Spotting patterns and relationships

The ability to look below the surface of daily events to see the deeper structures, historical constraints, and feedback loops driving them.

Leaders skilled in this competency stop “firefighting” symptoms and start intervening at the level of the system. They distinguish between linear trends and cyclical patterns, recognise how the micro-culture reflects the macro-strategy (fractals), and respect the historical choices that constrain current possibilities (path dependence). In complex adaptive systems, patterns and relationships matter more than individual events, because the system adapts, amplifies, and resists change in non-linear ways.

“Structure influences behaviour. When placed in the same system, people, however different, tend to produce similar results.” — Peter Senge

Why spotting patterns and relationships matters

This matters because human beings are biologically wired to react to events. A dropped ball, a missed deadline, or a sudden crisis naturally triggers action. In a complex system, however, events are only surface signals. They are the visible outcomes of deeper patterns, structures, and histories. When leaders focus primarily on events, they trap themselves in perpetual crisis management, rewarding urgency over effectiveness and steadily exhausting both themselves and their teams.

Leaders who learn to spot patterns shift their attention from symptoms to causes. By examining trends over time and the structures that shape behaviour, such as incentives, rules, workflows, and physical or digital environments, they can intervene at points of high leverage. These interventions change the system itself, allowing problems to dissolve rather than recur.

Understanding path dependence further sharpens this capability. Organisations are not blank slates. Past decisions, sunk investments, and cultural memories constrain what is possible in the present. Leaders who ignore this history waste energy attempting resets that the system quietly resists. Those who acknowledge it can work with existing constraints, gradually reshaping the system instead of fighting it.

Finally, recognising fractal patterns allows leaders to read the whole system through its parts. The behaviours seen in a single meeting, handover, or decision often mirror the wider organisational dynamic. By paying attention to these small interactions, leaders can diagnose large-scale issues early, before they escalate into visible crises. This is not about being slower or more theoretical. It is about intervening at the right level of the system.

“You cannot simply step out of history. You must walk through it.” — Unknown

What good and bad looks like for patterns and relationships

What bad looks like (event focused)	What good looks like (system focused)
Firefighting: Reacts to every problem as an isolated incident. “Fix it now and move on.” Rewards the “hero” who puts out the fire they likely started.	Pattern spotting: Asks “Has this happened before?” and “What structural pressure makes this error likely?” Rewards the person who prevents the fire.
Root cause illusion: Believes there is a single person or error to blame. Digs for the one “broken part” to replace.	Loop detection: Looks for the web of incentives, flows, and feedback loops (circular causality) that trapped the person in a failure mode.
Ignoring history (blank slate): Tries to implement a “new strategy” without acknowledging why the previous three identical strategies failed.	Respecting path dependence: Acknowledges the organisation’s history, sunk costs, and cultural memory. Navigates the constraint rather than pretending it does not exist.
Linear forecasting: Extrapolates the past into the future in a straight line (e.g. “Sales grew 5% so they will grow 5% again”).	Non-linear anticipation: Looks for cycles, plateaus, exponential curves, or tipping points, knowing that “more effort” does not always equal “more result”.
Macro–micro disconnect: Writes elegant values statements (“We are agile”) while maintaining rigid, bureaucratic approval processes (fractal dissonance).	Fractal integrity: Ensures that the smallest meeting reflects the largest strategy. Understands that if the daily stand-up is toxic, the company culture is toxic.
Static mapping: Relies on the organisation chart to understand how work gets done.	Flow mapping: Uses network analysis or value stream maps to see where information actually flows and where it gets stuck.
Short-term optimisation: Maximises the quarterly result even if it degrades the long-term pattern (e.g. cutting maintenance to hit a number).	Health stewardship: Protects the underlying pattern of health, knowing that a healthy system produces good events naturally.
Externalising blame: “The market changed” or “They did not execute.”	Internalising responsibility: “How did our internal structure create a vulnerability to this market change?”
Fixing symptoms: Putting a bucket under the leak.	Fixing structures: Finding the pipe that is bursting and understanding the pressure that caused it.
Speed over depth: “We do not have time to analyse, just decide.”	Slowing down to speed up: Taking the time to map the system so the right lever is pulled, avoiding rework later.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” — Albert Einstein

Barriers to spotting patterns and relationships

The action bias: The immense organisational pressure to “do something” immediately. Pausing to study the pattern often looks like inactivity or hesitation.

Short-termism: Quarterly reporting cycles force leaders to focus on events (results) rather than structures (capabilities). It is hard to sell a “long-term pattern shift” to a board wanting “immediate event correction”.

Linear cognitive bias: Our brains prefer straight lines. We struggle to intuitively grasp exponential growth (viral curves) or delayed feedback loops, leading to poor predictions.

Siloed data: Patterns often cross departments (e.g. sales promises cause engineering bugs). If data is siloed, no single leader can see the full pattern.

The “great man” theory: The cultural habit of blaming leaders for outcomes rather than blaming structures. It feels more satisfying to fire a coach than to fix the roster management system.

Amnesia: Organisations rarely keep good records of why past decisions were made. Without this memory, leaders fail to see path dependence and repeat old mistakes.

Hero complex: Organisations often promote the “firefighters” (who solve crises) rather than the “architects” (who prevent them), incentivising the creation of more crises.

Complexity fatigue: Thinking in systems is calorie-intensive. When tired or stressed, leaders default to simple, linear cause-and-effect thinking.

Measurement traps: We measure what is easy (events), not what matters (patterns). “Number of bugs fixed” is an event metric; “rate of technical debt accumulation” is a pattern metric.

Fractal blindness: Thinking that “small stuff” does not matter. Leaders ignore toxic micro-behaviours (e.g. interrupting in meetings) while preaching macro-inclusion.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.” — Steve Jobs

Enablers of spotting patterns and relationships

Visual mapping: You cannot see a complex pattern in a text document. Use whiteboards to draw maps, timelines, and flowcharts. Making it visual makes it discussable.

Longitudinal data: Always look at data over time. Never accept a standalone number; ask for the trend line over a period of time, such as the last 12 months.

The “iceberg” ritual: Institutionalise the practice of asking “What is the underlying model?” in every post-mortem or strategy review. Challenge it, yet beware of leaning into icebergs too much.

Cross-functional dialogue: Patterns usually hide in the “white space” between teams. Bring different functions together to compare their view of reality.

Simulation and scenario planning: Instead of predicting one future, play out multiple “what if” scenarios to understand the system’s potential non-linear responses.

History audits: Before launching a new initiative, conduct a quick “history audit” to understand what similar attempts were made in the past and why they failed.

Fractal consistency: Consciously align your personal behaviour (micro) with the organisational values (macro). “Be the change” is a systems engineering principle, not just a slogan.

Delay awareness: Explicitly map out the time delays in your system. “If we hire today, when do we actually get productivity?” (avoiding the bullwhip effect).

Narrative inquiry: Use stories, not just spreadsheets. Stories often reveal path dependence and cultural patterns that data misses.

Slow thinking (system 2): Create dedicated “balcony time”, uninterrupted time to step out of the dance and look at the patterns of the dance floor.

“Leverage points are places within a complex system where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.” — Donella Meadows

Self-reflection questions for spotting patterns and relationships

1. Where are you currently spending your energy: fixing the visible leak (the event) or fixing the pipe that causes it (the structure)?
2. When you look at this issue, are you seeing a straight-line trend or a repeating loop or cycle?
3. How does the micro-culture of your immediate team reflect, or contradict, the organisation’s stated strategy and values?
4. Which historical decision, made several years ago, is quietly constraining your options today? What does this reveal about path dependence?
5. If you assume people are acting rationally, what incentive, rule, or pressure in the system is encouraging behaviour that appears irrational?
6. Who do you reward more often: the people who heroically put out fires, or the people who quietly prevent them from occurring?
7. What weak signal, anomaly, or early warning sign have you ignored because it did not fit your expected trajectory of success?
8. How far back into the organisation’s history did you look before committing to this course of action?
9. Is your proposed solution a quick fix that shifts the burden elsewhere in the system or into the future, rather than resolving the underlying pattern?
10. If you removed yourself from the situation, would the behaviour change, or would the same pattern continue without you?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana

Micro practices for spotting patterns and relationships

1. The iceberg conversation

In a problem-solving conversation, sketch an iceberg shape together. Place the visible issue at the top as a signal, not a problem to fix. Invite the group to name possible trends, structures, and assumptions that might be contributing to it, knowing these are partial and provisional. Before moving to solutions, pause and ask: “What changed in how we see this issue as a result of this conversation?” and “How did drawing this shape influence what we paid attention to?” Treat the sketch as a snapshot of current sensemaking, not a map of the system.

2. Fractal intervention

In the first five minutes of your next meeting, deliberately enact one small behaviour that makes a stated organisational value real in practice. For example, if the value is transparency, name something you are unsure about or a decision that is not yet made. If the value is collaboration, ask whose input is missing before moving forward. If the value is speed, state clearly when and how a decision will be made. If the value is inclusion, invite a quieter voice to speak first. Do not explain what you are doing or reference the value explicitly. Simply act and observe what happens next. Notice who engages, who withdraws, where the conversation flows easily, and where it stalls or becomes uncomfortable. Treat the system’s response as data about how the organisation actually works, not as a judgement of individual behaviour.

3. The “then what?” loop

When a solution is proposed, ask “And then what?” three times. As the future unfolds, listen for where the action loops back to influence the original issue, either reinforcing it or counteracting it. Capture these loops visually, even roughly, and ask: “Where might this create pressure elsewhere in the system?” The goal is not prediction, but awareness of how actions echo through the system over time.

4. History walk

Before committing to a major decision, speak with one or two long-serving members of the system. Ask: “When have we tried something like this before?” and “What made it hard or easy at the time?” Listen not only for what happened, but for what remains unresolved, avoided, or emotionally charged. Treat this history as a map of constraints and inherited conditions, not as a cautionary tale.

5. Curve sketching

When presented with a key metric, ask for its shape over time rather than its current value. Invite someone to sketch how it has moved over the past 6 to 12 months. Ask what forces might be driving that shape, and where delays, thresholds, or limits might exist. Compare curves across teams or functions, noticing how improvements in one area may coincide with pressure or decline in another. The shape often reveals more than the number.

6. Pattern journalling

At the end of each week, note one recurring situation that caught your attention. Ask yourself: “Where else have I seen this pattern?” and “What conditions seem to trigger or sustain it?” Over time, review these entries to notice recurring loops, constraints, or dynamics in your leadership context. Pattern recognition strengthens through longitudinal attention, not isolated insight.

This page is part of my broader work on complexity leadership, where I explore how leaders navigate uncertainty, sense patterns, and make decisions in complex systems.