The Pragmatic Heart of Omnicomplexity
Stop solving problems and start holding tensions.
How pragmatism, complexity, and inquiry transform the way we work.
In most organisations, we’re conditioned to be problem solvers. We hunt for issues, define them, break them down, and engineer solutions. It’s a neat, linear, and deeply rational approach that has dominated management thinking for a century. It feels productive. Yet, in the messy reality of modern work, it often falls short. Grand plans falter, unintended consequences emerge, and the ‘solution’ we so carefully designed creates a fresh wave of problems.
This happens because the problem-solving mindset assumes a world that is fundamentally ordered and predictable, a world where cause and effect are neatly connected. Omnicomplexity starts from a different place. It suggests that complexity is not an occasional disruption to be managed, but the ubiquitous and inherent condition of organisational life. In this world, the language of problems and solutions can be misleading. Instead, we must learn to work with tensions.
This article unpacks the theoretical DNA of Omnicomplexity, exploring how it weaves together American pragmatism, complexity science, and participative action inquiry to offer a more humane and effective way of navigating our work. It’s a journey from seeking answers to deepening our inquiry, and from enforcing alignment to nurturing coherence.
The generative power of tension
Linear thinking treats a problem as a gap to be closed. A tension, by contrast, is a stretch to be held. It’s a space where competing, often equally valid, values, beliefs, and needs pull in different directions. Think of the constant pull between the need for delivery speed and the desire for inclusive, thoughtful design. Or the friction between maintaining strategic consistency and allowing for local, context-specific innovation.
Framing these situations as ‘problems’ forces us to choose a side, to declare one aspect right and the other wrong. This often results in bland compromises or solutions that suppress one side of the tension, only for it to re-emerge later in a different guise.
A tension-based approach, informed by complexity science, acknowledges that in a complex system, outcomes emerge from the interplay of many interdependent factors. Tensions are the engine of a system’s vitality and learning. By surfacing them, naming them, and inquiring into them, we move beyond a futile search for the ‘right’ answer and begin to explore the richer question: how can we move forward wisely, holding these competing truths together?.
Coherence over alignment and consensus
The obsession with problem-solving often comes with a parallel obsession with alignment and consensus. Leaders seek buy-in, and strategies are crafted to be so agreeable that no one can object. The result is often a set of principles or plans that everyone signs off on but nobody truly believes in or acts upon. Consensus can flatten dissent, while forced alignment can lead to passive compliance rather than active engagement.
Omnicomplexity champions a different ideal: cohesion. Cohesion is not agreement; it is the ability to move together purposefully without demanding uniformity. It honours the pluralism inherent in any group of people, recognising that diverse perspectives are a source of resilience and creativity. We find cohesion not by smoothing over our differences, but by committing to a shared inquiry in the face of them.
This is a profoundly pragmatist stance. It accepts that there are many ways of seeing the world and that truth is something that emerges from the practical consequences of our actions.
The inquiry loop as our engine
If we are working with tensions and seeking cohesion, we need a motor for learning and adaptation. That motor is the inquiry loop, an idea at the very heart of American pragmatism and participative action research. Thinkers like John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce described a natural, human cycle of learning that begins with a feeling of disruption.
It starts with doubt or tension. Our habitual ways of acting are disrupted. Reality pushes back in a surprising or uncomfortable way, creating a "felt difficulty". This is the entry point.
We form a hypothesis. In the face of this uncertainty, we generate a plausible guess about what might be happening or what might help. This is what Peirce called abduction: not deduction from a rule or induction from data, but a creative leap to a new idea.
We act to learn. We design a small, safe-to-fail probe. This is an experiment or intervention designed to test our hypothesis by acting within the system. Action, therefore, is the primary means of knowing.
We reflect on the consequences. We observe what happens when we act. What shifted? What surprised us? What did we learn?
We adjust our beliefs and habits. Based on these consequences, our understanding evolves, our habits shift, and we are ready for the next cycle of experience.
This loop is a continuous, breathing rhythm of acting, sensing, and responding that allows us to navigate complexity without pretending to have all the answers.
Guiding the inquiry: the pragmatic maxim and its qualifiers
How do we ensure our inquiries are sound? Peirce’s pragmatic maxim provides the anchor: the meaning of any idea is determined by the practical consequences we can conceive of it having. An idea is not true in the abstract; it is useful, or ‘good in the way of belief’, if it helps us act more wisely in the world.
Building on this, Omnicomplexity uses a set of seven pragmatic qualifiers to test our patterns and probes. These ensure our inquiries remain open, grounded, and generative.
Abductive. Does it invite exploration and hypothesis, not just execution?.
Fallible. Is it framed as conditional and open to being wrong? All our knowledge is provisional.
Anti-skeptical. Does it prompt action, even with incomplete information? We can know enough to act and learn.
Plural. Can it support multiple interpretations and ways of being enacted?.
Situational. Is it grounded in a specific context or tension?.
Social. Does it depend on interaction and collective sensemaking?.
Scalable. Can its core principles flex across different scales without losing their meaning?.
These qualifiers act as our guide, helping us to design interventions that are humble, experimental, and relational. They keep our inquiry honest.
Conclusion: a practice for the messy middle
Omnicomplexity is a coherent philosophy of action grounded in the lived reality of organisations. By drawing on pragmatism, complexity science, and participative inquiry, it offers a powerful alternative to the seductive simplicity of linear management.
It invites us to make a series of crucial shifts: from solving problems to exploring tensions; from demanding alignment to cultivating cohesion; and from seeking final answers to engaging in a continuous cycle of inquiry. It is a practice built for the messy, unpredictable world we actually inhabit, one that finds wisdom in the consequences of our shared actions. It asks us to stay in the conversation, to hold our beliefs lightly, and to learn our way forward, together.