlook basic approaches that actually work.

Breaking the Cycle

How can we overcome these barriers and actually use the cognitive tools we know would help us?

Create System 2 Triggers

Design specific prompts that activate your System 2 thinking before making important decisions. This might be as simple as a checklist or a designated ‘thinking time’ for consequential choices.

Automate System 2 Processes

Turn deliberate cognitive strategies into habits through consistent practice. What begins as a System 2 process can eventually become more automatic, requiring less conscious effort to implement.

Start Impossibly Small

Rather than attempting to overhaul your entire thinking process, integrate tiny elements of beneficial strategies into your existing routines. This minimises resistance and creates momentum.

Create Reward Bridges: The Missing Link

The concept of reward bridges deserves special attention as it directly addresses the critical gap between knowing and doing. A reward bridge is a deliberately designed system of immediate, tangible reinforcements that sustain motivation until the delayed benefits of a cognitive tool become apparent.

The psychology behind reward bridges is grounded in both behavioural economics and neuroscience. Our dopamine system, which drives motivation and learning, responds more strongly to immediate rewards than to delayed ones—even when the delayed rewards are objectively more valuable. By creating immediate and meaningful rewards that arrive immediately after using beneficial cognitive tools, we can ‘trick’ our motivation system into supporting behaviours that would otherwise be abandoned.

Effective personal reward bridges might include:

Micro-celebrations: Creating a brief but genuine moment of acknowledgment after using a decision-making framework
Visible progress tracking: Using physical or digital systems that provide immediate visual feedback when you employ a cognitive strategy. See also: the Needsscape
Artificial constraints: Setting up systems where you must use the cognitive tool to ‘unlock’ a small pleasure you’ve reserved (a special coffee, a short walk, etc.)
Social commitments: Arranging for immediate social recognition when you employ better thinking strategies

Research in habit formation shows that these bridging rewards need not be large—consistency matters more than magnitude. Over time, as the intrinsic benefits of better thinking tools begin to manifest, the artificial rewards can be gradually reduced without losing momentum.

Make Implementation the Measure

Shift your focus from collecting knowledge to tracking implementation. The value of cognitive tools lies not in understanding them, but in using them consistently. Better yet, track outcomes i.e. folks’ needs met and attended-to.

Part 2: Organisational Resistance to Better Thinking

The same psychological barriers that prevent individuals from adopting better cognitive tools operate at an organisational level—but with additional complexities. Organisations often invest heavily in frameworks, methodologies, and decision-making tools that subsequently go unused or are implemented half-heartedly. Understanding this resistance is crucial for any leader hoping to improve collective thinking.

The Organisational Knowing-Doing Gap

Organisations suffer from an even more pronounced knowing-doing gap than individuals. While a single person might struggle to implement a beneficial habit, organisations must coordinate dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people to change established collective assumptions and beliefs. This magnifies the existing psychological barriers and introduces new systemic ones.

Why Organisations Reject Better Thinking Tools

1. Collective System 1 Dominance

Organisations develop their own version of System 1 thinking—processes that have become so ingrained they’re essentially automatic. These include unwritten rules, cultural norms, and legacy procedures that persist despite evidence against their effectiveness. When leadership introduces new cognitive frameworks that require System 2 engagement across the organisation, the collective inertia of established System 1 processes often overwhelms these efforts.

2. Incentive Misalignment

Many organisations reward immediate results over sound long-term thinking. This creates a structural bias against cognitive tools that might slow immediate decision-making while improving long-term outcomes. When employees must choose between using a better decision-making framework that takes time or delivering quick results that earn recognition, the latter usually wins—an organisational manifestation of the marshmallow effect.

3. Organisational Cognitive Dissonance

When new assumptions and beliefs challenge an organisation’s existing memeplex or self-image, the organisation experiences collective discomfort. Rather than integrate these beneficial assumptions and beliefs, it often rejects them to preserve its internal consistency.

4. The Consultation Paradox

Organisations frequently bring in external consultants who introduce evidence-based frameworks, only to have these approaches shelved shortly after implementation begins. This pattern persists because the act of consulting itself satisfies the organisational desire to appear forward-thinking, while the actual implementation would require uncomfortable changes to established hierarchies and processes.

5. Cultural Immune Systems

Edgar Schein’s work on organisational culture suggests that organisations develop ‘immune systems’ that reject ideas threatening core cultural assumptions. Better cognitive tools often implicitly challenge how decisions have been made historically, triggering this immune response. The organisation may nominally adopt the new approach while subconsciously undermining its implementation.

6. Distributed Accountability

When implementation fails at an individual level, the responsibility is clear. In organisations, responsibility for implementing new thinking tools is distributed, creating diffusion of responsibility where everyone assumes someone else will drive the change. The result is collective inaction despite general agreement about the tool’s value.

Breaking Organisational Cognitive Stagnation

How can organisations overcome these substantial barriers to implementing better thinking tools?

Create Organisational System 2 Spaces

Designate specific contexts where deliberative, System 2 thinking is explicitly required and protected from the usual pressures of immediate action. Examples include quarterly strategy reviews or ‘pre-mortem’ sessions where teams must engage with structured thinking protocols before launching initiatives.

Align Incentives with Better Thinking

Reward not just outcomes but the quality of the thinking process. This might include evaluating decisions based on how well they applied designated frameworks, regardless of immediate results, which are often influenced by factors beyond the decision-maker’s control.

Implement Cultural Onboarding to New Tools

Recognise that cognitive tools aren’t just technical implementations but cultural artefacts. Create rituals, language, and symbols around new thinking approaches to help them become part of the organisational identity rather than foreign impositions.

Build Organisational Reward Bridges: Spanning the Collective Gap

The concept of reward bridges takes on additional dimensions when applied to organisations. Where individuals need to bridge the gap between immediate effort and delayed personal benefit, organisations must span the chasm between collective implementation costs and future organisational gains.

Organisational reward bridges are structured systems that provide immediate, positive feedback to teams and individuals who implement better cognitive tools, sustaining motivation until the longer-term organisational benefits emerge. These bridges are critical because organisational benefits often materialise at time scales beyond individual incentive horizons—quarterly bonuses or annual reviews might come and go before the true value of improved decision-making becomes evident.

Effective organisational reward bridges might include:

Recognition rituals: Establishing formal moments of acknowledgment when teams demonstrate the use of designated thinking tools, separate from outcome-based recognition
Process privileges: Granting teams that consistently employ better cognitive frameworks certain organisational privileges, such as increased autonomy or priority access to resources
Cognitive champions: Creating visible roles for individuals who exemplify the use of better thinking tools, with clear status benefits attached
Narrative reinforcement: Regularly sharing stories throughout the organisation that highlight instances where better thinking tools were used, regardless of whether outcomes are yet known
Implementation metrics: Developing and prominently displaying metrics around the adoption of cognitive tools themselves, not just their outcomes
Learning budgets: Allocating resources specifically for teams to experiment with and refine their use of cognitive tools, creating an immediate benefit for adoption

Research on organisational change shows that the most effective reward bridges connect to existing value systems within the organisation rather than attempting to impose entirely new values. For example, if an organisation already values innovation, reward bridges should emphasise how cognitive tools enhance innovative capacity, even before concrete innovation outcomes can be measured.

Critical to organisational reward bridges is their collective nature—they should reinforce group identity and shared progress rather than merely incentivising individual behaviour. When teams experience collective recognition for adopting better thinking approaches, social reinforcement multiplies the effectiveness of the reward bridge.

Start with Microhabits

Rather than organisation-wide rollouts, begin with teams adopting small, consistent applications of better thinking tools in visible ways. When senior folks authentically employs these approaches, it signals their value more effectively than any training programme.

Make Thinking Processes Explicit

Organisations often treat decision-making as an invisible process. By making thinking explicit—documenting assumptions, alternatives considered, and decision criteria—teams create artefacts that can be examined, improved, and learnt from collectively.

Final Thoughts

Organisations, like individuals, must recognise that the most valuable cognitive tools aren’t necessarily the most sophisticated, but the ones actually used consistently. The challenge for leaders isn’t just selecting the right thinking frameworks but creating environments where better thinking can overcome the powerful psychological and cultural forces arrayed against it.

By understanding both the individual and organisational barriers to implementing better cognitive strategies, leaders can design approaches that acknowledge these realities rather than fighting against them. The most successful organisations don’t just know better ways to think—they create systems that make better thinking the path of least resistance.

The concept of reward bridges offers a particularly promising approach for both individuals and organisations struggling with the knowing-doing gap. By deliberately engineering immediate positive feedback for using better cognitive tools, we can harness our inherent psychological biases to serve rather than hinder our long-term interests. The bridge metaphor is apt—these structures don’t eliminate the gap between current effort and future benefit, but they allow us to traverse it without falling into the chasm of abandonment and reversion to habitual thinking.

Toxic Relationships with Ideas: When Our Thoughts Hold Us Hostage

May 14, 2025

Argyris, Article, Collective psyche, Organisational Therapy, Relationships, Toxic behaviours

Leave a comment

Toxic Relationships with Ideas: When Our Thoughts Hold Us Hostage

What Makes a Relationship Toxic?

A toxic relationship is characterised by patterns that damage our wellbeing rather than enhance it. In human relationships, we recognise toxicity through control, manipulation, constant criticism, gaslighting, and emotional drain. The relationship ultimately diminishes rather than enriches us, creating patterns of distress that can be difficult to escape.

But what happens when this same dynamic exists between us and our ideas?

Beyond People: Our Relationship with Ideas

Relationships aren’t limited to connections between humans. We form profound relationships with concepts, beliefs, assumptions and ideas that shape our identity and worldview. These idea-relationships can be nurturing and growth-oriented—or surprisingly toxic.

Just as we can become entangled with harmful people, we can become trapped in destructive relationships with certain thoughts and beliefs. These relationships can manifest at both individual and collective levels.

The Relationship, Not the Idea Itself

Central to this post is that it’s rarely the idea itself that is inherently toxic—rather, it’s our relationship with it. Even powerful, controversial, or challenging ideas can be held in healthy ways. Conversely, seemingly benign ideas can become destructive when our relationship with them turns unhealthy.

For example, the idea that “exercise is beneficial” is generally constructive. However, when someone develops a rigid, all-consuming relationship with this concept—where any deviation from a strict exercise regimen triggers intense self-criticism—the relationship has become toxic. The problem isn’t the core idea but how we relate to it: with flexibility or rigidity, as a guide or as a tyrant.

What transforms a relationship with an idea from healthy to toxic is typically how we hold it: Do we maintain critical distance? Can we consider evidence that challenges it? Is our identity separate from the idea? Does it enhance or constrict our engagement with the world?

Signs of a Toxic Relationship with Ideas

For Individuals

When your relationship with an idea becomes toxic, you might notice:

The idea demands absolute loyalty, rejecting any challenges or modifications
You experience anxiety when the idea is questioned by others
The idea isolates you from people with different perspectives
You find yourself distorting evidence to maintain the idea
The idea prevents personal growth rather than facilitating it

Consider the perfectionist who clings to impossible standards. The relationship with this idea—”I must be flawless”—causes constant suffering, yet the person defends and protects it vigilantly.

For Organisations and Collective Psyches

Organisations and broader societies can develop toxic relationships with ideas too:

The idea becomes untouchable, beyond critique or revision
Resources are disproportionately allocated to defending the idea
The organisation or society rejects members who question the central idea
Decision-making becomes distorted to preserve the idea at all costs
Innovation stagnates as new perspectives are filtered through the dominant idea

Many once-innovative companies have collapsed after becoming trapped in toxic relationships with outdated business philosophies. The organisation’s identity becomes so intertwined with certain ideas that challenging them feels like an existential threat.

Why We Cling to Toxic Ideas

We form attachments to toxic ideas for various reasons:

The idea provides a sense of certainty in an uncertain world
It simplifies complexity into manageable narratives
It connects us to certain social groups or identities
It offers the comfort of “knowing” rather than the discomfort of questioning
The belief that changing one’s mind is reprehensible or disloyal is itself a toxic idea that traps us

This last point creates a particularly vicious cycle. When we’ve internalised the notion that changing our mind signals weakness, inconsistency, or failure, we become locked in defensive patterns that preserve harmful ideas. Our intellectual flexibility atrophies as we build ever more elaborate defences around ideas that may be damaging us.

These attachments can make breaking up with toxic ideas as painful as ending human relationships.

The Power of Epistemic Humility

At the heart of healthier relationships with ideas lies the concept of epistemic humility—the intellectual virtue of recognising the limitations of our knowledge. Epistemic humility acknowledges that what we know is always incomplete, potentially flawed, and subject to revision.

Unlike intellectual arrogance (where we overestimate our understanding) or complete relativism (where all ideas are treated as equally valid), epistemic humility represents a balanced approach that values knowledge while remaining aware of its boundaries.

A person or organisation practising epistemic humility might say, “Based on our current understanding, this approach seems best, but we recognise we could be mistaken and welcome perspectives that might improve our thinking.” This stance fundamentally changes our relationship with ideas from possession to stewardship.

The absence of epistemic humility often marks toxic relationships with ideas. When we believe our understanding is complete and beyond revision, we’ve created the perfect conditions for a toxic attachment to form.

Breaking Free: Building Healthier Relationships with Ideas

Developing healthier relationships with ideas requires:

Creating distance between your identity and your ideas
Practising cognitive flexibility—holding ideas lightly enough to revise them
Cultivating relationships with people who think differently
Regularly examining whether your ideas serve your growth or restrict it
Appreciating that good ideas evolve rather than remain static

The healthiest thinkers and organisations don’t fall in love with their ideas—they fall in love with the process of refining and/or replacing them.

Argyris on Defensive Reasoning

Harvard professor Chris Argyris addressed this challenge in his seminal 1991 Harvard Business Review article “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.” Argyris observed that highly educated professionals often struggle the most with learning from failure and changing their minds. Despite their intelligence—or perhaps because of it—they develop what he called “defensive reasoning” patterns.

Argyris found that when their deeply-held ideas are challenged, these professionals often respond with defensiveness rather than curiosity. They become trapped in what he termed “single-loop learning” (addressing immediate problems) while avoiding “double-loop learning” (questioning underlying assumptions and beliefs).

This work highlights a paradox: those who have built successful careers on their intellectual capabilities often have the most toxic relationships with their ideas. Their very success reinforces attachment to existing mental models and creates what Argyris called a “doom loop”—the better they are at defending their ideas, the worse they become at learning.

Argyris’s research offers a powerful lens for understanding how intellectually capable individuals and organisations can develop toxic relationships with ideas precisely because of their skill at defending those ideas from challenge or revision.

Collective Healing

At a societal level, healing toxic relationships with ideas requires:

Creating spaces for dialogue without identity-threatening criticism
Developing shared values around epistemic humility
Building structures that encourage and reward idea evolution rather than idea protection
Recognising when cultural narratives have become harmful rather than helpful

When communities embrace epistemic humility collectively, they create environments where ideas can be discussed, challenged, and refined without triggering defensive reactions. This shift transforms potentially toxic idea relationships into partnerships that drive growth and innovation.

Conclusion

Our relationships with ideas shape our individual lives and collective futures as profoundly as our relationships with people. By recognising when these relationships become toxic, we can begin the challenging and—in the Zen sense—enlightening process of transformation.

The most liberating thought might be that we are not our ideas. We are the thinkers who can choose which ideas deserve our continued relationship and which need to be let go so that new, more life-giving thoughts can emerge.

By cultivating epistemic humility—both individually and collectively—we create the conditions for healthier relationships with the ideas that shape our world.

The Psychology of Group Overvaluation

May 4, 2025

Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Collective psyche, Delusions, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

Leave a comment

The Psychology of Group Overvaluation

Mountains of Effort, Molehills of Impact

There’s a fascinating psychological phenomenon that occurs when people work together: the tendency to inflate the importance of their collective actions far beyond their actual impact. This “group delusion” isn’t necessarily malicious—it’s a natural byproduct of shared effort and mutual investment. Yet understanding it can help us maintain perspective on what truly matters.

What Is a Delusion?

Before diving deeper, let’s clarify what constitutes a delusion. A delusion is a fixed belief that persists despite contradictory evidence. In clinical psychology, delusions are false beliefs that remain firmly held even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary. In group settings, delusions manifest as collective beliefs about importance, impact, or purpose that persist despite objective evidence suggesting otherwise.

What Constitutes “Objective Evidence”?

When discussing delusions, the concept of “objective evidence” has some significance. Objective evidence refers to information that is:

Verifiable by multiple independent observers: Not just accepted within the group but confirmable by unbiased outsiders
Quantifiable and measurable: Can be expressed in concrete metrics rather than subjective impressions
Consistent across contexts: Holds true regardless of who is observing or when the observation occurs
Falsifiable: Could potentially be proven wrong if contrary evidence existed
Free from emotional investment: Not influenced by how much someone wants it to be true

Objective evidence might include user statistics, financial metrics, documented outcomes, third-party evaluations, or comparative analyses against similar efforts. It contrasts with subjective evidence, which relies on personal feelings, interpretations, or group consensus that can’t be independently verified.

The Psychology of Collective Importance

When people band together around a shared goal, something remarkable happens in our brains. The mere act of collaboration triggers what psychologists call “collective narcissism”—a belief in the group’s exceptional qualities and significance. It’s the organisational equivalent of looking at your own child and thinking they’re destined for greatness.

This phenomenon intensifies in closed environments where members primarily interact with each other, creating an echo chamber of shared beliefs about their mission’s importance. The more time and energy invested, the harder it becomes to objectively assess the value of the output.

Classic Examples of Hills-of-Beans Delusions

Corporate Committee Culture

We’ve all seen it: the task force formed to “revolutionise” company culture that produces a 47-page document read by exactly seven people, then filed away forever. Members spend months crafting the perfect mission statement whilst actual work happens despite, not because of, their efforts.

Hobby Group Overreach

The local tennis club that begins planning an international convention for their 12 members. The community garden committee that develops a 50-page governance document for four raised beds. These aren’t harmful pursuits, but the energy-to-impact ratio becomes comically skewed.

Online Activism Spirals

Virtual communities can be particularly susceptible to importance inflation. A Facebook group with passionate discussions about a hyper-local issue might convince itself it’s orchestrating societal change, when in reality it’s preaching to a choir of 27 people who already agree.

Why Groups Delude Themselves

Social Validation Loop: Members reinforce each other’s sense of importance, creating an insular feedback system where critical outside perspectives are increasingly rare.
Sunk Cost Fallacy: The more time invested, the greater the need to justify that investment by inflating the importance of outcomes.
Measurement Myopia: Groups often measure what’s easiest to count (meeting minutes, documents produced, hours spent) rather than actual impact, such as needs met.
Leadership Investment: Leaders often have the most to gain from maintaining the illusion of importance, as their identity becomes intertwined with the group’s perceived significance.

How to Confirm Beliefs Are Delusional

Identifying delusions requires stepping outside the collective mindset and applying objective analysis:

External Impact Measurement

Seek concrete, quantifiable evidence of the group’s impact outside its own membership. How many people were actually affected? What measurable change occurred? If the only people praising the work are those who created it, be suspicious.

Counterevidence Acceptance Test

Present contradictory evidence and observe the response. Delusional groups will dismiss, rationalise, or outright ignore evidence challenging their perceived importance rather than integrating it into their understanding.

Independent Verification

Ask neutral third parties to evaluate the group’s impact – without priming them with the group’s own assessment. The gap between internal and external perceptions often reveals the degree of delusion.

Proportionality Analysis

Compare resources invested to outcomes produced. If a group spends 100 hours to achieve what could reasonably be accomplished in 10, the excessive effort may be feeding a delusional sense of importance, or vice versa.

Future Relevance Test

Ask: “In five years, what tangible evidence will remain of this work?” Delusional groups often overestimate their long-term impact and historical significance.

The Signs of Hill-of-Beans Delusion

Watch for these warning signs in group dynamics:

Insular Language: The development of jargon and acronyms that exclude outsiders whilst creating false complexity
Meeting Proliferation: When the number of meetings about work exceeds the actual work being done
Documentation Obsession: Producing extensive records of minimal activities
Outsider Dismissal: Quickly discounting any external critique as “not understanding the nuances”
Scope Creep: Mission expanding endlessly whilst concrete deliverables remain elusive

Breaking Free from the Delusion

The antidote to group delusion isn’t cynicism—it’s clarity. Here are practical approaches:

Regular Reality Checks

Implement quarterly “impact audits” where groups must justify their activities with concrete outcomes. What changed? Who benefited? How would the world differ without this effort?

Outsider Perspectives

Deliberately invite fresh eyes to evaluate group activities. Someone with no emotional investment can often spot inefficiencies invisible to insiders.

Resource Consciousness

Ask brutally honest questions about resource allocation. If each hour spent on this activity had a monetary cost, would the ROI justify continued investment?

Deliverable Focus

Shift emphasis from process to outcomes i.e. needs met. What specific, measurable results will this group produce? By when? For whom?

Finding the Sweet Spot

The goal isn’t to eliminate all collective efforts that might seem small in the grand scheme. Many “hills of beans” projects provide valuable learning, community building, or personal satisfaction. The danger lies in mistaking these modest benefits for transformative impact.

The healthiest groups maintain dual awareness: they invest fully in their activities whilst recognising their proportional significance. They take their work seriously without taking themselves too seriously.

Conclusion

Group delusions about importance are remarkably common—and remarkably human. We all want to feel that our collective efforts matter, that our collaborations create something meaningful. The key is maintaining enough perspective to distinguish between genuine impact and the comforting and seductive illusion of importance.

The next time you find yourself in a group project, apply the tests above to gauge whether your collective belief in significance aligns with reality. Sometimes building hills of beans together is exactly the point, as long as we don’t confuse them for mountains.

Folks Matter™: A Human-Centered Approach to Business Success

May 3, 2025

Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Collective psyche, Community, Fellowship, Memeology, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence

Leave a comment

Folks Matter™: A Human-Centered Approach to Business Success

In a business world dominated by metrics, margins, and market share, one fundamental question often gets overlooked: Do folks matter? This post provides a comprehensive answer—not just affirming that yes, folks absolutely do matter, but demonstrating why human relationships form the essential foundation for sustainable business success.

Introduction

Drawing on research from organisations like Gallup and insights from management thinkers like Peter Drucker, we explore how interpersonal connections determine which strategies succeed and which fail, regardless of how brilliant they appear on paper. The Folks Matter™ framework offers a practical approach to business strategy that places relationships at the centre rather than treating them as secondary considerations, showing how this people-centred philosophy translates into tangible competitive advantage.

The 14 Principles of the Folks Matter™ Framework

1. Relationship-Centred Approach

At the core of any successful organisation lies its interpersonal relationships—the connections that enable and energise collaborative work and innovation. The Folks Matter™ approach recognises this fundamental truth, putting meaningful human bonds at the heart of strategic thinking.

True folks-centred organisations transcend simplistic “people first” slogans. They require “having a genuine intention to help each person succeed and find fulfillment at work, along with a disciplined approach to effectively choosing and exhibiting the behaviours appropriate for the individual and the context.”

Research demonstrates this approach drives tangible results. According to Gallup, “teams buzzing with engagement see a 21% boost in profitability,” while companies that excel in developing their people are “1.5 times more likely to be celebrated as pinnacle performers in their industry.”

2. Collective Mindset Awareness

Beneath the surface of every organisation lies an invisible web of assumptions, beliefs, and mental models that profoundly shapes how folks work together. This collective mindset—what Edgar Schein called the “basic underlying assumptions” at the deepest level of organisational culture—determines which strategies succeed and which fail.

The renowned management thinker Peter Drucker understood this dynamic perfectly when he allegedly observed that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” This insight emphasises the futility of brilliant strategies that clash with an organisation’s deeply held beliefs.

When an organisation understands its current cultural paradigm, it can deliberately evolve this mindset to support strategic priorities. Only with this level of cultural consciousness can an organisation ensure its strategy has a genuine chance of success.

3. Change Facilitation Capability

Implementing effective change strategies holds crucial importance, as “some 70% of all organisational change transformations fail, according to McKinsey” while “Gartner begs to differ, with research that shows 50% of organisational change efforts are considered a clear failure.”

Effective change facilitation in a Folks Matter™ organisation includes:

Clear communication about the vision and rationale for change
Involvement of all stakeholders in planning and implementation
Recognition of both emotional and logical aspects of the change process
Systematic approach using proven change models appropriate to the situation
Ongoing reinforcement to prevent reversion to previous patterns

4. Inclusive Stakeholder Approach

Instead of focusing narrowly on shareholders or even just customers, successful Folks Matter™ businesses create value for all the folks in their ecosystem:

Customers receive products and services that genuinely improve their lives
Employees find meaningful work, fair compensation, and opportunities for growth
Suppliers engage in mutually beneficial partnerships that promote innovation
Communities experience positive environmental and social impacts
Shareholders receive sustainable returns that reflect real value creation

Companies like Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s have demonstrated that this inclusive approach creates more resilient businesses with stronger customer loyalty, higher employee engagement, and ultimately better long-term financial performance.

5. Fellowship-Based Collaboration

Organisations that embrace the Folks Matter™ philosophy thrive over the long term by adopting collective approaches to working:

In non-hierarchical organisations, “teams become self-supporting, decision-making is decentralised, and leadership is shared, not imposed from above”
Fellowship models prioritise “shared responsibility, trust, and open communication, fostering an environment conducive to creativity, inclusion, and effective decision-making”
People “communicate directly with each other and are accountable to fellow members of multi-disciplined teams” with guidance emerging organically

6. Joy-Centred Workplace Culture

Folks Matter™ organisations create environments where people find meaning and satisfaction:

As demonstrated at Menlo Innovations, joy can exist as “the core belief of our workplace” that “defines what we do and how we do it”
People find joy in their work “when they feel like they are doing something meaningful” and teams provide “an inspiring vision and clear expectations”
Workplaces focus on creating environments “filled with camaraderie, human energy, creativity, and productivity” rather than fear and ambiguity

7. Systems Thinking Integration

Folks Matter™ organisations view themselves as interconnected systems rather than isolated departments:

Systems thinking examines the circular interconnections that bind enterprise functions into an integrated whole
Decision-makers consider how changes in one area will impact other parts of the organisation
Problems appear holistically rather than in isolation
Teams recognise that optimising individual parts may not optimise the whole system of folks working together

8. Evidence-Based Operations

Effective Folks Matter™ businesses replace gut feelings with measurable insights:

Consistent metrics that track both outcomes for Folks That Matter™ and business performance
Regular review cycles to spot problems early and adjust course
Transparent sharing of key information across the organisation
Testing of major initiatives before full rollout

9. Constraint Recognition and Removal

High-performing Folks Matter™ businesses identify and address the factors limiting their growth:

The Theory of Constraints views systems as a chain limited by its weakest link
Resources focus on identifying and eliminating the current constraint
Once resolved, the team moves to the next constraint in a process of continuous improvement
The core concept holds that “total process throughput can only improve when the constraint improves”

10. Adaptive Team Structures

Rather than traditional department silos, Folks Matter™ organisations create team structures that can adapt quickly:

Small, cross-functional teams with end-to-end responsibility for specific products or customers
Minimal management layers to speed up decision-making
Clear authority for teams to solve problems without constant approvals
Teams organised around customer journeys rather than internal functions

The Peach model provides a practical framework here – pushing decision-making to the edges of the organisation where folks interact directly with customers and markets, rather than concentrating it at headquarters.

11. Focus Management

Successful Folks Matter™ organisations carefully consider which folks and needs to prioritise:

Cost of Focus represents the potential consequences of failing to include all relevant Folks That Matter™
Unlike Cost of Delay which has incremental financial impacts, Cost of Focus often has binary outcomes
Organisations identify which folks hold true critical importance to success, not just those who speak loudest
Teams balance between including too few perspectives (risking rejection) and too many (diffusing focus)

12. Time Value Awareness

Strategic Folks Matter™ organisations understand the financial impact of time:

Cost of delay exists as “a prioritisation framework that helps a business quantify the economic value of completing a project sooner as opposed to later”
Teams calculate the potential revenue or value lost by delaying key initiatives
Projects receive prioritisation based on their economic impact rather than politics or tradition
People develop a sense of urgency around high-impact initiatives

13. Collective Decision Processes

Successful Folks Matter™ organisations adjust their approach based on:

Fast feedback loops from all Folks That Matter™, especially customers and front-line employees
Regular review of industry trends and competitive moves
Willingness to abandon unsuccessful strategies quickly
Learning systems that capture and share successful approaches across all folks

14. Collaborative Innovation Infrastructure

Folks Matter™ companies that consistently create new value build systems for innovation:

Dedicated processes to capture and evaluate new ideas from all folks
Regular testing of small experiments before large investments
Partnerships with outside organisations to access new capabilities
Focus on innovations that benefit multiple groups of Folks That Matter™

Conclusion

The Folks Matter™ approach places human relationships at the centre while balancing the needs of all stakeholders, maintaining flexible structures, evidence-based operations, systems thinking, constraint management, focus awareness, and fellowship-centred collaborative cultures.

As the saying commonly attributed to Peter Drucker reminds us, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” This means that “no matter how well-designed your strategic plan is, it will fall flat unless your team shares the appropriate culture” to implement it successfully. The most successful Folks Matter™ organisations don’t pit culture against strategy but ensure they work in harmony, with each supporting and reinforcing the other.

Insights

What Is Insight, Exactly?

The Benefits of Insight

The Disbenefits of Insight

How to Improve Insight

Collective Insight: Real Phenomenon or Romantic Myth?

The Benefits of Collective Insight

How to Improve Collective Insight

Can AI Be Insightful?

A Final Thought

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Beliefs Are More Important to Us Than Results

The Comfort of Certainty

Historical Echoes

The Modern Manifestation

The Evolutionary Logic

The Hidden Costs

The Occasional Wisdom

Living with the Paradox

Defining the Problem

The Therapeutic Solution

Individual transformation works

Organisational transformation is possible too

Discomfort as necessity, not obstacle

The Species-Level Question

The Eternal Dance

Afterword by Claude

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Team Mind

What Does Team Mind Look Like?

Why This Matters in Software Development

Sir John Whitmore and the GROW Foundation

“We Don’t Have Time for All This”

The Lean Evolution: From Process to Psyche

What Patterns Do Teams Show?

Some Teams:

Other Teams:

How Do Teams Explore This Territory?

What Questions Could You Ask?

What Do You Observe?

How Do Teams Build Collective Intelligence?

What Responses Emerge?

What Practices Work?

Health Sensing Experiments

Weather Metaphors

Overload Protocols

Load Management

Physical Environment

What Ripple Effects Emerge?

How Do You Begin?

The Mind Question Revisited

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Why Developers Keep Quitting

The Organisational Gaslighting That Destroys Tech Teams

What Is Organisational Gaslighting?

The Organisational Psyche Behind the Contradiction

The Crazy-Making Cycle

Stage 1: The Setup

Stage 2: The Contradiction

Stage 3: The Questioning

Stage 4: The Gaslighting Response

Stage 5: The Internalisation

Stage 6: The Exit

The Cost

The Collective Assumptions and Beliefs of ‘Developer as Problem’

The Therapeutic Intervention Required

Congruence

Unconditional Positive Regard

Empathy

Signs Your Organisation Needs Therapeutic Intervention

The Path Forward

Conclusion

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Why I’m Proud to Be ‘Intimidating’

On Shaking Mental Models

The Comfort of Conventional Wisdom