In the mission-driven world of non-profits, our decisions are infused with purpose, values, and an abiding desire to make a difference. Yet, despite noble intentions, our actions can yield surprising — and sometimes counterproductive — outcomes.

Collateral damage, side-effects, and ripple effects are just some of the names we give to unintended consequences. We all encounter these unexpected developments or outcomes, yet not everyone deals with them equally well. This post is the first in a short series that will explore the nature of these unplanned events and offer some thoughts on how we might better address them.

Outcomes versus Consequences

Outcomes are usually a product of goals expressing our intended consequences. Distinctions between outcomes and consequences are suggested in the table below, with the key point being that while outcomes are scoped and tracked, consequences include everything: intended and unintended, seen and unseen, known and unknown, diffuse, emergent, unmeasured or value-laden.

Arguments supporting a distinction between these terms include:

• If we only measure outcomes, we risk missing the consequences that shape trust, legitimacy, and long-term sustainability.
• A consequence-oriented mindset helps leaders ask, “What else happened?” and “Who was affected, even if not targeted?”
• Consequences extend into domains that outcomes ignore — like who bears invisible costs, or who avoids natural consequences due to power or status.

The goal is not to eliminate unintended consequences — an impossible task — but to better anticipate, absorb, and sometimes harness them.

Consequence types

The following chart suggests a range of consequence types, with positive and negative unintended consequences being just two of the eleven types listed.

Another way of characterising consequences is addressed in this selection of synonyms for beneficial, ambiguous and detrimental consequences. From serendipity to collateral damage, the list reminds us of the many ways unintended consequences appear in our work – and our lives.

Consequence severity

Having identified the type of consequence and its likelihood, we then consider the question of how serious the impact could be. Ranging from highly beneficial to catastrophically detrimental, the spectrum of consequences is broad.

Risk/Benefit heat maps can employ more or less finely graded severity ratings, with 3X3, 4X4, and 5X5 rating matrices being most common. While many organisations still use risk heat maps, that are not well regarded in the professional risk community as they are highly subjective, and tempt directors and managers to treat risk management as a once a year ‘set and forget’ exercise. Looking only at the risk side of the ledger can also isolate decision making about the trade-off between risk and benefit. It may also cause risk management to be treated as a brake on innovation rather than optimising beneficial strategic and operational outcomes.

There are ‘mirror’ heat map templates available for those who would like to address the problem of risk being treated in isolation from benefits. The Risk and Opportunity (mirror) heat map below, which uses a pair of 5X5 matrices, is one example. Completing an online search for ‘opportunity/risk heat maps’ will yield a selection of alternative approaches.

The distinction between not intended (known risk) and unintended (unknown risk) consequences calls to mind the Johari window. When applied to our consequence options, not intended consequences can be recognised as ‘known knowns’, as they express an intention to avoid specified harms. Unintended consequences deal with risks that are not known or anticipated, and so they most comfortably sit within the ‘blind’, ‘hidden’ or ‘unknown’ Johari window panes. The comparative chart below refers.

A Consequence Cube

The Consequence Cube illustration in the header for this post brings together the types of consequence, causal clusters, and rating scores, while also acknowledging that consequences may need to be considered in both instrumental and normative domains.

Cube diagrams of this type invite us to consider the multitude of intersections between dimensional perspectives. Inside this imaginary cubic space 1331 (11 types X 11 causal clusters X 11 rating levels) nodes (or points of intersection) exist. Each of these expresses a distinct nuanced meaning.

Causal clusters

Traditional risk visualisation tools prioritise control over insight. They tend to focus on negative impact, emphasise financial and operational consequences, and underrepresent moral, reputational, or relational harms.

The typology listing can be understood at a deeper level when we consider the range of causes or triggers for these unplanned developments. The next chart offers some more details on the eleven major causal clusters (as used in the cube diagram) across six categories. You can probably expand this list and the suggested categories from your own experience, if only by identifying variants within each of the clusters.

“Laws” of Unintended Consequences

Unintended consequences have been recognised throughout history, with some of the earlier references being moral tales like ‘Pandora’s Box’ (Greek Mythology ~8th century BCE), and ‘The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs’ (Aesop’s Fables ~6th century BCE). ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’ is a Medieval European proverb sourced to the 12 century CE.

In more recent times, the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ was coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1936. This concept refers to the unexpected results — positive, negative, or perverse — that emerge from purposeful action. These outcomes are not simply accidents; while sometimes predictable, they are more often an unpredictable function of how complex systems behave when we intervene in them.

In the nine decades since Merton’s Law and its five causes were defined, several additional laws and principles have been highlighted These are summarised in the chart below, in five groupings.

You may find it helpful to refer to this chart when conducting a root cause analysis of why unintended outcomes arose from one of your initiatives.

The consequence awareness sphere

The four-dimensional consequence awareness sphere illustrated above seeks to provide further insights about intended and unintended consequences by combining four perspectives:

• Temporal (Past–Future)
• Consequence Depth (Surface–Systemic)
• Peripheral Awareness (Core–Blind Spot)
• Motivation (Intrinsic–Extrinsic)

Reading a complex chart like this can be challenging, so readers may wish to consider each dimension separately at first, and then start looking at the interaction between pairs of dimensions (cycling through each of the six possible combinations), before considering combinations of three dimensions (four possible combinations), and finally thinking about the dynamic intersection of all four. [Arguably, there are other dimensions that could also be considered (e.g., system/resource/capacity limits, infrastructure and technology ‘failures’, sabotage/crime, etc.), however distilling them all into a 2D visual representation without cluttering up the field would require greater skill than I possess.]

The central disc reflects the agency, intentionality, and responsibility of the conscious being who is navigating these four dimensions. Where time, consequence depth, awareness span, and motivation meet, sits the active self, the agent who:

• Perceives (gathers information),
• Thinks/Feels (assigns meaning, considers options, and chooses action),
• Acts (exerts force into the system, generating consequences).

A few examples of insights implied in the sphere include:

• Failure to examine the wake of past actions leads to repetition of harm.
• Some consequences are seen but silenced — these fall below the “ethical waterline.”
• The temporal field is dynamic — zones expand or contract based on attention, incentives, and openness.

While this chart suggests a personal consequence awareness sphere, nonprofit governance and management involve groups of people – all performing different collective roles. Imagine a group of unique ‘awareness spheres’ sitting around your board table (which could be your board, your Risk Committee, or your Executive team), and consider the processes required to achieve a cohesive view (a shared awareness sphere) about unintended consequences.

Use case arguments suggesting how this model may help include:

• Governance and Strategic Planning – Expands decision criteria to include legacy and side effects
• Policy Evaluation and Risk Audit – Adds ethical and symbolic consequence zones to technical reviews
• Leadership Reflection – Encourages critical humility and long-view stewardship
• Organisational Learning – Makes “invisible” lessons visible and discussable

Part 2 – to follow

This concludes Part 1 of the series on the Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences. Part 2 will consider where unintended consequences fit within risk management, including early warning systems that may help to address emergent risks, along with some broader reflections on the topic.

Series links:

The Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences – Part 2
The Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences – Part 3

See also:

Strategic Causality
Strategic Causality – Part 2
Red Flags, Risk Matrices, or Bow-ties?
Making Sense
Strategy and Risk: 2 sides of one coin
The Wisdom of Epimetheus: Igniting Sparks & Fighting Fires
20:20 Hindsight
Governance Lines of Sight