Navigating the illusion of familiarity
How similar-looking situations demand entirely new responses.
I had one of those moments of clarity that change everything a few years ago during a doctoral course at Bowling Green State University on Transformational Change and Complex Systems with Matt Kutz. We were exploring how context shapes change when it hit me: every situation we ever encounter is unique, even when it seems familiar. The surface may look the same, but everything underneath has shifted.
Let me give you an example: I regularly meet a friend for coffee every few months at the same place. Each time we meet, it has the illusion of being in the same situation, because we 1) do it regularly, and 2) meet at the same place. But it’s not the same. Since we last met, I’ve had a lot of lived experiences, and they’ve had a lot of lived experiences. Even the environment of the coffee shop, while the same coffee shop, is different; sometimes it’s noisy versus quiet, crowded versus empty, with different servers and different energy. These factors make our meeting and time together look the same, but it is anything but. The current context of our time together has changed in ways that make our previous conversational patterns not just ineffective but sometimes counterproductive, without us even recognizing it.
Most of the time, we try to navigate what is through the lens of what was, often missing the subtle, yet crucial, differences that demand entirely new approaches. This captures something fundamental about how we experience change in complex systems. Our brains are wired to recognize patterns and apply past solutions to current problems, but this very strength can become a limitation when context shifts beneath the surface.
Understanding why this happens and how to respond differently might be one of the most important skills we can develop in our increasingly interconnected world. The challenge isn’t just that things change, it’s that they often change in ways that aren’t immediately visible, creating an illusion of familiarity that can lead us astray.
The persistence of surface similarities
Context, at its core, is the web of relationships, conditions, and dynamics that give meaning to any situation1. It includes not just the obvious factors we can see but the underlying currents that shape how systems behave. When we focus only on the visible elements of a situation, we miss those shifts that fundamentally alter how that system functions. This becomes particularly challenging when existing systems appear to maintain their surface structures while their foundational conditions evolve in subtle but profound ways.
This connects to what atmospheric theorists call sensitive dependence on initial conditions, or small changes in the starting conditions of a system can lead to vastly different outcomes over time2. What appears to be the same situation may actually involve entirely different initial conditions, making previous solutions ineffective or even harmful. Consider how this might play out not just in atmospheric conditions, but with family dynamics, where the same dinner table conversation format might require entirely different approaches based on recent events, changing relationships between family members, or shifts in external pressures like work stress or health concerns.
The difficulty is that these contextual shifts often occur gradually and at levels we don’t routinely monitor. While we track obvious metrics like performance numbers in organizations or grades in schools, we rarely examine the quality of relationships, the flow of informal communication, or the subtle shifts in culture that create the conditions for success or failure. All of our systems have a way of maintaining their visible architecture even as their invisible foundations transform, creating a dangerous disconnect between what we think we’re dealing with and what’s actually happening.
When familiar patterns mislead us
Systems exist within nested layers of other systems, each influencing and being influenced by the others. When we focus only on the immediate system we’re trying to change, we miss how shifts in the broader environment have altered the conditions within which that system operates. This explains why approaches that work in one context may often fail when transplanted to another, even when both situations appear structurally similar3.
Let’s consider a personal example of this kind of pattern. Have you ever remembered a situation from a family gathering with clarity and detail, only to discover that your siblings, who were present, don’t remember the situation the same way? The situation didn't change, but the context each person experienced was dramatically different. Age, emotional state, relationships with other family members, and individual attention patterns created entirely unique contextual conditions for each person present. What felt like a shared experience was actually multiple distinct experiences happening simultaneously within the same physical space. This reveals how context shapes not just our responses to situations but our very perception of what occurred. As a result, no child in the family has the same parents. And no two people experience the same community event, political environment, or social situation in the same way.
Research in organizational psychology suggest that how deeply embedded assumptions and values shape how groups interpret and respond to change efforts4. What appears to be resistance to a particular intervention may actually be a contextually appropriate response to conditions the change leader hasn’t fully recognized. This same principle applies across all systems we navigate. A community organizing strategy that succeeded in mobilizing residents around one issue may fail completely when applied to a different cause, not because the approach was flawed, but because the contextual factors, such as trust levels, competing priorities, and historical experiences, have shifted.
The economic environment, technological landscape, social norms, and political climate all serve as contextual layers that shape how any given system functions. A communication approach that worked during stable times may prove inadequate during periods of uncertainty or crisis. This is where systems thinking becomes essential, as the most effective interventions often target the paradigms or mindsets that create systems rather than just their visible structures and processes5.
The shifting ground beneath
Understanding contextual shifts requires paying attention to what many organization development practitioners call the informal system, the unofficial networks, relationships, and communication patterns that often have more influence on outcomes than formal structures and processes. These informal elements are particularly sensitive to contextual changes, often shifting long before formal indicators show signs of transformation. They represent the living tissue of systems that adapts and responds to new conditions even when formal structures remain unchanged.
The challenge becomes more complex when we consider that systems themselves are actively engaged in their own evolution, sometimes in ways that run counter to their stated purposes. If your family values open communication, for example, you might inadvertently develop patterns of conflict avoidance when external stressors increase. Whereas a community organization dedicated to inclusive decision-making might gradually centralize power when facing time pressures or external threats. The very act of trying to maintain stability in one area can create instability in another, as systems reorganize themselves in response to new pressures and opportunities.
What makes this particularly tricky is that systems often develop internal narratives that explain their current state while obscuring the contextual factors that actually drive their behavior. These stories can persist long after the conditions that made them true have changed, creating a kind of cultural lag that prevents systems from responding effectively to new realities.
Developing Contextual Intelligence
If context changes everything, how do we develop the awareness to recognize these shifts before they undermine our efforts? This requires cultivating what Matt Kutz calls “Contextual Intelligence,” or the ability to diagnose and adapt to the situational demands of different environments6. Kutz argues that effective leadership requires not just technical skills or emotional intelligence, but the capacity to read contextual cues and adjust approaches accordingly. His framework involves three core capabilities: Foresight (an intuitive grasp of a preferred future), Hindsight (awareness of relevant past events), and Insight (an acute awareness of present contextual variables), together with tacit awareness, synchronicity, and embracing the situational complexity, help us create Contextual Intelligence7. I believe this framework helps explain why approaches that work brilliantly in one setting can fail spectacularly in another that appears nearly identical in nearly every situation.
Building relationships across different levels and areas of a system also enhances contextual awareness. People positioned differently within families, organizations, or communities often perceive contextual changes at different times and in different ways. What appears stable from one vantage point may show clear signs of transformation from another. Regular conversations with diverse stakeholders, whether family members, colleagues, or community members, can reveal contextual shifts that would otherwise remain hidden.
Perhaps most importantly, developing contextual intelligence requires maintaining multiple perspectives and approaches rather than relying on single solutions8. When the context is shifting, our responses need to be equally adaptive and varied. This means becoming comfortable with uncertainty and developing the capacity to hold multiple possibilities simultaneously, rather than rushing to a premature closure.
Adaptive responses in complex environments
Assuming we recognize that the context has shifted, our response strategies must also evolve. Rather than applying predetermined solutions, we need approaches that can adapt to changing contextual conditions. This requires adaptive capacity: the ability to learn, adjust, and evolve in response to changing circumstances9. Adaptive responses begin with experimentation rather than implementation, allowing us to test small interventions and adjust based on what we learn about current conditions.
This connects to the concept of safe-to-fail experiments that some practitioners often recommend10. Rather than seeking perfect solutions, we design small tests that provide learning about current contextual conditions while minimizing the risk of large-scale failure. This also works in families and communities, where new communication patterns might be applied to low-stakes conversations before tackling more sensitive topics.
Building sensing mechanisms into all of our systems also supports adaptive responses. These might include regular family check-ins to monitor stress levels and relationship dynamics, community listening sessions to gauge changing priorities and concerns, or organizational pulse surveys that track engagement and cultural shifts. The goal is to create early warning alerts for our invisible systems that help detect that the conditions for success are changing, allowing us to adjust our approach before small contextual shifts become major system failures.
The practice of contextual navigation
Developing skill in contextual navigation requires both analytical thinking to understand contextual shifts and creative thinking to develop appropriate responses. This involves paying attention not just to what is happening but to the layers of meaning and relationship that give events their significance11. The practice includes examining stakeholder relationships, resource flows, communication patterns, and cultural norms that influence how the system behaves.
One of the most valuable practices I’ve discovered is deliberately mapping the relationships, conditions, and dynamics that create the environment for any given challenge or opportunity. This involves looking beyond the immediate situation to understand the broader ecosystem within which it exists.
When we understand the context more fully, we can design interventions that work with, rather than against, the current conditions. This might mean adjusting our communication approach to match the current cultural norms in a community setting, modifying our parenting strategy to account for a child’s changing developmental needs, or shifting our leadership style to respond to new organizational pressures. The key is developing the flexibility to adapt our methods while maintaining clarity about our underlying purposes and values.
Reflections on the Journey
I’ve been thinking a lot about that light-bulb moment in Matt Kutz’s class, and I realize now how profoundly his work on contextual intelligence has changed how I view everything in every system I navigate. Understanding the three dimensions of contextual intelligence has fundamentally shifted my approach to relationships, work, and community engagement.
What strikes me most is how this framework has allowed me to be more fully present in my interactions with others. While I remain aware of what happened in the past and can envision potential futures, I’m no longer living in either the past or the future. Instead, I’m grounded, or try to be, in the acute awareness of present contextual variables that Kutz identifies as essential to contextual intelligence.
This presence has transformed how I show up in conversations with family members, colleagues, and friends. Rather than defaulting to scripts based on our history or my expectations for where things should go, I try hard to be more attuned to what’s actually happening right now, the energy in the room, the unspoken concerns, and the subtle shifts in dynamics that signal when the context has changed. I am imperfect at this and recognize I’ll practice it for the rest of my life.
This connects for me to author Thomas Wolfe’s observation that ‘you can't go home again’12. The insight isn’t just that we change as individuals, but that the contextual web of relationships, conditions, and dynamics that define home is constantly evolving. Every return is to a different place, even when the physical structures remain the same. Understanding contextual intelligence helps me appreciate why attempts to recreate past experiences often feel hollow or disappointing. The context that made those experiences meaningful has shifted, requiring new approaches that honor both our history and our present reality.
The questions I’m sitting with these days reflect this integration of past awareness, future vision, and present attunement: Where in my life am I trying to recreate past contexts rather than adapting to current ones? How can I better balance my intuitive grasp of preferred futures with acute awareness of what’s actually happening now? What contextual shifts have I been missing because I've been focused on familiar patterns rather than present realities?
Context changes everything, but recognizing those changes requires the kind of intentionality that Kutz’s framework provides. In our rapidly evolving communities, this skill is essential for navigating the complexity of modern life with wisdom, adaptability, and authentic presence.
What would it look like to approach each interaction we have with fresh eyes, ready to discover what’s actually needed in this moment rather than what worked before?
Gary Johns, “The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior,” The Academy of Management Review 31, no. 2 (2006): 386–408, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687;
Erving Goffman, “The Neglected Situation,” American Anthropologist 66, no. 6 (1964): 133–36, https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090.
Edward N. Lorenz, “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow,” March 1, 1963, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/20/2/1520-0469_1963_020_0130_dnf_2_0_co_2.xml.
Jerome Barthelemy, “Why Best Practices Often Fall Short,” MIT Sloan Management Review 59, no. 3 (2018): 85–87.
Edgar H. Schein and Peter A. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016).
Donella H. Meadows, “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System” (The Sustainability Institute, 1999), https://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf.
Matthew Kutz, Contextual Intelligence: How Thinking in 3D Can Help Resolve Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity, Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2017 edition (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
Kutz;
Matthew R Kutz, “Contextual Intelligence: An Emerging Competency for Global Leaders,” Regent Global Business Review 2, no. 2 (August 7, 2008): 5–8.
Karl E. Weick, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly 21, no. 1 (1976): 1–19, https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875.
C. S. Holling, “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1973): 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone, “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making,” Harvard Business Review, November 2007, https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures; Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
Thomas Wolfe, You Can’t Go Home Again, 4th edition (Harper and Brothers, 1940).
I think Jesus was an expert at this. He could be with his own family, religious leaders, the marginalized, affluent demographics and government officials without forcing an agenda of us his own creation.