How a situation is framed determines how it is approached — and what actions are considered appropriate.

Framing is an act of sensemaking.
It shapes the mindset applied to the situation, and that mindset directly influences action.

If a complex situation is framed as simple:

• Quick fixes are applied.
• Underlying dynamics are ignored.
• Unintended consequences increase.

If it is framed appropriately:

• Action becomes proportionate.
• Exploration replaces reaction.
• Capability is applied correctly.

Interpretation

Framing does not describe reality — it selects a way of seeing.

That selection determines:

• What is considered relevant.
• What is ignored.
• What actions are judged appropriate.

In complex environments, poor framing is the main cause of ineffective action.

This aligns with research on mental frameworks, which shows that individuals rely on different cognitive structures to interpret and respond to problems — and that the variety and appropriateness of these frameworks directly influence problem-solving effectiveness.

 

Karl Weick noted that people don’t respond to reality,  they respond to their interpretation of reality (Weick, 1995). Also relevant here is the work on mental models (Argyris, 1982; Senge, 1997) which shows that individuals interpret situations through cognitive frameworks that shape how they respond.

Implications for Practice

Framing is an ongoing part of sensemaking, not just a preliminary step.

Leaders must therefore:

•  Actively question how situations are framed.
• Recognise when simple or complex frames are being imposed on intricate conditions.
• Create space for alternative interpretations to surface.

Effective leadership in complex settings relies on the ability to reframe, underpinned by reflection and systems thinking — essential components of a strategic mindset. (Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-Semmel, 2005).

Failure to do so results in action that is internally coherent but externally ineffective.

Sensemaking and Influence

Framing is not neutral.

In organisational settings, leaders actively shape how others interpret reality through sense giving — using language, narratives, and interaction to influence shared understanding (Logemann, Piekkari, & Cornelissen, 2019).

This means:

• framing can enable shared understanding,
• or reinforce bias, control, and premature closure.

🧭 In the Guidelines from Adapt, Survive and Flourish:

Action is shaped by how reality is interpreted:

• Sensemaking shapes framing.
• Framing shapes mindset.
• Mindset shapes action.

Mindset is not an abstract concept.   It is the result of how a situation has been interpreted.

When framing is appropriate:

• Action is proportionate
• Exploration replaces reaction.
• Capability is applied correctly.

When framing is misaligned:

• Problems are oversimplified.
• Responses are mismatched.
• Unintended consequences increase.

Misalignment at the level of framing does not stay contained.

👉 It propagates:

• through mindset,
• into action,
• and into outcomes

Before action occurs, the system has already been set in motion.

Within the Adaptive Capacity model:

• Sensemaking shapes framing.
• Framing shapes mindset.
• Mindset shapes action.

Mindset is therefore not an abstract concept, but the result of how reality has been interpreted.

Misalignment at the level of framing propagates through the system, degrading decision-making and increasing the likelihood of unintended consequences.

Related Concepts

• Cynefin (Snowden): framing as a diagnostic act guiding response
• Complexity theory (Stacey): interpretation emerges through interaction, not analysis
• Mental frameworks: multiple ways of thinking increase problem-solving capability

Result

Correct framing enables an appropriate response.

Incorrect framing produces internally consistent but ineffective action.

Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double-loop learning. Organizational dynamics, 11(2), 5–22.

Logemann, M., Piekkari, R., & Cornelissen, J. (2019). The sense of it all: Framing and narratives in sensegiving about a strategic change. Long range planning, 52(5), 101852.

Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing the leader’s strategic mindset: Establishing the measures. Leadership Review, 5(1), 41–68.

Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring business excellence, 1(3), 46–51.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.