Intervention Methodology
Summary ‘Messy Problems: Practical interventions for
working through complexity, uncertainty and conflict’
Chapter 1 – The nature of messy problems
A basic definition of a problem is a discrepancy between the perceived and desired situation or
development. Indeed the interconnectedness between different aspects of the situation, its
systemicity, is one property of messy problems that makes them particularly challenging to manage.
Messy problems also exhibit high levels of uncertainty.
1.1 The challenges of tackling messy problems
To increase the chances of alleviating a messy situation, involving key stakeholders is paramount.
Yet, involving key stakeholders is in itself a challenge for several reasons:
1. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives that lead to partial and biased
interpretations of, and response to, the situation. Multiple perspectives typically arise due to
difference in stakeholders’ domain expertise, working practices and affiliations.
2. Stakeholders may have different goals and interests, which can result in conflict. So, although
stakeholders in a messy situation depend on one another to make progress, they at the same
time look for ways to advance their own agendas.
3. The parties involved may have different power sources to deal with the situation.
To summarize, in messy situations there are a number of interacting problems which involve
stakeholders whose unanticipated responses make it difficult to choose where to focus change
efforts.
1.2 Individual approach to messy problems
Individuals faced with the task of tackling a messy situation must define the situation in such a
way that a solution can be identified and justified. Defining the situation involves articulating
what makes the situation as it is and how it affects the achievement of goals. In order to make
sense of complex situations, individuals use a number of mental strategies. One is to use a
‘frame’ to understand what is going on. Frames are structures ways of thinking that simplify and
guide our understanding of reality. The problem is not that the frames are wrong per se, but that
each is partial. Both framing and anchoring and adjustment are examples of heuristics, or rules of
thumb, that individuals use to make sense of situations. The purpose of heuristics is to reduce the
effort of processing information when solving problems or making decisions. Psychologists have
discovered that heuristics are drawn from a mental structure, known as System 1, based on well-
learned, partially unconscious, parallel processing of information. Another system is System 1,
this structure uses serial processes and is better able to check the soundness of a line of
argumentation and arrive at novel conclusions. Thus the actions we take to tackle situations
follow logically from how we frame the situation. After becoming aware of our frame, the second
step is to recognize any mismatch between frame and situation. If there is a mismatch, step three
is to find or build a better frame. This involves switching to more effortful processing of
information, using System 2.
1.3 Group approach to messy problems
The expected benefit of bringing people from different organizations together is that the
differences in group members’ views, interests, and knowledge about the problem would
become a valuable asset, enabling them to developed a shared understanding of the problem
, before they reach agreement on how to act. In this way, a group is able to make progress which
could have not been possible by any group member working alone. An example of the latter is a
situation known as groupthink. In this situation there is already a preferred course of action,
which becomes the group norm that nobody wants to question. Having the elephant in the room
is another example. To an outsider, it seems as if the group carefully avoids certain topics
although these stand out as important to the task at hand. Thus, deep processing of information
is essential to tackle complex problems. To put it differently, whilst group members need one
another to identify and implement ways to tackle the problem at hand, their remit and
specialization pull them in different directions due to differences in perspectives and interests.
How does this work in groups? One consequence is that if emotions run high, stress will focus
attention to the best learned routines, ignoring all other aspects. In extreme stress, finding a
good solution is replaced by attempting to win the argument. Group processes involving stress,
shared responsibilities, group norms, roles and communication add to the complexity of decisions
over and above individual heuristics and biases.
Chapter 2 – Intervening in messy problems
2.1 Out with the old, or the limited effectiveness of traditional decision making processes
Nutt found that persuasion and edicts often fail because they do not manage the political and social
aspects of decision making. Stakeholders suddenly find out that a new policy will touch upon their
interests and they have not been heard in the process of formulating the policy. Benchmarking and
participation tactics are more likely to result in success. Benchmarking is the most successful tactic
and is based on the idea that the reason for taking action should be known and accepted by all
concerned. Nutt (2002) distinguishes four types of participation.
1. Comprehensive participation Stakeholders are fully involved and have full responsibility over
solution development.
2. Complete participation This involves all interest parties but they have a more limited role in
formulating conclusions.
3. Delegated participation This is the opposite and comes down to selecting specific stakeholders
who then make the full decision.
4. Token participation This limits both the number of parties involved as well as their say over
solutions.
When participation in decision making is increased, and leaders show genuine consideration of the
input of stakeholder inputs, those involved experience the process to be fair, have greater
commitment to the decision and develop trust among themselves and in the leader. This is known as
procedural justice.
2.2 In with the new, or alternatives which may work better
Procedures to improve processes of any kind are referred to as interventions. We reserve the term
intervention for designed activities carried out with groups, in order to help achieve certain
organisational outcomes. Interventions in short are procedures that aim to help a group achieve its
goals. They represent opportunities for entering ‘into an ongoing system of relationship, to come
between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them’. Tools as SWOT,
balanced scorecards and core competences have two relevant observations related to messy
problems. First, while being relatively clear on what content is aimed for, these tools do not provide
much guidance with regard to process. Second, these approaches have been developed without
taking into account some of the key features of messy problems. Another set of methods has been
created with messy problems in mind and offers guidelines for content as well as process. Four
groups of methods can be identified:
Summary ‘Messy Problems: Practical interventions for
working through complexity, uncertainty and conflict’
Chapter 1 – The nature of messy problems
A basic definition of a problem is a discrepancy between the perceived and desired situation or
development. Indeed the interconnectedness between different aspects of the situation, its
systemicity, is one property of messy problems that makes them particularly challenging to manage.
Messy problems also exhibit high levels of uncertainty.
1.1 The challenges of tackling messy problems
To increase the chances of alleviating a messy situation, involving key stakeholders is paramount.
Yet, involving key stakeholders is in itself a challenge for several reasons:
1. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives that lead to partial and biased
interpretations of, and response to, the situation. Multiple perspectives typically arise due to
difference in stakeholders’ domain expertise, working practices and affiliations.
2. Stakeholders may have different goals and interests, which can result in conflict. So, although
stakeholders in a messy situation depend on one another to make progress, they at the same
time look for ways to advance their own agendas.
3. The parties involved may have different power sources to deal with the situation.
To summarize, in messy situations there are a number of interacting problems which involve
stakeholders whose unanticipated responses make it difficult to choose where to focus change
efforts.
1.2 Individual approach to messy problems
Individuals faced with the task of tackling a messy situation must define the situation in such a
way that a solution can be identified and justified. Defining the situation involves articulating
what makes the situation as it is and how it affects the achievement of goals. In order to make
sense of complex situations, individuals use a number of mental strategies. One is to use a
‘frame’ to understand what is going on. Frames are structures ways of thinking that simplify and
guide our understanding of reality. The problem is not that the frames are wrong per se, but that
each is partial. Both framing and anchoring and adjustment are examples of heuristics, or rules of
thumb, that individuals use to make sense of situations. The purpose of heuristics is to reduce the
effort of processing information when solving problems or making decisions. Psychologists have
discovered that heuristics are drawn from a mental structure, known as System 1, based on well-
learned, partially unconscious, parallel processing of information. Another system is System 1,
this structure uses serial processes and is better able to check the soundness of a line of
argumentation and arrive at novel conclusions. Thus the actions we take to tackle situations
follow logically from how we frame the situation. After becoming aware of our frame, the second
step is to recognize any mismatch between frame and situation. If there is a mismatch, step three
is to find or build a better frame. This involves switching to more effortful processing of
information, using System 2.
1.3 Group approach to messy problems
The expected benefit of bringing people from different organizations together is that the
differences in group members’ views, interests, and knowledge about the problem would
become a valuable asset, enabling them to developed a shared understanding of the problem
, before they reach agreement on how to act. In this way, a group is able to make progress which
could have not been possible by any group member working alone. An example of the latter is a
situation known as groupthink. In this situation there is already a preferred course of action,
which becomes the group norm that nobody wants to question. Having the elephant in the room
is another example. To an outsider, it seems as if the group carefully avoids certain topics
although these stand out as important to the task at hand. Thus, deep processing of information
is essential to tackle complex problems. To put it differently, whilst group members need one
another to identify and implement ways to tackle the problem at hand, their remit and
specialization pull them in different directions due to differences in perspectives and interests.
How does this work in groups? One consequence is that if emotions run high, stress will focus
attention to the best learned routines, ignoring all other aspects. In extreme stress, finding a
good solution is replaced by attempting to win the argument. Group processes involving stress,
shared responsibilities, group norms, roles and communication add to the complexity of decisions
over and above individual heuristics and biases.
Chapter 2 – Intervening in messy problems
2.1 Out with the old, or the limited effectiveness of traditional decision making processes
Nutt found that persuasion and edicts often fail because they do not manage the political and social
aspects of decision making. Stakeholders suddenly find out that a new policy will touch upon their
interests and they have not been heard in the process of formulating the policy. Benchmarking and
participation tactics are more likely to result in success. Benchmarking is the most successful tactic
and is based on the idea that the reason for taking action should be known and accepted by all
concerned. Nutt (2002) distinguishes four types of participation.
1. Comprehensive participation Stakeholders are fully involved and have full responsibility over
solution development.
2. Complete participation This involves all interest parties but they have a more limited role in
formulating conclusions.
3. Delegated participation This is the opposite and comes down to selecting specific stakeholders
who then make the full decision.
4. Token participation This limits both the number of parties involved as well as their say over
solutions.
When participation in decision making is increased, and leaders show genuine consideration of the
input of stakeholder inputs, those involved experience the process to be fair, have greater
commitment to the decision and develop trust among themselves and in the leader. This is known as
procedural justice.
2.2 In with the new, or alternatives which may work better
Procedures to improve processes of any kind are referred to as interventions. We reserve the term
intervention for designed activities carried out with groups, in order to help achieve certain
organisational outcomes. Interventions in short are procedures that aim to help a group achieve its
goals. They represent opportunities for entering ‘into an ongoing system of relationship, to come
between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them’. Tools as SWOT,
balanced scorecards and core competences have two relevant observations related to messy
problems. First, while being relatively clear on what content is aimed for, these tools do not provide
much guidance with regard to process. Second, these approaches have been developed without
taking into account some of the key features of messy problems. Another set of methods has been
created with messy problems in mind and offers guidelines for content as well as process. Four
groups of methods can be identified:
