When we step into a complex organization—whether in manufacturing, healthcare, or finance—we often find ourselves navigating a sea of competing truths. Everyone seems certain they see the problem clearly. Yet somehow, solving it feels harder than it should.

Why?

Often, it’s not the facts that differ. It’s the interpretation.

Enter the Rashomon effect

Named after Akira Kurosawa’s iconic 1950 film Rashomon, the term refers to how multiple people can witness the same event and come away with completely different accounts. Each person believes they’re telling the truth, but their truths conflict.

In organizations, the Rashomon effect shows up when departments, teams, or individuals interpret the same issue in vastly different ways—based on background, incentives, or domain expertise. It shapes how we identify problems, assign blame, and pursue solutions.

Let’s explore how it plays out and how we can navigate through it.

Healthcare example: Diagnosing through a narrow lens

A 40-year-old man in distress sat on the exam table. His wife gently massaged his left shoulder, hoping to ease the pain. During the previous 48 hours, he had seen three doctors and undergone an ECG, ECHO, two MRIs (shoulder and neck), and multiple blood tests. His wife’s hands were full of prescriptions and reports.

As an IT professional, the man was no stranger to neck pain. But when the discomfort shifted to his shoulder and arm, he turned to Google and feared a heart attack. His physician, concerned about cardiac symptoms, referred him to a cardiologist. Finding little cause for alarm, the cardiologist prescribed blood thinners and cholesterol meds “just in case” and sent him to an orthopedist.

The orthopedic surgeon, an expert in minimally invasive surgery, suspected a tendon tear. More meds. Another referral—this time to a neurologist.

The neurologist, focused on nerve dysfunction, suspected diabetic or viral neuropathy. More tests.

Eventually, a spinal MRI revealed the true cause: a slipped cervical disc compressing a nerve.

Each specialist was earnest. Each diagnosis made sense through their respective lens. But none saw the whole patient.

This is the Rashomon effect in healthcare. But it’s not confined to medicine.

Quality management example: The mystery of the failing product line

A manufacturing company noticed a troubling spike in warranty claims for one of its top products. Each department had a theory:
• Engineering pointed to a materials issue.
• Operations suspected machine calibration.
• Quality assurance flagged gaps in inspection.
• Sales believed customers were mishandling the product post-delivery.

Each team dug into its area, implementing fixes based on its perspective. Meetings were held. Reports were written. Patches were applied.

Still, the claims continued.

Only when a cross-functional task force stepped out of their silos did the full story emerge: It was a design change in a material spec, combined with a calibration drift and a new shipping method that added stress to a vulnerable component.

No department had been wrong. But none could solve the problem alone. Until the team members looked at the system, they remained trapped in their own Rashomon narratives—partial, sincere, and insufficient.

Technology example: A leadership lesson

At a fast-growing tech company, a major product launch fell flat. User complaints surged, adoption lagged, and internal blame spread quickly.

The product manager blamed engineering: “They delayed critical features, so we launched without core functionality.”

Engineering pointed to product: “The requirements kept shifting midsprint. We did our best, but quality slipped.”

Marketing said: “We never got a clear value proposition. Messaging was inconsistent.”

Sales added: “We weren’t consulted on features our clients were asking for. Expectations were off.”

Customer support chimed in: “We raised early red flags from beta users; no one acted.”

Frustrated, the CEO initially sided with product management and replaced the engineering lead. They even considered outsourcing development. But results worsened. Morale dipped. The next release fared no better.

Eventually, the CEO paused. With help from a systems-thinking facilitator, the company conducted a post-mortem using anonymous input, customer feedback, and data analysis. The real picture emerged: a combination of unrealistic deadlines, poor interdepartmental communication, and a lack of user-centered testing.

No one was entirely wrong, but no one had seen the whole.

Once teams began sharing insights beyond their silos, the organization rebuilt its product development life cycle. Quality improved. Trust returned. And future launches ran smoother.

The lesson? Jumping to conclusions, even well-intentioned ones, can derail more than delay. Seeing the full picture is the foundation for lasting decisions.

Finance example: Bottlenecks in loan processing

A regional bank was struggling with delays in loan approvals, frustrating customers and costing business. The CEO called a cross-departmental meeting.

In the meeting:
• Credit risk blamed the sales department for submitting incomplete or risky applications.
• Sales blamed operations for a slow, bureaucratic process.
• Operations blamed compliance for rigid and constantly changing requirements.
• Compliance blamed everyone else for not keeping up with regulatory shifts.

Every department told a coherent, compelling story. Each team’s version made sense. Each genuinely believed they had identified the real issue.

The truth? All of them were right—and wrong. The delays stemmed from a mismatch between new regulations, outdated workflows, and sales incentives that emphasized volume over quality.

It took an external facilitator, trained in systems thinking, to help the teams piece together a fuller picture. Once they saw how their perspectives intersected, they could address the real, systemic issues, not just the symptoms.

Why it matters

Problem solving often requires more than the standard ingredients. We must be willing to question what we “know,” listen actively to other perspectives, and make space for cross-disciplinary insights.

In quality management, costs of the Rashomon effect include:
• Misdiagnosed root causes
• Ineffective solutions
• Wasted time and resources
• Eroded trust
• Lost customers

Organizations that recognize and proactively counter the Rashomon effect are better positioned to innovate, solve lasting problems, and build resilient cultures.

What can be done?

Build cross-functional teams: Bring together people with different expertise, backgrounds, and experiences. The intersections are where the breakthroughs happen.

When Toyota faced recurring quality issues in one of its assembly plants, leadership realized that isolated departmental efforts were falling short. They created “quality circles”—small, cross-functional teams where line workers, engineers, and supervisors collaborated directly. Workers closest to the process could voice insights engineers hadn’t seen. By integrating perspectives across roles, Toyota didn’t just solve individual problems—it transformed its quality culture.

Use structured problem-solving: Frameworks like TRIZ (theory of inventive problem-solving) help teams reframe issues and find solutions from outside their usual toolbox.

A major pharmaceutical company struggling with delayed clinical trial approvals adopted TRIZ methods to rethink bottlenecks. Rather than blaming a single department, the TRIZ approach reframed the problem: “How can we ensure compliance and flexibility simultaneously?” The team pulled in solutions from adjacent industries like aerospace (where strict regulations meet rapid iteration). They redesigned protocols, cut approval times by 30%, and sparked a broader innovation initiative.

Slow down and widen your viewpoint: Don’t rush to act. Taking time to understand the problem from multiple angles often prevents costly missteps.

After a massive product recall, a consumer electronics firm brought in an outside facilitator who deliberately slowed their crisis meetings. Instead of rushing to identify “the culprit,” they mapped every touchpoint of the product’s journey: design, sourcing, manufacturing, shipping, customer use. Patterns emerged that weren’t obvious in the rush: Small variances across suppliers were compounding into major failures downstream. By resisting urgency, they saw critical connections and rebuilt their supply chain resilience.

Model humility: Encourage people—especially leaders—to say, “I might be missing something.” That simple shift opens space for deeper collaboration and better results.

When a leading hospital system merged with another, integration challenges flared: clashing protocols, technology incompatibilities, and frustrated staff. Rather than imposing top-down fixes, the new CEO began every town hall with a simple phrase: “I know I don’t have the full picture. Help me understand what you’re seeing.” This modeled humility rippled through the leadership ranks. Teams began surfacing issues earlier and more honestly, allowing faster alignment and smoother integration.

Seeing differently to solve better

The Rashomon effect isn’t a flaw in how we think; it’s a feature of how humans interpret the world. But if we can name it, explore it, and work through it, we move from fragmented views to shared understanding.

Whether we’re diagnosing a patient, debugging a product, or streamlining a process, recognizing the Rashomon effect is powerful. It reminds us that truth is rarely singular, and effective solutions often emerge from integration, not certainty.

The next time you hear wildly different stories about the same problem, don’t rush to choose sides. Pause. Zoom out. Connect the dots. The goal is not to prove who’s right—it’s to see the whole, not just a slice.

Sometimes the first step to quality, innovation, and improvement isn’t having better answers; it’s asking better questions. The best question to ask first may be, “What are we not seeing yet?”