June 2, 2025 • 11 mins
Counterfactual thinking explores alternative historical outcomes by questioning what might have occurred if events had unfolded differently. Historians use this method when scenarios are plausible and impactful. Organizations often aim for machine-like predictability, but real-world complexities require flexibility. Modern organizations resemble living organisms, demanding adaptive management, contrasting with rigid, machine-like control.
#counterfactualthinking, #history, #adaptivemanagement, #organization, #complexity, #flexibility, #alternativeoutcomes
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Colig Experience podcast episode. Get ready to delve into bold insights, experimentation
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're exploring the fascinating world
of counterfactuality, examining how alternative historical paths could reshape our approach
to organisational frameworks. We'll uncover why embracing flexibility over rigid,
predictability is crucial for modern success. Let's dive in.
(00:35):
Counterfactuality, or what we might call alternative reality thinking, deals with the
fundamental question of what would have happened if the facts as they occurred had not unfolded in
exactly the same way. This concept has expressions across various fields of study, with history
being one of the most prominent examples. It turns out that there are historians,
(00:58):
even those considered extremely serious in their field, who ask what if questions. Now you might
ask, quite reasonably, whether something like Tarantino's inglorious bastards counts as historical
research of this type. Those same historians would tell you that counterfactuality has a place in
(01:19):
academic research only when it remains at a small and possible distance from the actual story.
For instance, what would have happened if the British had not succeeded in rescuing their forces
at Dunkirk? What would have happened if the Germans had conquered Stalingrad? These are
considered scenarios that had a very reasonable possibility of occurring. In other words,
(01:43):
counterfactual story to be interesting from a historical perspective. Two conditions must
be met. There must be a junction where the distance between one possibility and another is
very small, and the development of history from that point must be significant. If we think about it,
we perform this mental exercise all the time. Consider a historical junction related to a
(02:09):
very current event. Since October 7th, there have been quite a few voices in public discourse
claiming that if not for the 2005 disengagement or the 1993 Oslo Accords, this disaster would not
have occurred. It doesn't matter what your position is on this issue. That's not the point here.
(02:30):
The possibility that there would be no disengagement is quite reasonable. It did happen,
but it certainly was reasonable that it might not have occurred. In other words,
there was a historical junction here, but here comes the interesting part. In reality,
there was a disengagement, so in this path we can relatively easily investigate what led to what.
(02:53):
But what would have happened if we had chosen the other path? What would have happened without the
disengagement? Here we tend to make a logical fallacy. We assume that the reality that existed
before the disengagement, which we know, would have continued as it was. So essentially, we're
making a comparison between the current reality and a reality that existed 20 years ago. What would
(03:19):
have happened in the Gaza Strip without the disengagement? It's hard to know. Perhaps reality
would have developed in such a way that the disaster would have been prevented. Perhaps not.
Maybe it would have been better. But maybe not. It's hard to know. To know, we would need counterfactual
historical investigation. But we must not make the logical fallacy that assumes if we had chosen a
(03:45):
different path at the junction, then what existed before the junction would have continued after
it as well. Why do we make this logical fallacy, and how does all this relate to our organizational
framework? Regarding the first question, why we make this logical fallacy, the answer is that it's
easy. We know what the situation was before. We know what the situation was after. So we make
(04:13):
a comparison between two familiar realities. But it's not just that. There's something deeper,
in our opinion, in our tendency to assume foundational assumptions of this type.
This tendency expresses an aspiration for an ordered world. A world with clear cause and effect.
(04:33):
A distinct connection between action and result. Why do we love order? Because it connects with
control for us. If the world is ordered, meaning there's a distinct connection between action and
result, we can plan the future. We can know with a high level of certainty what will be.
We love certainty. We love control. Therefore, despite the fact that a significant portion
(04:58):
of our plans don't materialize, we very much love to plan the future. Ask managers, and you'll hear
that their wish is to see the organization operating in perfect coordination, like a well-oiled machine.
This is the classic and most popular organizational analogy. A well-oiled machine.
(05:20):
A machine that, given the input it receives, allows us to know with certainty the output it will
produce. This image sketches the conception of a good organization. A good organization is one that
enables complete control over its products and the relationship between inputs and outputs.
In such an organization, there's an order that dictates the flow of materials and information
(05:46):
between different units and between employees. Order is not only the aspiration of the organization
and its managers, but it is the very definition of the organization itself.
Organized as its name suggests. In any case of deviation from order, meaning every time the
(06:07):
results of activity in the organization differ from expectations, this is a fundamental deviation
from the idea of being an organization. If you will, it's an organizational sin. Hence,
the role of managers is to be gatekeepers. Their job is to ensure that all components in the system
adhere to the predetermined system of rules. In our consulting work with a major telecommunications
(06:33):
infrastructure company, we witnessed this machine thinking firsthand. The leadership team had spent
months developing detailed project timelines for rolling out fiber optic networks across
rural communities. Every step was mapped, every dependency identified, every resource allocated
(06:54):
with precision. When external factors, unexpected environmental regulations, supply chain disruptions
and community resistance derailed their carefully orchestrated plan, management's immediate response
was to double down on control mechanisms. They added more checkpoints, more approval layers,
more detailed reporting requirements. The irony was that their pursuit of machine-like predictability
(07:20):
actually slowed progress and frustrated field teams who needed flexibility to navigate real
world complexities. Similarly, we worked with a large communication agency that had developed
what they called their content production machine. They had systematized every aspect of
campaign development from initial brainstorming through final delivery with predetermined timelines
(07:45):
and standardized processes. When a major client requested significant creative pivots mid-campaign
due to shifting market conditions, the agency's rigid system couldn't adapt. The result was
mis-deadlines, frustrated creatives and ultimately a lost client relationship.
(08:06):
The pursuit of machine-like efficiency had eliminated the very flexibility that makes
creative work valuable. In parentheses, we should note that this is where the motivation to constantly
learn from the past comes from, to be a learning organization. If there's something that drives
us crazy, it's those long, tedious, lessons learned sessions that, let's be honest, don't produce much.
(08:34):
We simply assume that if we know how to break down the process into its components and find
failures in them, we can fix them and run the process again with much greater success.
To this, all we have left to say is, come on, really. But the analogy between a human organization
and a machine hasn't been relevant for many years. Why? Because a machine, once you've designed it to
(09:01):
do something, will continue to do it without intervention indefinitely. The plan according
to which it was designed dictates the order of operations between its parts. The machine's parts
have no preferences or desires or aspirations of their own about how to operate. If the designer
(09:21):
did a good job, the machine will work without problems. Organizations, on the other hand,
are based on human beings who are somewhat less convenient creatures for operating according
to a dictated plan, especially in our times. The fact that a manager has planned a certain order
(09:42):
according to which the organization will operate doesn't guarantee that the different parts,
the employees, will actually implement this plan exactly as written. And indeed, as you know very
well, most organizations have a tendency to deviate from order, and what sometimes brings them back
is the control and oversight mechanisms of the managers. The more complex the reality,
(10:07):
the less ordered the organization becomes, and more control is required to return it to order.
Control and oversight are not necessarily bad things, but it's important to be aware of the
price the organization pays to maintain good order. Sometimes control and oversight are what's
needed for the organization to succeed. But sometimes they're just a remnant, left over from a time
(10:34):
when organizations were truly similar to machines. Modern organizations are more similar to living
organisms than to machines. Continuing to try to manage them like machines is a bit like trying
to train a cat. And that wraps up today's podcast, where we explored counterfactual thinking and
(10:56):
how organizations can benefit from embracing flexibility over rigid machine-like structures.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights. Stay tuned for more updates.
Welcome to the Colig Experience podcast episode. Get ready to delve into bold insights, experimentation
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're exploring the fascinating world
of counterfactuality, examining how alternative historical paths could reshape our approach
to organisational frameworks. We'll uncover why embracing flexibility over rigid,
predictability is crucial for modern success. Let's dive in.
(00:35):
Counterfactuality, or what we might call alternative reality thinking, deals with the
fundamental question of what would have happened if the facts as they occurred had not unfolded in
exactly the same way. This concept has expressions across various fields of study, with history
being one of the most prominent examples. It turns out that there are historians,
(00:58):
even those considered extremely serious in their field, who ask what if questions. Now you might
ask, quite reasonably, whether something like Tarantino's inglorious bastards counts as historical
research of this type. Those same historians would tell you that counterfactuality has a place in
(01:19):
academic research only when it remains at a small and possible distance from the actual story.
For instance, what would have happened if the British had not succeeded in rescuing their forces
at Dunkirk? What would have happened if the Germans had conquered Stalingrad? These are
considered scenarios that had a very reasonable possibility of occurring. In other words,
(01:43):
counterfactual story to be interesting from a historical perspective. Two conditions must
be met. There must be a junction where the distance between one possibility and another is
very small, and the development of history from that point must be significant. If we think about it,
we perform this mental exercise all the time. Consider a historical junction related to a
(02:09):
very current event. Since October 7th, there have been quite a few voices in public discourse
claiming that if not for the 2005 disengagement or the 1993 Oslo Accords, this disaster would not
have occurred. It doesn't matter what your position is on this issue. That's not the point here.
(02:30):
The possibility that there would be no disengagement is quite reasonable. It did happen,
but it certainly was reasonable that it might not have occurred. In other words,
there was a historical junction here, but here comes the interesting part. In reality,
there was a disengagement, so in this path we can relatively easily investigate what led to what.
(02:53):
But what would have happened if we had chosen the other path? What would have happened without the
disengagement? Here we tend to make a logical fallacy. We assume that the reality that existed
before the disengagement, which we know, would have continued as it was. So essentially, we're
making a comparison between the current reality and a reality that existed 20 years ago. What would
(03:19):
have happened in the Gaza Strip without the disengagement? It's hard to know. Perhaps reality
would have developed in such a way that the disaster would have been prevented. Perhaps not.
Maybe it would have been better. But maybe not. It's hard to know. To know, we would need counterfactual
historical investigation. But we must not make the logical fallacy that assumes if we had chosen a
(03:45):
different path at the junction, then what existed before the junction would have continued after
it as well. Why do we make this logical fallacy, and how does all this relate to our organizational
framework? Regarding the first question, why we make this logical fallacy, the answer is that it's
easy. We know what the situation was before. We know what the situation was after. So we make
(04:13):
a comparison between two familiar realities. But it's not just that. There's something deeper,
in our opinion, in our tendency to assume foundational assumptions of this type.
This tendency expresses an aspiration for an ordered world. A world with clear cause and effect.
(04:33):
A distinct connection between action and result. Why do we love order? Because it connects with
control for us. If the world is ordered, meaning there's a distinct connection between action and
result, we can plan the future. We can know with a high level of certainty what will be.
We love certainty. We love control. Therefore, despite the fact that a significant portion
(04:58):
of our plans don't materialize, we very much love to plan the future. Ask managers, and you'll hear
that their wish is to see the organization operating in perfect coordination, like a well-oiled machine.
This is the classic and most popular organizational analogy. A well-oiled machine.
(05:20):
A machine that, given the input it receives, allows us to know with certainty the output it will
produce. This image sketches the conception of a good organization. A good organization is one that
enables complete control over its products and the relationship between inputs and outputs.
In such an organization, there's an order that dictates the flow of materials and information
(05:46):
between different units and between employees. Order is not only the aspiration of the organization
and its managers, but it is the very definition of the organization itself.
Organized as its name suggests. In any case of deviation from order, meaning every time the
(06:07):
results of activity in the organization differ from expectations, this is a fundamental deviation
from the idea of being an organization. If you will, it's an organizational sin. Hence,
the role of managers is to be gatekeepers. Their job is to ensure that all components in the system
adhere to the predetermined system of rules. In our consulting work with a major telecommunications
(06:33):
infrastructure company, we witnessed this machine thinking firsthand. The leadership team had spent
months developing detailed project timelines for rolling out fiber optic networks across
rural communities. Every step was mapped, every dependency identified, every resource allocated
(06:54):
with precision. When external factors, unexpected environmental regulations, supply chain disruptions
and community resistance derailed their carefully orchestrated plan, management's immediate response
was to double down on control mechanisms. They added more checkpoints, more approval layers,
more detailed reporting requirements. The irony was that their pursuit of machine-like predictability
(07:20):
actually slowed progress and frustrated field teams who needed flexibility to navigate real
world complexities. Similarly, we worked with a large communication agency that had developed
what they called their content production machine. They had systematized every aspect of
campaign development from initial brainstorming through final delivery with predetermined timelines
(07:45):
and standardized processes. When a major client requested significant creative pivots mid-campaign
due to shifting market conditions, the agency's rigid system couldn't adapt. The result was
mis-deadlines, frustrated creatives and ultimately a lost client relationship.
(08:06):
The pursuit of machine-like efficiency had eliminated the very flexibility that makes
creative work valuable. In parentheses, we should note that this is where the motivation to constantly
learn from the past comes from, to be a learning organization. If there's something that drives
us crazy, it's those long, tedious, lessons learned sessions that, let's be honest, don't produce much.
(08:34):
We simply assume that if we know how to break down the process into its components and find
failures in them, we can fix them and run the process again with much greater success.
To this, all we have left to say is, come on, really. But the analogy between a human organization
and a machine hasn't been relevant for many years. Why? Because a machine, once you've designed it to
(09:01):
do something, will continue to do it without intervention indefinitely. The plan according
to which it was designed dictates the order of operations between its parts. The machine's parts
have no preferences or desires or aspirations of their own about how to operate. If the designer
(09:21):
did a good job, the machine will work without problems. Organizations, on the other hand,
are based on human beings who are somewhat less convenient creatures for operating according
to a dictated plan, especially in our times. The fact that a manager has planned a certain order
(09:42):
according to which the organization will operate doesn't guarantee that the different parts,
the employees, will actually implement this plan exactly as written. And indeed, as you know very
well, most organizations have a tendency to deviate from order, and what sometimes brings them back
is the control and oversight mechanisms of the managers. The more complex the reality,
(10:07):
the less ordered the organization becomes, and more control is required to return it to order.
Control and oversight are not necessarily bad things, but it's important to be aware of the
price the organization pays to maintain good order. Sometimes control and oversight are what's
needed for the organization to succeed. But sometimes they're just a remnant, left over from a time
(10:34):
when organizations were truly similar to machines. Modern organizations are more similar to living
organisms than to machines. Continuing to try to manage them like machines is a bit like trying
to train a cat. And that wraps up today's podcast, where we explored counterfactual thinking and
(10:56):
how organizations can benefit from embracing flexibility over rigid machine-like structures.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues,
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights. Stay tuned for more updates.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!