Be careful what you call this

I was in Los Angeles recently when the riots were going on.

The headlines reflect a tension between different world views. ICE operations and community responses are once again being framed in drastically different ways.

Depending on your perspective, it’s about enforcing immigration law. Or protecting vulnerable communities. Or balancing state and federal authority.

We see the same images and have different interpretations simply because of world views and the language used to describe them.

That’s one of the core challenges in complexity: the very name we give a problem pre-determines the path we take to resolve it.

Naming is Framing

If productivity drops, is it a "process problem," a "morale issue," or a "leadership gap?" Each label sends you down a different path with a different solution.

Even walking out of a meeting, we often hold different interpretations of what was agreed.

The point isn’t which one is “correct.” The point is that in complexity, there’s rarely one answer, and each alternate framing unlocks a different course of action.

Interestingly, I used a reference to the 1992 LA riots to make this point in The Complex Project Toolkit.

Back then, the events sparked completely different stories depending on who you asked. For some, it was a breakdown of law and order. For others, a long-overdue reaction to injustice.

The naming mattered. Because what you called it shaped what you thought needed to be done.

When Rittel and Webber defined the ten traits of wicked problems in 1973, the ninth was “The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution”. Basically, the way we name a problem bounds the solution, so the focus has to be on naming it well.

Working with Multiple Worldviews

In any complex environment, be it a public crisis, a large-scale transformation, or a messy internal change, there are always competing interpretations. Trying to force a single viewpoint can escalate tension or cause you to overlook critical aspects.

Instead, consider these strategies:

1. Surface the frames: Don't assume you know how others define the problem. Actively ask different stakeholders for their perspectives.

2. Hold multiple truths: As Niels Bohr is attributed to saying, "The opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth". Embrace the validity of different viewpoints.

3. Delay naming: Labelling something too soon can prematurely narrow down your potential solution space. Give room for exploration.

4. Move forward: Even if you don't share the same language or understanding, you can often find common ground in learning from action.

A Question of Perspective

This week has been a timely reminder: when things feel tense, it’s often not just about the issue, it’s the stories we tell ourselves about it.

So, ask yourself:

• What story is currently being told here?

• Whose viewpoints are we missing, and how do they differ?

• What might change if we renamed the problem?

In complexity, clarity doesn't come from control. It emerges from a commitment to listening, a willingness to learn, and the courage to embrace multiple truths.