Same Words, Different Worlds
Why the biggest barriers to change might be invisible patterns, not broken parts
Hello Wayfinders 👋
Today I’m exploring the subtle forces that shape our experience of change - the patterns we don’t always see…
One of the most useful shifts I’ve made in my practice - and one of the hardest to explain - is learning to see systems, not in the abstract, but in the everyday.
Early in my career, I was trained to analyse. Break down the problem. Focus on the parts. Identify the fix. This analytical mindset is still the default in many situations and it’s not wrong. It’s just incomplete.
Over time, I noticed a recurring pattern: the same issues persisted across different teams, industries, and even sectors. Burnout here, disengagement there. Miscommunication, mistrust, resistance to change.
Different actors, same play.
That’s when I started wondering — what’s underneath all this?
That’s the move from seeing parts to seeing patterns.
Patterns are how systems reveal themselves. They show up in how decisions are made, who speaks and who doesn’t, what gets rewarded, what gets ignored, and where tensions show up again and again. They’re often invisible until we step back and notice what keeps happening and where.
It’s these patterns, not just the parts, that need to shift if we are to move toward a cohesive and compelling shared vision and create change. Systems thinking helps us see where energy is stuck or scattered and how we might loosen it, align it, and invite it toward something new.
I recently worked with an organisation planning for change. They’re doing all the right things: seeking to understand the values, identities, and histories that shape their different parts - board, staff, funders, stakeholders. They’re mapping the governance model, rethinking resourcing, and analysing engagement processes.
But the lens is still mostly parts-focused. The hope is: if we understand each part deeply enough, we’ll know how to align them. Create a vision. Make change happen.
The risk in this approach is that it leads to false alignment - a sense that everyone is on the same page, when in fact they’re working from different assumptions, incentives, or timeframes. You could spend months refining the parts without ever addressing the patterns that are quietly pulling things apart.
What happens then?
Change efforts stall. Trust erodes. Motivation is lost. People burn out. Not because of poor intentions but because the system hasn’t been seen and understood clearly enough to shift things.
Change doesn’t just emerge from understanding the parts, it comes from recognising the patterns between them.
It’s subtle, but profound. And once you start seeing patterns, you can’t unsee them.
What is the system trying to tell us about itself?
Seeing patterns means asking different questions, not “How do we get these parts to work together?” but “What’s already shaping how they relate? And how might we intervene there?”
You might ask…
Where is trust fragile?
Do people nod in agreement in meetings but hesitate to speak up elsewhere?
Are decisions being made behind closed doors or second-guessed after the fact?
Fragile trust often shows up as politeness on the surface and disengagement underneath.
Where are people using the exact same words but their understanding is different?
When someone says “impact,” are they talking about numbers? Stories? Relationships? Or something else?
When a team agrees to “collaborate,” do they mean joint decision-making, shared delivery, or just keeping each other informed?
Shared language can mask very different expectations, which often come to light only when something goes wrong.
Where are invisible expectations shaping behaviour more than stated strategy?
A strategy might say “experiment and learn,” but the culture rewards playing it safe.
People follow the real signals, not the written ones, especially when jobs, funding, or reputation are on the line.
Where are tensions arising? Why?
Are there competing external pressures or conflicting needs? Is one group funded to reduce risk, while another is told to “be innovative?”
Both are doing their job, but without clarity and coordination, their work can quietly undermine each other.
What assumptions are guiding decisions, and are they shared or just assumed?
Is everyone assuming ‘we must grow,’ ‘we must include everyone,’ or ‘we should move fast,’ without saying it out loud?
Unspoken assumptions are some of the most powerful forces in a system and the hardest to question.
Sometimes what looks like disagreement is really a clash of mental models - different ways of seeing the work, the purpose, or the path forward. Left unspoken, these differences shape priorities, processes, and power. They’re part of the system too.
Next week, I’ll dig further into mental models, as they are one of hidden forces that shape the patterns in a system. They are the beliefs and assumptions that determine what we notice in the first place.
Until then, here’s to zooming out, staying curious, and letting the system speak 😊
Onwards and upwards,
This week’s fun stuff:
I’m listening to: Whatever my Spotify DJ serves up. There’s been a bit of Sabrina Carpenter, some Peach Pit, some INXS and the occasional Eminem 🤷♀️
I’m reading: Board papers for my new gig as Chair of the Ballarat Foundation #learningcurve
I’m loving: Chat GPT. Doing everything I’ve always done - just faster 💯