Pandemics, migration, supply chain disruptions, corruption, or balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility, are all “wicked problems”. They are messy and contested.  Even their definition is unclear. Reaching out to the experts, putting them in task forces or advisory panels does not always help. Expert bodies can be too slow, or even fail to provide actionable advice. This is because the problem is not just a technical problem. At the heart of “wicked problems” there are value conflicts.  

Moreover, the complexity of these problems demand a 360-degree understanding, which is unlikely to be achieved unless we exploit the full breath of expertise available. Yet, when seeking expertise, most organisations rely on personal and fairly local networks, usually likeminded and familiar people, or as we call them, the “usual suspects”. 

If you always ask the same people, you will always get the same, potentially wrong, answer.  Ask too many people and you may be pulled in many opposite directions. Relying on advice given behind closed doors by likeminded advisors is unlikely to legitimise your decisions with diverse constituencies.

Worse, it may increase value disagreement, polarisation, division and distrust in your organisation and broader social institutions. 

Failing to understand problems holistically and to acknowledge conflicting values may result in the wrong decision, or at least a badly thought-out decision that is contested or ends up in chaos when implemented.