The Four Truths: A Model for Meaning-Making in Teams

Recently, while teaching in a team coaching program where I serve as faculty, I had the opportunity to introduce a deceptively simple yet profoundly insightful model—The Four Truths, developed by Dr. Glenda Eoyang and the Human Systems Dynamics Institute.

In our work with teams, it’s easy to get caught up in surface-level actions—who said what, which task was missed, or where the conflict erupted. But just beneath those visible behaviors lies a complex network of perspectives and meaning-making that often goes unspoken. The Four Truths model offers a practical framework for exploring this complexity.

The Four Truths: A Brief Overview

At its core, the Four Truths model provides a way of understanding the diverse ways people interpret reality. It distinguishes between four distinct types of “truth”:

1. Objective Truth – What can be seen, measured, or proven. These are facts, like “our team missed the deadline.”
2. Normative Truth – What we, as a group or culture, agree is true. Think of shared norms like “we value open communication.”
3. Subjective Truth – How an individual experiences or feels about a situation. One person might say, “I feel like I’m not being heard.”
4. Complex Truth – The recognition that all of these truths can coexist, and that the group may need to choose the one most “fit for purpose” in the moment.

Why It Matters for Teams

In teams, especially those experiencing conflict, ambiguity, or change, different truths often compete beneath the surface. One team member might be operating from objective truth (the data), while another is guided by subjective experience (how they felt in the meeting). Another might default to normative truth (what we “should” do), while a skilled team coach or leader can help the team arrive at a complex truth—an agreement about which perspective will best serve the team now.

This model allows teams to slow down and explore where each person is coming from. Instead of debating who is “right,” they can begin to notice which truth they’re each using—and why.

From Theory to Practice

Here’s how I’ve seen the model play out in real time:

• In a retrospective meeting, a team debated whether a project had “gone well.” Objective truth (the client accepted the deliverables) clashed with subjective truth (some members felt the process was chaotic and stressful). Normative truths about “what good looks like” were unspoken but palpable. Using the Four Truths framework helped the team name these layers and co-create a more nuanced story of the project—one that informed how they would work together going forward.
• In another coaching session, a team struggling with decision-making realized they were each operating from different definitions of success—some rooted in data, others in team values, others in personal convictions. Recognizing these truths didn’t erase the differences, but it created the space to choose, together, what mattered most in the moment.

A Model for Generative Dialogue

The Four Truths model isn’t just a conceptual tool—it’s a method for inquiry. It invites curiosity. It encourages teams to ask:

• What are the facts we agree on?
• What are the cultural norms or group agreements shaping our thinking?
• What personal beliefs or emotions are influencing our views?
• Which perspective will help us move forward wisely right now?

In an era where teams are navigating increasing complexity, uncertainty, and diversity, this kind of layered reflection is more than helpful—it’s essential.

Final Thoughts

What I love most about the Four Truths is that it doesn’t force a single version of reality. It embraces the paradoxes and tensions that come with human systems. And in doing so, it gives teams a more honest, compassionate, and adaptive way to make meaning—and progress—together.

Whether you’re a coach, leader, or team member, the next time your group is stuck or struggling, try asking: What truth is at play here? And is there another one we need to consider?