 ‘Capabilities are freedoms conceived as real opportunities.’ (Amartya Sen) I keep coming back to this question: what is it that makes the difference? I’ve been drawn recently to reflections on this theme by Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen. He distinguishes between capabilities, which are our resources (including our abilities and our potential), and conversion factors, which are influences on the real opportunities we have to use and fulfil them. Sen focuses his work on wellbeing and on the kinds of lives people and groups are effectively able to lead. He moves on to questions of what people, groups and societies need. Sen offers some interesting illustrations. Two people have the same resources. One is able-bodied and the other has physical disabilities that confine them to a wheelchair. All else being equal, the able-bodied person has more net resources because the person with disabilities has more related expenses. The former may also have greater net opportunities in society because the latter may be limited to places that are wheelchair-accessible. This could lead us to the conclusion that the person with disabilities should be given more resources to ensure equity. Sen then asks, what if the able-bodied person is hard to please and needs more resources to achieve a sense of wellbeing? What if the person with disabilities is content with their life and needs fewer resources to achieve wellbeing? If the goal is wellbeing, should we therefore provide more resources for the able-bodied person? Sen poses two challenges before we leap to this conclusion: sometimes disadvantaged people lower their expectations as a coping mechanism; and society has a moral imperative to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Sen provides another example of a person who owns a bicycle. The bike is a means to an end, to ensure mobility rather than an end in itself. Yet to convert the potential of bike ownership to greater mobility, certain conditions need to be in place. These could include, for instance, the physical ability to ride a bike; a social-cultural context that allows the person to ride a bike; and environmental conditions such as safe roads or suitable bike paths that make using a bike feasible. It’s a combination of capabilities and conversion factors that make this difference. So, what does this look like real situations? As far back as 2003, I wrote a research paper as part of an organisation development (OD) masters’ degree that aimed to identify and address common factors that influence engagement and effectiveness in organisations. I proposed that culture, complexity, capability and climate were critical variables. It’s about releasing and harnessing individual potential on the one hand, whilst creating the conditions in which people thrive on the other. This is, in my view, where coaching, action learning and OD intersect. What do you think?
7 Comments
Phil de Graf
23/4/2025 11:17:14 am
Nick, your reflection on Sen’s capability approach touches upon a central tension in contemporary moral and political philosophy: how to reconcile universal notions of justice with the profound variability of human experience. In 2025, scholars such as Ingrid Robeyns and Séverine Deneulin continue to refine Sen’s framework, especially in light of environmental justice and digital inclusion.
Karen Hill
23/4/2025 11:20:16 am
Thanks for posting this Nick. As someone who uses a wheelchair, I’ve lived Sen’s theory long before I knew it had a name. Yes, having a wheelchair is a resource. But if the sidewalk doesn’t have a ramp, if public buses don't kneel, or if employers make excuses not to hire you, that resource is moot. The world wasn’t built with people like me in mind.
James Saward
23/4/2025 11:21:52 am
Really appreciate this perspective, Nick. In HR, we often talk about potential but we don’t always account for conditions that allow people to realise it. Sen’s framework aligns well with our current thinking on psychological safety, accessibility and flexible work design. It's not just who we hire. It’s what we do after they’re hired that determines success.
Tim Lovell
23/4/2025 11:25:27 am
This is🔥. Sen is basically saying: “Freedom isn’t just about what you have. It’s about what you can do with what you have.” And that hits hard in this day and age. Think about climate justice. A kid in Nairobi might have solar panels and access to school but if floods keep wiping out roads or if internet access is terrible, then how free is she really? It’s time to stop pretending equality means giving everyone the same tools. We need to build systems that adapt to real lives, not ideal ones. Thanks Nick.
Lisa Wilton
23/4/2025 11:29:59 am
Hi Nick. Your reference to the 4 Cs (culture, complexity, capability, climate) maps intriguingly onto what we now refer to in systems design as emergent enabling conditions. As you will be aware, in the past few years, much of OD and complexity-informed coaching has moved beyond performance management toward potential realisation in uncertain, adaptive systems. Sen’s work underscores that interventions cannot be purely technocratic or transactional. Capability, in systems terms, is an emergent property of nested systems: individual, team, organisational, societal. Conversion factors, then, are leverage points (often invisible) embedded in relationships, narratives and power structures. If we are serious about thriving systems, then capability-building must include the design of feedback loops, adaptive structures and reflective practices. As Nora Bateson would put it, “It’s not just what’s possible, it’s what’s plausible in relationship.”
Amira Boulton
23/4/2025 11:32:15 am
Thanks for sharing this, Nick. From a public policy standpoint, Sen’s capability approach offers a multidimensional view of poverty and exclusion that goes beyond income measures.
Uwezo Nyagah
23/4/2025 11:35:14 am
Sen’s ideas are thoughtful, no doubt. But let’s not kid ourselves: this is a philosopher’s way of justifying ever-expanding state intervention. Conversion factors sounds like a gateway term for micromanaging how people live. At some point, we must ask: who decides what counts as a real opportunity? Who measures wellbeing? Freedom, in my book, is being left alone to define your own success, not being helped into someone else’s definition of a flourishing life. This is a slippery slope and if this year has taught us anything, it’s that central planning rarely delivers what it promises. Leave a Reply. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed