Irene Guijt and Judy Oakden argue that a simple set of questions (and their not-so-simple answers) can help change-makers navigate a chaotic and anxious moment.

Are you feeling confused and overwhelmed by the daily headlines and seismic changes occurring in our world? So are we. Joan Westenberg calls the state we are in  ‘the crisis machine’ that erodes our cognitive ability.

“In that vacuum, decision-making atrophies. Not just institutional decision-making, but personal, social, cultural. The gears of long-term governance grind to a halt. Who funds infrastructure when there’s another fire to put out? Who plans for a generation when the next hour is already overstuffed with catastrophe?… And like any atmosphere, you breathe it long enough, and you forget you’re breathing it at all.”

There are options. Humans are hardwired to seek certainty. For survival we need to know how to ‘grab and run’ our way to the next source of food. Left-side ‘brainstuff’ as Iain McGilchrist says. But he also reminds us that this is only half of our wiring – another part of our human brain is for horizon scanning, perspective giving. When all seems up for grabs, with certainties unsettled and rapidly occurring global shifts the new norm, how can we use our longer-term thinking brain more intentionally to see what is emerging?

Our starting point

On March 25, 2025, Irene and Judy started talking about the turbulence we were seeing and experiencing. What were the patterns? Irene is based in the UK, after a decade of leading systems learning and research at Oxfam Great Britain and now researching a book on hope for changemakers at LSE. Judy runs an evaluation business in New Zealand. A huge shift in government priorities in the past year has significantly changed her working environment. Both of us are systems thinkers, learning facilitators, and dedicated to improving societal equity.

The questions

We used five simple questions to generate a clearer picture. It helped us bring more nuance and restraint into our thinking, something that Westenberg highlights can be lacking during times of crisis  (see Figure 1; from Vygotsky via Bob Williams, undated, Qualitative Data Analysis ).

We adapted each question from an ‘I’ to a ‘We’ framing as everyone’s views matter. When working with people between whom disagreement is likely, the conversation shifts from being binary and focusing on ‘this is right and that is wrong’ to one that welcomes multiple and differing perspectives.

The sensemaking questions accept that, while the world is messy, we can find some general patterns, that each pattern has its exceptions, and that some of what we are observing and experiencing is simply confounding, surprising or puzzling. And that is just the way it is. For now. Until new clarities emerge.

Where to start

Start by agreeing on a framing question. That question is key and being bounded can be useful. Often the question will be much tighter than the one we used. Then dive in.

Question 1. “In general, what are we seeing in the world right now?”

To name generalisations, we chose a broad question because what was unfolding globally felt all-encompassing, touching all aspects of our lives. Questions will depend on the context.

Our rather obvious responses (yes, these are ‘generalisations’…) were the starting point for the other questions and finding common ground amongst our differences:

• At a country level alliances are shifting.
• Everything is up for grabs; some gains have been lost and some are newly fragile.
• A lot we took for granted has been taken apart.
• We’re seeing interest in going back to the community and the collective.

Question 2. “And what are the exceptions to these generalisations?”

Teasing out exceptions brings in nuance for us, making us see that the world is not all doom. Locating exceptions starts to unearth our assumptions about the world, reminding us that they are only partially true and that other realities and possibilities exist. Our list of exceptions included:

• But countries are setting limits, some are managing to hold on or generate new positive agreements
• Some issues still galvanise people to action and people are digging in their heels
• New sources of funding are emerging, people are being asked to be more self-reliant

Question 3. “On one hand … but on the other…”

Explicitly naming contradictions in what we are seeing highlights tensions. Instead of binary either-or thinking, this approach allows multiple truths to co-exist, which surfaces tensions. Rather than resorting to an argument to see who wins, a spectrum emerges that offers a choice.

Take ‘Action’. We’re used to responding to change but the overwhelming speed and scope makes it hard to know where to start or what to do. We  could argue for reacting or waiting, instead we saw this as a spectrum and a choice moment. What makes sense to react on and what makes sense to pause?

Question 4. “What is surprising because we’re seeing it or because we’re not seeing it?”

We find naming surprises a great way to make explicit the assumptions that we hold – what Lorini and Castelfranchi call ‘belief reconsideration’ (2007) born out of ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Festinger 1975). We might not like that it is happening but we have to accept it is happening to be able to respond to it. “Cognitive dissonance occurs when different ‘bits of knowledge’ do not tally. It is discomfort induced by disharmony, either between behaviour and opinions, or between simultaneously held opinions. ….” (Guijt 2008).

Lorini and Castelfranchi distinguish between mismatch-based surprise and astonishment in recognition. Irene finds this distinction powerful, with people realising how their ‘astonishment’ surprises are an opportunity to update assumptions about people and the world and how change happens. Judy finds in sensemaking this part of the exercise often excites participants.

In our conversation, surprises included those below.

Question 5. “What still puzzles us?”

Finally, where do key uncertainties lie? We simply needed to hold and could not resolve some questions. Others gave us ideas that we could explore or act around, like the second question below.  Several puzzles for us were:

• Where are the places to come together at scale to make sense of what’s happening?
• What does this mean for me as a changemaker – do I put my energy into accepting or resisting the changes? Or somewhere else?
• Is this the normal turning of the tide, a tsunami or a turning of the current?  What is that going to ask of us?

Fast forward to today

This discussion in late March left us feeling calmer about what we simply didn’t know or  couldn’t know –  to support decisions and actions we needed to take despite the turbulence. And what a difference a couple of weeks can make! That list today included some emerging shifts. More resistance in different forms – shifting geopolitical blocks, protests at universities and citizens in the US, funders rallying to fill gaps and more. 

These questions are particularly valuable in times and places where there is little trust. They allow us to work with groups of people with different versions of reality without conflict,  dismissal or rejection. In a hyper-divided world, such conversation starters can help build desperately needed bridges. But this approach can be difficult to do. We must be able to appreciate people who are not like us. And to allow uncertainty to simply be.