Retrospective coherence

Retrospective coherence is a concept in complexity theory that refers to the human tendency to perceive past events as more predictable, inevitable, or logically connected when viewed in hindsight than they were at the time of occurrence (Snowden & Rancati, 2021). This cognitive bias leads people to construct simplified narratives of complex historical processes, often overlooking the roles of chance, uncertainty, and multiple possibilities that existed in the past. This frequently results in the assumption that past failures are now fully understood and can be managed by explicit rules and processes; but if the problem is complex this simply triggers new failures through the law of unintended consequences.

Characteristics

1. Unconscious process: Retrospective coherence is not a deliberate analytical tool but rather a natural human tendency to create narratives that explain past events, often relying on faulty and selective memory (Snowden & Rancati, 2021)
2. Present-focused warning: The concept serves as a caution about how we interpret and understand current events and decision-making processes (Snowden & Rancati, 2021).
3. Assumed causality: People tend to assume discoverable, linear causal relationships where they may not exist (Snowden, 2010a).
4. Overreliance on past patterns: Individuals tend to overestimate the predictability of complex systems, overlooking the inherent uncertainty and non-linear causality of historical events, which can hinder effective decision-making in the present (Snowden, 2010a).
5. Selective memory: The way people remember events, even shortly after they occur, is largely determined by the political requirements of the present moment (Snowden, 2022).
6. Context-dependent: What appears logical in retrospect is only one of many possible outcomes that could have stabilized (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).

Examples

• Joining up the dots

Implications for decision-making

1. Limitations in historical analysis: Retrospective coherence can lead to oversimplified interpretations of past events, potentially misleading future decision-making. It can result in attributing cause-and-effect relationships where none exist, particularly in complex situations (Snowden, 2010a, 2010b; Snowden & Rancati, 2021).
2. Challenges in complex systems: In complex adaptive systems, what has happened in the past may not provide insight for the future. Hindsight does not necessarily lead to foresight (Snowden, 2010a). While patterns may indeed repeat for a time in complex systems, we cannot be sure they will continue to repeat because the underlying sources of the patterns are not open to inspection (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).
3. Risk of premature convergence: There's a danger of coming too quickly to a solution for the future when even the present is not fully known (Snowden, 2010a). This is identified as one of the two main dangers when dealing with complex situations, alongside retrospective coherence (Snowden, 2011).
4. Impact on crisis management: During crises, retrospective coherence can create a false sense of security towards the future, as people create narratives to explain what happened after the fact. This is based on faulty, selective memory (Snowden & Rancati, 2021).
5. Influence on organizational learning: The tendency towards retrospective coherence can hinder genuine lessons-learned processes, as people's memories of events are shaped by the political requirements of the here and now (Snowden, 2022). When people are explicitly asked about certain qualities or values, they may learn to parrot them back, even if these qualities are not naturally present in their day-to-day experiences. This tendency to align responses with perceived expectations, driven by retrospective coherence, can create a misleading picture of organizational culture and values (Snowden, 2022).
6. Challenges in policy-making: Retrospective coherence can lead to flawed conclusions in investigations and policy recommendations. As Snowden (2023) warns, "Retrospective coherence will kill humanity if we don't watch it."

Comparison with related concepts

• Post-hoc rationalization: The process of constructing explanations for one's actions after they have occurred, often attributing beliefs and desires that may not have been present at the time (Veit et al., 2019). While it shares a backwards-looking nature with retrospective coherence, posthoc rationalization is more concerned with justifying individual decisions and behaviours rather than reconstructing broader narratives of historical events or complex systems. The focus is on making sense of personal actions, often creating rationales that align with current understanding, even if these rationales did not originally influence the behaviour.
• Hindsight bias: The tendency to overestimate the predictability of past events, hindsight bias leads individuals to believe they "knew it all along" (Roese & Vohs, 2012). This bias manifests in three ways: distorted memory of past predictions, a sense of inevitability about what happened, and an inflated belief in one's foresight. In contrast, retrospective coherence is the inclination to construct simplified, seemingly logical narratives to explain past events, often overlooking the inherent uncertainty and complexity that existed at the time. While hindsight bias distorts how we remember our past predictions, retrospective coherence constructs a seemingly logical narrative of past events, potentially reinforcing the illusion of predictability associated with hindsight bias. The distinction lies in the overconfidence in prediction abilities that characterizes hindsight bias, whereas retrospective coherence primarily serves to impose order and meaning on past events.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): This logical fallacy incorrectly assumes a causal relationship between two events solely based on their temporal sequence (Cynefin.io, 2021; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020). In other words, if event B happens after event A, it's mistakenly concluded that event A caused event B. While retrospective coherence creates a narrative of causality by arranging past events in a seemingly logical order, the post hoc fallacy makes a direct causal link between two events based solely on their timing. The distinction lies in the broader narrative construction of retrospective coherence, whereas the post hoc fallacy focuses on a simplistic cause-and-effect relationship between two specific events.
• Historical contingency: This term refers to the idea that historical outcomes are influenced by chance events and particular sequences of prior states rather than being inevitable or predetermined. It emphasizes that evolutionary and historical processes could have unfolded differently based on various factors at play (Vermeij, 2006). While retrospective coherence tends to create a false sense of inevitability, historical contingency acknowledges the role of chance, multiple possibilities, and the influence of specific contexts in shaping outcomes.

Related

Principles

• Linked related principle here

Frameworks

• Linked related framework here

Concepts

• Linked related concept here

References

Articles and books

• Kurtz, C. F. & Snowden, D. (2003) The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-Making in a Complex and Complicated World, IBM Systems Journal Vol 42 No 3.
• Roese, N. J. & Vohs, K. D. (2012) Hindsight bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454303
• Snowden, D. (2010a) Chapter 14, Naturalizing sensemaking. Informed by Knowledge: Expert Performance in Complex Situation. Psychology Press.
• Snowden, D. & Rancati, A. (2021) Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework. Publications Office of the European Union.
• Veit, W., Dewhurst, J., Dolega, K., Jones, M., Stanley, S., Frankish, K. & Dennett, D. C. (2019) The Rationale of Rationalization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001730
• Vermeij, G. J. (2006) Historical contingency and the purported uniqueness of evolutionary innovations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508724103

Blog posts

• Snowden, D. (2010b) Arizona: Managing the situated now.
• Snowden, D. (2011) Language is the master of (wo)man.
• Snowden, D. (2022) Research shows….

Other references

• Cynefin.io (2021) Causality.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020) Fallacies. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
• Snowden, D. (2023) Making sense of digital complexity with Dave Snowden, The Cynefin Centre. Capgemini Cloud Realities podcast (CR020). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gskGyA-uws4