Are you more or less likely to trust a directional sign if it appears rickety and patched together? Is it safer to take guidance from a signal that appears in an original state versus one in a liminal state?
What opportunities do we miss when we forsake the uncertain? What risks do we avoid by staying on the main path? What resources are we willing to expend in search of something new?
What is on your horizon line? What features stand out? How does it differ from sunrise, midday, and sunset? Is it shared with those around you, or are they seeing something else?
Correlation is not causation. In a US Presidential election cycle, there are references to one party’s ascendency to power equating to economic outcomes. These correlations and causation folk tales either lack evidence, do not account for other factors, or focus on limited outcomes.
It is a convenient trap in which we get caught. We believe that adding a certain type of board member, hosting a specific gala, running a certain program, or marketing on a particular platform will lead to a specific outcome. There may be correlation and causation links, but often, they are anecdotal and conceal better decision-making opportunities.
How might we not inherit the C-to-C trap and remain curious, even if it appears to go against tradition?
Naturalist Russel Wallace noted the Wallace Line in 1859. It is defined as a narrow border region in the Sula Sea that marks a natural border of Asia and Australasia’s flora, fauna, and animal species. The theory suggests a remarkable distinction between the animals inhabiting islands and landmasses approximate each other. There is a dispute about the exact line, but general evidence demonstrates that numerous wildlife and plants on one side are not evident less than a mile away on the other side of the line.
How might we not assume that just because we witnessed a program, event, resource, or perspective in one part of our community, it also exists just a few blocks away? How might we recognize that the macro and micro can be captured in Venn diagrams with dynamic overlaps and self-contained characteristics?
When does defacing a tree serve the common good? Blazing a tree was a common form of marking a route in geography where trees existed in abundance. A uniform combination of markings symbolized that this was human-made and intentional. It contained meaning and assured travelers that they were on an established trail.
Animals also used trees to mark territory, sharpen claws, or satisfy natural instincts. These markings may be considered scars, even though the animal kingdom might believe that these marks served a similar purpose to a human blaze.
How might we expand our mindset to remain curious about the features we encounter during our journey? How might we not pass up the opportunity to double-click on the unknown so we might add depth and dimension to our understanding?
How does a streak impact our mindset? If we show up, post, attend, appear, engage, and lead consistently, are we nurturing the streak or fulfilling our commitment to performing the work that matters? When does a streak start to elevate over continuity? What if we break the streak? Is all our momentum lost? Do we disengage from our area of focus? Reflecting on a streak might be an excellent way to test assumptions and motivations. If your streak is additive (safety, life-saving, essential), persist with all vigilance. If it is capricious and primarily for internal satisfaction, consider if enabling the streak is diverting resources and limiting creativity.
Lagom is a Swedish word that translates to “just about the right amount.” What is Lagom for your work? What level of services, resources, engagement, impact, and awareness fit that mindset? So often, the social sector exists in a deficit mindset, driven to scale and expand. If we were to calibrate our work, where would just about the right amount appear on the scale?
Technically, the pilots could turn the plane in the pictured scenario and attempt to go directly to the airport. The probability of a successful landing is extremely low. It is in the best interest of the plane, passengers, and crew that the flight passes the destination to line up on a final approach that is practiced, planned, and highly predictable.
How might we avoid heading directly to our destination when we are not likely to reach it safely (or with the intended impact)? How might we plan how to arrive, not just focus on connecting the dots between two locations?
Three boats in a row, the latter two following the wake of the first. Who has the most responsibility in this scenario? Do the second and third boats leverage some leadership to the lead boat? Do they each maintain equal accountability for their autonomy?
It is convenient to allow those we follow to set the course? We can lapse into a daze and miss key landmarks, junctions, possible threats, and options. It does save us energy and resources to turn over leadership to those who take the point.
How might we be more intentional about when we lead and when we follow? Who might we remain flexible to break off from the pack when it serves our best interest or the navigation requires individual decision-making?
easyJet flies people between two locations (most likely cities). To maximize the number of passengers, the flight needs to be scheduled in advance and the expectations of what is included (or is a la carte) are best presented in a transparent matter. Then there is the bird (seen above easyJet in the photo) who is also participating in the joys of flight. The bird’s agenda is more flexible and their destination may be unknown.
There are two versions of the same form of transportation. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It is easy to get focused on one mode, one option, one way. Sometimes we need to see an alternative to expand our mindset.
What-if-concepts 