Two Paths to Coherence: Narrative Control vs. Presence-Based Alignment

The quest for coherence

We live and work in systems that crave coherence. As individuals and organisations alike, we long for a sense of internal consistency, a story we can tell ourselves about who we are and why we do what we do.

But over time, I’ve come to realise: not all coherence is created equal.

Drawing from organisational sensemaking theory and contemplative traditions, two perspectives I’ve spent long hours exploring and quietly trying to weave together, I’ve become fascinated by how differently coherence can show up. And how those differences can shift the way we lead, respond to pressure, and shape culture.

This piece is part reflection, part provocation. A way for me to make sense of my own work and hopefully offer something useful for yours too.

1. Reactive Coherence: holding the narrative together

In organisational psychology, particularly the work of Karl Weick, coherence is often seen as a narrative project. We tell stories to make sense of uncertainty. Especially when something doesn’t go to plan, or challenges how we see ourselves, individually or collectively.

I’ve seen this play out in teams, in leadership offsites, even in boardrooms. A strategic misstep, a failed initiative, a drop in morale, and suddenly the organisation is working overtime to stitch together a story that makes it all feel okay again.

This kind of coherence is:

• Driven by identity stability: “Who are we, and how do we stay that?”

• Triggered by threat or dissonance

• Constructed post-hoc: A plausible story patched together to restore order

• Protective in function: It acts as a kind of psychological shield

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this—it’s very human. We all do it. I do it. But what’s fascinating is how quickly this becomes the only mode—defaulting to control, to keeping the façade intact.

Coherence here is like holding a cracked pot together with glue—hoping no one notices the lines.

2. Presence-based Coherence: being in tune rather than in control

In contrast, the kind of coherence I’ve witnessed (and occasionally touched in my own life) through deep meditative practice feels entirely different.

It’s not about fixing the story. It’s about being in right relationship with what’s here and now.

This kind of coherence doesn’t arise from identity maintenance. It emerges from:

• A living alignment of intention, attention, action, and values

• A grounding in presence, not performance

• A soft but steady commitment to integrity over impression

It’s quieter, slower, often harder to articulate. But it’s unmistakable when it’s there. In people. In teams. In entire organisations.

This is coherence not as a defence mechanism, but as a tuning fork. It resonates rather than resists.

And interestingly it holds up better under pressure. It doesn’t fracture when things fall apart. It doesn’t scramble for meaning. It stays available.

A Visual Contrast

To make sense of these two forms, I drew a little sketch. Nothing fancy, just an attempt to feel my way through the contrast.

• Reactive Coherence is spiky, defensive, with arrows pulling in and pushing out. It’s all about protecting a fragile centre.

• Meditative Coherence is more like a ripple - gentle, centred, extending from presence and values. It doesn't need to control the narrative because it’s not trying to be a particular story.

  
  

And it made me wonder: what would it look like if an organisation cultivated the mindset of an experienced meditator?

What happens when we confuse the two

This is where things get interesting and often frustrating.

In my work with leaders and organisations, I’ve seen this pattern repeat:

• We say we want authenticity, agility, purpose.

• But when reality hits, we reach for narrative control.

• We confuse reactive coherence for real alignment.

The result? Burnout. Cynicism. Nice-sounding values that nobody trusts.

So what would it look like to lead from presence-based coherence?

Here’s what I think and what I’m still learning myself:

• Create space before jumping to answers

• Stay present with dissonance, instead of rushing to smooth it over

• Act from alignment, not appearance

• Let go of being the hero of the story

It’s not soft. It’s not passive. It’s quietly radical.

It's a different kind of strength

Reactive coherence is part of how we survive. It keeps the lights on when the system shakes.

But presence-based coherence? That’s how we transform.

It’s not flashy. It’s not always comfortable. But it’s deeply trustworthy.

Coherence doesn’t have to be a cage. It can be a current. And maybe, if we’re brave enough, we can learn to flow with it.