In the case of a complicated system, the outcomes or perspectives reside at varying distance from the bullseye. They are close to other outcomes or perspectives (complementing one another) or at opposites sides of the target (contradicting one another). Items on the target might be compatible or incompatible with one another. Initially, there might even be a sense of win/lose: one outcome can’t be achieved if another is achieved. There is only one “correct” perspective. There can’t be two differing perspectives that are both valid.
There is another important issue regarding targets that should be noted. Daniel Kahneman and his two colleagues, Olivier Sibony and Cass Sustein (2021) write about the distinction between Bias and Noise. They begin with a story about assessing the success of someone shooting arrows into a target. One desirable outcome would be for all the arrows to hit the target in the same area. When this occurs, we can applaud the consistency of the archer. Another outcome would be for the arrows to arrive all over the target. Typically, we devalue this outcome. The archer has not been consistent in directing arrows toward the target.
Kahneman, Sibony and Sustein suggest that these assessments of success must be questioned. The first outcome indicates only that there is consistency—not that the arrows have arrived at or near the bullseye. The arrows could cluster at some point at quite a distance from the bullseye. This placement would reveal a BIAS. Conversely, arrows arriving at many places on the target reveal NOISE. These authors suggest that these are quite different flaws in the performance of the archer—and that both Noise and Bias are to be found frequently in the judgements made by most of us.
Several things come to mind when we apply the Lens of Essence to our portrayal of the target. First, the Lens of Diverse Essence usually must be deployed. It is a matter of understanding and appreciating the full landscape of the items to be found on the target. A portrait can be drawn when there is only one item on the target that resides at the heart (bullseye) of the target. The richly populated target requires the rendering of a landscape. The target, taken as a whole, is the Essence. It doesn’t have to be distilled, simplified or altered to make everything simple and tidy. A Lens of Singularity is not appropriate.
Second, the image of a target brings to mind the interdependence of specific endeavors (arrows). While the arrows might have been shot for specific independent purposes, they all eventually end up together on the target. Some of the arrows may land near one another while others may land on opposite sides of the target. This is similarly the case in our real world. When viewed in a systemic, holistic manner, all of the priorities we face when arriving at a decision and all of our initiatives (endeavors) relate in some way to one another. If nothing else, there is a zero-sum relationship between two priorities: when we attend to one then the other one must languish. More often, the achievement of goals related to one endeavor will have some impact on the achievement of goals related to another endeavor. As I noted in one of the essays on Essentials, the success of some projects enables others to also be successful (or at least increases the chances that they will be successful). Essential enablement and Essence-based integration are closely related. As we increase the opportunity for enablement, we bring the arrows closer together and increase the potential for integration of seemingly disparate priorities and endeavors.
Download Article 1K Club
