The Phenomenology Advantage: Questions That Reveal What Your Organization is Really Trying to Tell You
Tuning Into the Wisdom Already Present in Your System.
Have you ever noticed how some organizational challenges seem to resist every solution you throw at them? The team conflict that persists despite multiple interventions. The project delays that continue regardless of new processes. The cultural issues that survive even complete leadership changes.
When conventional approaches fall short, it might be time to explore a different way of seeing—one that reveals the invisible patterns beneath surface-level symptoms. At the heart of this approach lies phenomenology, a powerful perspective that, when paired with the right questions, can transform how we understand and work with our organizations.
What is Phenomenology?
In its simplest form, phenomenology is the practice of direct perception—experiencing what is actually present without immediately filtering it through our interpretations, judgments, or theories.
Unlike analytical approaches that prioritize thinking and explaining, phenomenology focuses on simply perceiving what is—noticing sensations, movements, and patterns as they appear, before our minds rush to categorize or interpret them.
Edmund Husserl, the philosopher who developed phenomenology as a formal discipline, described it as "going back to the things themselves"—encountering reality directly rather than through our preconceptions about it.
In organizational contexts, phenomenology invites us to temporarily set aside:
What we think "should" be happening
Our explanations for why problems exist
Our theories about how organizations work
Our assumptions about people's motivations
Our plans for how to fix situations
Instead, we simply observe what is actually occurring in the present moment:
Who seems connected or disconnected
Where energy flows or stagnates
What patterns repeat across situations
Which elements are included or excluded
What physical responses arise in ourselves and others
Why Phenomenology Matters in Organizations
Our conventional approaches to organizational challenges rely heavily on analysis, planning, and intervention. We diagnose problems, identify causes, and implement solutions—all based on our mental models of how things work.
While valuable, these analytical approaches have significant limitations:
They filter reality through our existing models. We tend to see what our theories predict we'll see, often missing novel patterns or unexpected connections.
They prioritize explanation over observation. We rush to understand why something is happening before we've fully perceived what is happening.
They focus on individual elements rather than relationships. We analyze separate parts rather than the connections and patterns between them.
They emphasize thinking over sensing. We trust our thoughts and interpretations more than our direct perceptions and bodily responses.
Phenomenology offers a complementary approach that addresses these limitations. It creates space to perceive patterns and connections that our analytical minds might miss—the subtle relationship dynamics, the unspoken loyalties, the invisible exclusions that often drive persistent organizational challenges.
Phenomenology in Action: An Example
Let me share a brief example that illustrates the difference between analytical and phenomenological approaches:
A leadership team was experiencing persistent conflict between the operations and sales departments. Traditional analysis identified several "causes":
Misaligned incentive structures
Poor communication processes
Personality conflicts between department heads
Lack of clear decision-making authority
Despite addressing each of these factors, the conflict persisted.
When I began working with them phenomenologically, I simply invited them to notice what happened in the room when representatives of both departments were present:
How did people physically position themselves?
What subtle shifts in energy occurred when certain topics arose?
What physical sensations did team members experience?
What patterns of interaction repeated regardless of the topic?
What emerged was surprising: When representatives of the two departments stood in the room, they naturally positioned themselves as if protecting something behind them. Further exploration revealed that each department felt responsible for preserving different aspects of the founder's original vision—aspects that had never been explicitly integrated after the founder's departure.
This pattern would never have appeared through conventional analysis, yet it was driving the persistent conflict. Simply seeing this dynamic created space for new movement that resolved what multiple analytical interventions had failed to address.
Moving Questions: The Bridge Between Perception and Movement
While phenomenology offers a powerful way of seeing, it doesn't immediately tell us what to do with what we perceive. This is where "Moving Questions" enter the picture.
Moving Questions differ fundamentally from conventional analytical questions. Rather than seeking better information or clearer explanations, they create conditions for natural movement to emerge in stuck systems.
Conventional Questions vs. Moving Questions
Conventional Questions:
"Why is this happening?"
"What caused this problem?"
"Who is responsible?"
"How can we fix this?"
"What's the best solution?"
Moving Questions:
"What wants to happen here?"
"Who or what is missing that belongs?"
"What might this pattern be serving?"
"If this situation could speak, what might it say?"
"What becomes possible if we simply acknowledge what is?"
Notice the difference: Conventional questions assume we need more information to solve problems. Moving Questions assume the system already contains the intelligence needed for its own resolution—we just need to create conditions where that intelligence can emerge.
