'To understand is to perceive patterns.'
Isaiah Berlin
'Creativity involves breaking out of established patterns in order to look at things in a different way.'
Edward de Bono
Isaiah Berlin
'Creativity involves breaking out of established patterns in order to look at things in a different way.'
Edward de Bono
Patterning involves the ability to perceive an underlying repetition, or recurrent behaviors, image, or situation, and to be able to apply these patterns in a useful way to new conditions.
In history there is the cliché, “Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” It’s a cliché for a reason: its true. There are patterns in history, and if we don’t study them, or be aware of them, we will often repeat failed decisions (invading Afghanistan.) Being aware that there are patterns, and looking to draw connections between seemingly unrelated historical events, can be a great tool for learners in understanding an event or situation more deeply and in its historical context. At the same time, however, we must be careful not to draw connections between situations that ‘seem’ similar but actually are very different, anomalous to ‘seeing something out of nothing’ (the Communist revolutions of the 50s and 60s.) Yet because we are dealing with people and their own histories and beliefs, perspectives can be highly subjective, and so may seem to be difficult to find explicit patterns or ‘rules.’ Many leaders, consumed by their hubris, believe ‘they know better’ or ‘this time will be different,’ or ‘things have changed,’ and continue to make the same mistakes as others before them. So another pattern emerges: leaders making the same mistakes as their predecessors.
Now it may sound contradictory to say history repeats itself, whereas each situation is different. What we are talking about is that the details may be different, but the themes, the stories are the same. And this brings us to common patterns in the decision making process. These common decision making patterns satisfy our need for order, for logical decisions, and in the case of leaders, for an easily explainable decision making process. Each step is simple, but together it brings together a complex pattern. For example, a fairly simplified decision tree:
A problem has been identified; alternative solutions have been developed based on objectives (criteria); these solutions are evaluated based on expected results and how they meet our criteria; and a solution (decision) is reached. One aspect that has been left out is the feedback loop, where the selected solution is evaluated for its effectiveness, and if found wanting, alternative solutions are revisited. Following is a slightly more complex one, incorporating decision-making criteria and the feedback loop at the end:
But herein lies the dilemma: in most situations, we are dealing with rapidly changing situations, using incomplete or even inaccurate information (think about Saddam’s chemical weapons,) and being forced to make decisions based on that information. Even defining the problem can become problematic. As Ross-Bernstein points out, ‘knowing what you don’t know, knowing the pattern of ignorance, can be as valuable as what you do know,’ but we must be able to recognize and acknowledge our ignorance. In these situations, our ‘patterning’ activities will be even more influenced by our perception - our goals, evaluation criteria, and solution all stem from our thoughts, feelings, beliefs and experiences toward a certain subject. So we will be forced to constantly update and revise our thinking. As useful as these above decision models may be, they may be impractical as there are too many variables at play, so many decisions end up being made by a ‘gut feeling.’
How do we repattern? Well, the first step may be to not look at situations in such a logical, linear pattern. We can visualize the decision making process as more of a ‘cloud, ’ constantly shifting and changing, or a loop. This could be represented in a circular pattern, where ideas and solutions are in motion, forcing constant reassessment. Some examples of this type of thinking follow:
How do we repattern? Well, the first step may be to not look at situations in such a logical, linear pattern. We can visualize the decision making process as more of a ‘cloud, ’ constantly shifting and changing, or a loop. This could be represented in a circular pattern, where ideas and solutions are in motion, forcing constant reassessment. Some examples of this type of thinking follow:
The first diagram above shows the cycle as a continuous loop, while the second shows a loop with continuous feedback cycles during the process (I am reminded of ‘Figure Descending A Staircase’ by Richer and Deschamp’s ‘Nude Descending a Staircase’, demonstrating movement forward but overlapping with the preceding movement.)
One other interesting idea from ‘Sparks of Genius’ was of not looking on the ‘X, Y, Z axis’ of linear thinking but Buckminster Fuller’s tetrahedral paradigm, that there are additional dimensions to an issue;
The image also comes to mind in the old conception of the atom, with a nucleus (the problem) and electrons swirling around it (the decision variables.) The atom analogy works particularly well, as with the differing atomic weights of each element, each decision poses differing numbers of variables (as well as the weight of the decision.)
However, this type of circular and ever shifting process, with its uncertainty, may not sit well with our rational minds and our need to explain ourselves especially with the media or public. And ultimately, some decision has to be made (as in #6 in the final diagram above,) because to get caught in an endless feedback loop creates the impression of indecision, delay, and incompetence. As Truman put it, ‘The buck stops here,’ and all leaders need to make ‘A’ decision.