Introduction
Many people have mixed reactions to systems thinking. On the one hand, they find the concepts intriguing, stimulating and provocative - an approach to organizational life that helps them find unique, creative solutions to problems. On the other hand, they experience confusion, uncertainty and suspicion while trying to understand systems thinkers. They may see systems thinking as flawed, incomplete and frustrating, and wonder if it is worth the time and attention it has received recently.
In accordance with one of the key precepts of systems thinking regarding paradoxes, let’s hold these apparently contradictory reactions in mind as we examine what is promising and problematic about this approach to understanding our world. For discussion purposes, keep in mind the following questions as you read this paper.
1. Is systems thinking any more helpful for understanding and addressing common organizational problems than the usual linear models that may be more familiar?
2. Has systems thinking become such a money-making “commodity” that those who know it best have stopped analyzing the approach critically?
3. Can systems thinking ever be “value free”? Should it be?
Definition
First, what is “systems thinking”. Let’s go to the popular source. Peter Senge says “systems thinking” is:
…a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static “snapshots”. …It is also a set of specific tools and techniques …And systems thinking is a sensibility – for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.[1]
O’Connor and McDermott add the following to this definition:
Systems thinking is seeing beyond what appear to be isolated and independent incidents to deeper patterns. …A system is something that maintains its existence and functions as a whole through the interaction of its parts.[2]
So systems thinking is about parts, wholes, connections and patterns.
Ways of using systems thinking
Authors use “systems thinking” in a variety of ways, from the relatively simple to the highly complex. Barry Richmond has pointed out that there is a continuum of systems thinking activities. He portrays them in the following diagram.[3]
Further, he writes:
At the conceptual end of the spectrum is adoption of a systems perspective or viewpoint. You are adopting a systems viewpoint when you are standing back far enough—in both space and time—to be able to see the underlying web of ongoing, reciprocal relationships which are cycling to produce the patterns of behavior that a system is exhibiting. You’re employing a systems perspective when you can see the forest (of relationships), for the trees. …Moving rightward along the continuum, activities become more concerned with implementation of the viewpoint. … You might typically begin implementation by developing an influence diagram - a simple map of the reciprocal relationships that you believe to be principally responsible for producing the behavior patterns that a system is exhibiting. …. Next, you might construct a structural diagram. This is a more disciplined map. It attempts to show what really makes a system tick. … Finally, you might take the step of translating the structural diagram into a set of equations. The equations characterize the nature of the relationships that you laid out in your structural diagram. This activity also includes assigning numerical values to define the direction and strength of these relationships.[4]
He notes that few systems thinking practitioners are equally capable at all activities along the continuum. He also points out that it is unnecessary to be a sophisticated practitioner to find systems thinking useful for problem solving.
What is useful
So what can we learn from systems thinking that is useful for problem solving? Here are some of the ideas and insights that seem helpful to me.
Frames and perspectives
When caught up in “events” we sometimes forget to step back to look at problem situations from different perspectives. The two key perspectives are space and time. Gaining geographical or temporal distance may enable us to see problem situations differently and suggest creative solutions. Events within our own department at work may look different when we step back and see them in the context of events within the whole organization. Similarly, you may gain insights about this week’s events by looking at trends over time. Failing to check “solutions” from alternate perspectives can lead to more problems rather than fewer. For example, putting in a larger diameter feed line for your home water system may solve the problem of low water pressure for your shower, but may also increase pressure in other parts of the plumbing system causing pipes to burst, flooding your basement! Pausing, stepping back and looking at the bigger picture may reveal insights that otherwise we would miss, as this cartoon suggests.[5]
Seeing parts and wholes
Part of using frames and perspectives is developing the ability to see both parts and wholes. Typically, we refer to people who “can’t see the forest for the trees”. Let’s imagine a man is lost in the forest. Knowing that he needs to see more than “the trees”, he climbs the tallest tree he can find so that he can see the “forest”. Once he is up the tree, he can see his destination. He also notes that the most direct route to the destination has many obstacles – thick bush, heavy forest, etc. But he can see another less direct route that has fewer trees and other obstacles. Which route does he take?
Rising above the parts to see the whole allows him to see his goal, and to plan a better route to get there. It is also worth noting that the most direct, obvious route is not always the best. Solving real life problems may require more subtle thinking than we usually use.
Expanding our usual understanding of cause
Part of seeing the bigger picture includes expanding our usual understanding of cause and effect. One of my earliest exposures to ideas about cause and effect came in philosophy classes as an undergraduate. Among others, we studied David Hume, the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher. Briefly, he argued that we can never, through reason alone, support the idea that one thing causes another. We develop beliefs based on repeated experiences, but logically, we cannot predict that all future occurrences will coincide with those beliefs.
To illustrate his ideas about causation he used the example of a pool ball striking another ball, “causing” the second ball to move forward (with any luck) into the pocket or a better position. He noted that through experience we predict that whenever one ball hits another, the result will be the same, even though (he would argue) there is no logical necessity that the cause (ball 1) will lead to the effect (ball 2 moving). What he didn’t explore is the impact of the second ball on the first – the first ball stops! Systems thinking alerts us to this reciprocal relationship. The “feedback” of “effect” on “cause” reveals that causation is two-way, and therefore more complex than we might have imagined at first.
We can illustrate the difference between “linear” and “closed loop” thinking by using a simple flowchart of the pool example.
Figure 1- Linear Flow Chart
Figure 2 - Systems Thinking Flow Chart
In systems thinking, each “cause” is also an “effect” making the whole process much more complex, but also more complete. Thus, systems diagrams are usually drawn as loops or circles rather than in straight lines as above. Thinking in terms of reciprocal relationships broadens our understanding of problems and makes it more likely that we will discover lasting solutions.
One other aspect that is useful to remember here is that there is often a “time lag” between any given cause and any given effect – you don’t always see the results right away. Another aspect is that there are often many different causes of any given effect. Rather than leaping to the conclusion that we know the cause of a problem (which usually involves blaming someone), it is often better to explore all the potential causes.
A specific technique that helps us identify the range of possible causes is the “five why’s”, an application of brainstorming to cause identification. It is a highly practical and useful tool with its roots in systems thinking.[6]
Feed forward effects
An additional complexity revealed by systems thinking is the “feed forward” effect. Here is how O’Connor and McDermott describe it:
Feedforward describes an interesting and slightly different effect of some types of feedback. It comes from our ability to anticipate the future. It is when the anticipated effect in the future, which has not yet happened, triggers the cause in the present, which would otherwise not have happened. Thus the future reaches backwards to affect the present. For example, when you expect to fail, you often do. …When you expect to succeed, on the other hand, your energy and optimism help you make it more likely that you will.[7]
The commonplace terminology for this feedforward effect is self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, it has been demonstrated teachers’ expectations affect student performance.
In one investigation, researchers studied the ways teachers communicate their expectations to high achievers and low achievers. Their observations of classrooms revealed that teachers treat low achievers differently than they treat high achievers.
To see how powerful this different treatment can be, researchers told teachers that randomly selected students had been identified as "intellectual late bloomers." Then they watched to see what would happen. As it turns out, teacher behaviour changed enough to have a significant positive effect on student performance, both in the classroom and on achievement tests.[8]
Applying our understanding of feedforward during problem solving may help us imagine unique alternative solutions, bring forth extraordinary results or prepare for previously unanticipated side effects.
Habitual (unproductive) patterns of behaviour
Systems thinking alerts us to the possibility that we are engaged in patterns of behaviour that have become “normal” but may be unproductive or harmful. Writers like Senge describe so-called archetypes that exist in many social organizations. The thesis is that if we observe how people interact, no matter what type of organization they are in, we will see patterns emerging, and that these patterns will likely “fit” one or more of a small number of habitual patterns that exist across society. (Is there a similarity here with Jungian analysis and his “archetypes”?)
One of the most interesting archetypes is called “tragedy of the commons”. In this pattern, individual actors compete for a limited common resource (money, land, road space), each trying to maximize his or her use of the resource. Consequently, the resource becomes so depleted that it no longer meets the needs of any of the actors. For example, the highways department decides to add lanes to a crowded bridge to relieve traffic congestion. Once the work is completed, traffic congestion eases for awhile. But as more and more people try to take advantage of the new, faster route, their individual efforts to maximize their travel advantage make congestion even worse than it was before.[9]
Another amusing example occurred in the recent movie A Beautiful Mind. In an early scene, a group of young women enter a bar. One is a beautiful blond. A group of mathematicians seated in the bar, including John Nash (played by Russell Crowe), cast admiring glances at the women. From their comments it is clear that all of them are interested in the blond. But John Nash points out that if all of them “go for the blond” it is likely that none of them will “win”. Instead, he suggests they each approach a different woman, thereby increasing the chances that they will all end up with female companionship!
Leverage
Systems thinking suggests that the solutions to many of our most vexing problems lie in small interventions leading to large results. As we attempt to problem-solve, we should be alert to opportunities for this kind of “leverage”. We should also be aware that attempting to “push the system” with large scale interventions often results in failure or in making the problem worse. O’Connor and McDermott describe leverage this way:
Systems can also suddenly change if you find just the right combination of actions. This comes from understanding the system and is known as the principle of leverage. This principle is simple. Again, imagine a system as a web with many parts connected. Suppose you want to change the position of one part. When you pull on it directly, it seems to resist, but really the whole system resists. However, cutting a small link in another place may free this piece, like undoing a crucial knot in a tangle of string. You need to know how the system is made up to know which knot to undo.[10]
In order to make use of leverage, we need patience. It takes time to see how the system is actually working, what are its parts. Also, an intervention applied before the system is “ready” may not have the desired effect. Here I am reminded of the Japanese warlord Toranaga in the James Clavell novel Shogun. Toranaga’s key strategy was waiting until conditions were just right before taking action.
You can use leverage proactively too. Persistent application of relatively small interventions can have major beneficial results. An example that I experienced (but did not fully recognize at the time) is the provision over several years of a supervisory skills training program in a hospital. As part of the instructional design, this program made use of “preceptors” to lead small discussion groups at least 8 times in a twelve-week period. The “preceptors” were all senior managers (Vice-Presidents). The impact of maintaining the training program over such a long time, and involving senior managers in discussions with new supervisors, had a noticeable positive effect on organizational culture and morale. The impact went well beyond learning “communication skills”.
Failure to recognize opportunities for leverage may lead to much more costly and less effective interventions. I often wonder what would have happened, for instance, if the provincial government had persisted with one of the early attempts at health reform: community partnerships. This program rewarded hospitals, which operated with independent boards at the time, by increasing their budgets by up to 5% if they could demonstrate that they were working in partnership with other health oriented community agencies. The purpose was to break down some of the “silos” that seemed to be inhibiting the efficient and effective provision of health services in many parts of the province. The program was just beginning to “take hold” and show some positive results when a new government was elected, and the Ministry of Health changed its approach. Instead of working slowly to “leverage” changes with small interventions, the Ministry introduced a wholesale program of structural health reform. Since then, the whole system has been quite chaotic, there have been three iterations of “health reform” and health costs have continued to rise.
Making patterns and assumptions public
According to systems thinkers, one of the chief sources of leverage is making behavioural patterns and assumptions public. Once everyone “sees” the patterns, previously insurmountable problems often melt away. Systems thinkers use loop diagrams to show relationships amongst variables, making these relationships available to others. For many, these loop diagrams are confusing at first, especially once they start including a larger number of variables. As we struggle to create our own loop diagrams, we may take heart from this advice:
“Although the pictures created may not be ‘correct’, they are clear enough portrayals to be challenged, to form the basis for dialogue and shared exploration of the issue at hand.”[11]
The power of the diagrams seems to come from the discussion they encourage. By sharing their stories and perceptions, work groups often learn enough to help them unravel complex, unsatisfactory relationships and processes. The same thing can happen when cross-functional quality improvement teams work together to construct process flow charts. The idea of surfacing the “truth” also reminds me of the film Secrets and Lies, in which a long held family secret (an illegitimate black child, product of a rape) has simmered below the surface, poisoning a family “system”. Once the painful “secret” surfaces, the family is on the road to reconciliation and recovery.
Using loop diagrams to bring assumptions and “secrets” to the surface may prove a powerful tool for analyzing problems and seeing solutions. For instructions on drawing loop diagrams see Daniel Kim’s article in The Systems Thinker.[12]
Dialogue and skilful discussion
Other tools for bringing out “the truth” are dialogue and skilful discussion. Dialogue is defined as “a sustained collective inquiry into everyday experience and what we take for granted”.[13] The aim of dialogue is to uncover “…assumptions taken for granted, the polarization of opinions, the rules for acceptable and unacceptable conversations, and the methods for managing differences. …Dialogue’s purpose, as we now understand it, would be to create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness could be maintained.”[14] Experience suggests that learning to share deeper meanings, metaphors and assumptions is essential for more effective problem solving.
Skilful discussion refers to the capability to balance advocacy with inquiry, talking with listening. Rather than simply stating our own positions ever more vociferously, we attend equally to our own arguments and to those of other members of the group. Rick Ross describes the process well in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, including this continuum.[15]
Learning to communicate more effectively with one another makes an important contribution to learning and problem solving.
Mental models
Mental models are the habits of mind that we develop. Often these habits are invisible to us. They form a system of beliefs that serve the purpose of bringing meaning to our worlds. We filter all incoming information through these beliefs, adding our own assumptions, prejudices and preconceptions. Unless we attend deliberately to our system of beliefs, we end up communicating and making decisions based on severely limited information. For effective problem solving, we need to expose and consider the mental models that might prevent us from understanding problems completely or perceiving creative solutions. The nine dots exercise is but one example of how mental models limit our problem solving ability.
When people are asked to join all nine dots with only four connected lines without taking their pencils off the paper, they inevitably have difficulty – even if they have done the exercise before. Our “mental models” see a square. We assume we must stay “inside the box”. However, the best solution involves extending the lines we draw “outside the box”, requiring a deliberate revision of our assumptions.
Clear visions and goals
Systems are said to be driven by their purposes. In fact, some definitions of systems describe them as parts that interact to achieve a common purpose. Attention to purpose has long been a characteristic of successful problem solving. Clarity of purpose comes into play when describing longer-term visions for work teams and organizations. Focusing on the common meta-goal often lifts people above petty conflicts and allows them to overcome organizational problems. It is also useful for problem solving teams to invest time in clearly describing their common purpose, and to describe completely the problem they are trying to solve. This clarity of purpose serves to organize the “system” (organization, team) marshalling its resources and energizing its relationships.
Yet clarity of purpose is often missing. People working in organizations are confused by the very terminology. Words like “vision”, “mission” and so on mean different things to different people. Systems thinkers like Senge and Alain Gauthier make a contribution by trying to clarify these terms.
“A vision is a picture of the future you seek to create, described in the present tense, as if it were happening now. A statement of ‘our vision’ shows where we want to go, and what we will be like when we get there.”
“… a mission … represents the fundamental reason for the organization’s existence.”
“Values describe how we intend to operate, on a day-to-day basis, as we pursue our vision.”
“Goals represent what people commit themselves to do, often within a few months.”[16]
In other words, the mission describes your current reason for existence, the vision describes your desired future state or condition, values define the boundaries within which you will operate and goals are short-term steps or milestones along the way. One other important distinction is between means and ends. John Carver reminds us to focus on the results we want before deciding on the best way of getting them. Although he doesn’t claim to be a “systems thinker” his language is consistent with a systems approach. He writes:
“The concept here is exchange, a transaction between the organization and the world. Something of value consumed is swapped for something of value produced. I use the words results, ends and outcomes interchangeably to describe the organization’s swap with the world.”[17]
The idea of a transaction between what is in the system and what is outside is useful for thinking about system boundaries. Boundary definition is not trivial, as I point out below. Identifying all those parts and sub-processes that contribute to the overall system purpose or vision may help here.
Appreciative Inquiry
An interesting offshoot of systems thinking is the use of appreciative inquiry to examine organizational problems. Briefly, appreciative inquiry suggests that it is helpful to look for examples of good or desirable performance in organizations and find ways of building on it. The approach seems to be derived from the idea of the positive reinforcing loop. Portrayed graphically it could look like this:
In contrast to the usual problem solving cycle with its emphasis on shortcomings and gaps in performance, appreciative inquiry strives to find the positive and build on it. It shows promise as an alternative way of looking at organizational issues, and may open avenues of inquiry that would otherwise escape notice. For further information see the Gervase Busche article cited below.[18]
Problem solving is never really finished
Finally, systems thinking reminds us that problem solving is an ongoing process. The completion of one “stage” is really just the beginning of another. Progress is seen as a spiral of loops and relationships stretching into an indefinite future. Imagining problem solving this way perhaps makes us humble and encourages the patience necessary to deal with root causes rather than superficial symptoms.
What is problematic
As noted in the Introduction, systems thinking often provokes confusion and frustration. More experienced practitioners may be able to overcome some of the apparent difficulties. But I am struck by the paucity of critical thinking about the systems approach. Literature and Internet searches turn up only enthusiastic supporters, most repeating similar themes. Here are some of my concerns.
Is this all there is?
Much of the writing and thinking on systems seems an overly complex explanation of the obvious. In fact, Senge’s “Laws of the Fifth Discipline” sound like maxims every mother tells her children. “The cure can be worse than the disease”, “Faster is slower” (haste makes waste) – where have I heard that before? Did I need systems thinking to help me learn these principles?
Further, systems thinking seems to have claimed as its own many approaches that have existed independently for years. We’ve known for a long time that shared visions have generative power. Communications theorists have long touted the value of balancing talking with listening. Dozens of experiments have shown the “power of positive thinking” – the self-fulfilling prophecy labelled in systems language “feedforward effect”. Creativity specialists like Roger von Oech and Edward de Bono have long advocated breaking away from our “mental models”. What’s the big deal? A charitable interpretation is that systems thinking brings all these approaches together in a somewhat different way. But I wonder – does systems thinking make these ideas more or less accessible?
One could ask if this is yet another example of successful marketing. Perhaps systems thinking demonstrates again the disconnect between what is truly useful and what “sells”. The marketplace certainly supports the approach (much to Senge’s initial surprise, I understand). But can we trust the democracy of the market to lead us in a truly useful direction?
Does systems thinking lead to “blaming the victim”?
Barry Oshry has used the systems thinking approach to describe patterns of behaviour in organizations. He writes about “burdened tops”, “oppressed bottoms” and “screwed customers”. His argument is that unless we can “see” these patterns, particularly in ourselves, they capture us. The patterns begin to shape and determine our behaviour. The way out of this dilemma is to recognize what is happening, then “choose your attitude” – begin to think and behave differently.
While there is some truth to the idea that we have more power than we may realize to take control of our lives, his work also obscures the possibility that real oppression exists (particularly for oppressed bottoms). His approach could be construed as “blaming the victim”, putting all the responsibility for unsatisfactory circumstances on the individuals experiencing the difficulties. Women in family systems facing abusive husbands, team members working with cruel leaders and employees experiencing arbitrary layoffs may beg to disagree. There are limits to an individual’s ability to overcome challenging patterns of behaviour, even if they can “see” them. And sometimes, oppression is real. We might do well to remember that Marx and Lenin were also “systems thinkers” of a sort, and they came to different conclusions than Oshry!
Does the complexity of complete systems thinking taken to its logical conclusion leads to impotence?
Peter Senge writes that
“Complexity can easily undermine confidence and responsibility – as in the frequent refrain, ‘It’s all to complex for me,’ or ‘There’s nothing I can do. It’s the system.’ Systems thinking is the antidote to this sense of helplessness that many feel as we enter the ‘age of interdependence’.”[19]
But I wonder – is it possible that by revealing the complexity, we make people feel less powerful? For example, consider the (relatively simple) systems diagram regarding traffic congestion shown below.
Or perhaps you might want to consider this more complex diagram regarding mariculture.
It is somewhat unfair to portray these diagrams without their accompanying “stories”. Nevertheless, the point is that the complex relationships in biological or social systems leave many of us feeling overwhelmed rather than “empowered”.
Furthermore, it makes me wonder whether we can ever fully grasp the complexities of our world anyway. Since we are “part” of what we are studying, can we ever attain enough distance to objectively see the relationships and interactions we need to understand to make complete sense of it all? Surely the quotation on page 3 of The Fifth Discipline, “Give me a lever long enough … and single handed I can move the world” (Archimedes), is fraught with irony. Archimedes knew he would never have that lever. And these days, we know that we may not only need to move the world, but also the entire universe, since everything seems to be connected.
The enormous complexity of the world and the universe makes it easy to understand why for centuries humans, in their search for meaning, have turned to god(s). Only some “one” completely separate and bigger than the world can completely understand it. Many of us hope that there is some sort of divine purpose beyond our ken that makes sense of the myriad relationships we cannot fully comprehend. In fact, perhaps “god” is the sum total of all these relationships!
To give Senge credit, he does attempt to address this dilemma in Chapter 20 of The Fifth Discipline, Rewriting The Code. He makes the distinction between dynamic complexity and detail complexity, and writes:
“…one of the subtler lessons of the systems perspective is that this enormous detail complexity renders all rational explanations inherently incomplete. Human systems are infinitely complex. …Evidence is overwhelming that human beings have ‘cognitive limitations’. Cognitive scientists have shown that we can deal only with a very small number of separate variables simultaneously.”[20]
Thomas Homer-Dixon has offered the dismal view that the world is rapidly exceeding our intellectual grasp.
“In his book, The Ingenuity Gap, …he argues the surfeit of information bombarding us everywhere is out-stripping our ability to synthesize it. …he paints a picture of himself sitting in a grubby office building on the outskirts of New Delhi, waiting to see the Indian minister of state for the environment. The meeting has been delayed by the over-worked, over-wrought minister, who is beleaguered by an incessantly ringing phone, interruptions by assistants and stacks of file folders awaiting his attention. ‘The minister’s brain, with its array of cognitive tools adapted for hominid life in the late Pleistocene, was clearly not up to the task confronting him that day on his desk,’ he writes. ‘The issues and problems were piling up faster than he or his staff could solve them. They faced an ingenuity gap.’”[21]
Yet Senge argues that through training we know we can learn highly complicated tasks like playing violin concerti and driving automobiles on the freeway. The same is true of systems thinking. Through training and practice we can help the “subconscious mind” to see things in “circles instead of straight lines”. Gradually, we begin to understand the world in a different way, increasing our ability to make sense of a complex world. How much effort will be required and how long this will take is unclear.
Is systems thinking as a predictive tool in human organizations, bound to fail?
We might be persuaded it is worth the effort if systems thinking offered strong possibilities for prediction. If we can analyze systems, learn how they work, then intervene in ways that will lead to predictable (“good”) results that would be beneficial. However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that attempts to manipulate complex systems more often lead to disaster rather than success. The further away in time and space that we try to predict, the less accurate our predictions. The success stories are remarkable due to their rarity rather than their frequency.
The reason for this dismal record may lie in the dynamics of systems thinking itself. One aspect that O’Connor and McDermott discuss is the “feedforward” effect (otherwise known as self fulfilling prophecy). I described it earlier, but briefly it suggests that as soon as we publicize information about a system, that information changes the way the system responds some time in the future. Thus, as soon as we predict changes in any human system, our predictions change the course of events. Further predictions lead to further changes, and so on. We can never free ourselves of this feedforward loop. Therefore, the system’s behaviour is always bound to be unpredictable. O’Connor and McDermott remind us that the stock market could very well be an example of this phenomenon.[22]
Another problem with prediction arises from theories of chaos and complexity. There are always forces of which we are unaware. We are reminded of the Jeff Goldblum character’s scepticism in the movie Jurassic Park. While in the jeep heading out to see the dinosaurs, he demonstrates to the female lead how drops of water never fall in exactly the same place every time. He uses this simple illustration to show the folly of trying to recreate in predictable, controllable ways a natural system that mimics a past age.
Even when we work with inanimate systems, like weather for example, where our predictions should have no influence on what happens, and we can separate ourselves from the “system”, our ability to predict future events is modest.
“In general, Kuo said, weather forecasts beyond 24-hours are accurate about 85 percent of the time, but at five days it’s anyone’s guess, perhaps about 55 percent -- only marginally better than a 50-50 guess.”[23]
Without real predictive power, how useful is systems thinking in understanding and improving our organizations?
Are we prepared for the results of boundary re-definition?
Determining the boundaries of a system in time and space is an imprecise art. Do the boundaries of your organization include only its employees? What about the suppliers and customers – should they be “in” or “out”? For that matter, what about the wider society in which the organization exists?
The best systems theorists seem to offer on boundaries is “you decide” and “try different boundaries and see what you get”.
And yet boundary definition is critically important for analyzing and understanding a system. For instance, where we choose to set the boundaries has an impact on our solutions. What is good for the “whole” may not be good for the “parts” (those within the boundaries). Senge uses the example of Royal Dutch Shell as a “success story”. But is it true that what is good for Royal Dutch Shell is good for the nation, the world? Within the company, did some parts suffer for the good of the whole? Was this desirable, justifiable?
In political systems, we run into this problem all the time. The interests of provinces conflict with those of the federal government. Minorities hold views that the majority in the system can’t abide. There may be very real conflicts of value and interest between smaller and larger entitities. When push comes to shove, which system’s interests take precedence? While we’ve set up processes to deal with these issues, they work imperfectly.
Competing interests also collide over longer and shorter time frames. We are all familiar with the conflict between immediate self-interest (or gratification) and longer term but less certain outcomes. Should we buy that new laptop, or put the money aside in an RRSP in the hopes of reaping benefits when we retire? The “pull” is often to the more immediate, more certain result. Given what we have already said about unpredictability, one could even argue that immediate self-interest is the best choice!
Time boundaries also become important when we measure success. Do we look at the results of changing the health system to a regional one after one year, two years or ten? Depending on when you observe, you are likely to get a completely different result.
Extending boundaries in time and space may lead to radical suggestions. The environmental movement, for example, claims that taking the long and wide view necessarily means we must change quite dramatically the way in which we live. Social theorists looking broadly at our culture often suggest that the capitalist economic “system”, with its emphasis on competition and self-interest, is the root cause of many social problems. Are we prepared to entertain the conclusions that may result from systems thinking?
At best most systems theorists provide incomplete explanations of systems boundaries and the implications of setting them. To the extent that systems thinking makes us more aware of these implications, it does us some service. This part of the approach needs more exploration.
Does systems thinking, taken to extremes, lead to scientific or spiritual mysticism?
Lastly, I fear that
systems thinking, considered uncritically, leaves us open to various types of
“mysticism”. On the scientific side, there is the mysticism of quantum physics
and the accompanying mathematics. The film Mindwalk provides an
intriguing explanation of the “new science”. However, after watching it, I was
struck by how much we don’t know more than how much we do know. The same is
true of reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings (apparently
the least read best seller of all time!). The new scientific
explanations seem highly speculative, uncertain and mysterious.
On the less scientific side, systems thinking seems to lead others to a kind of spiritual mysticism. Faced with the overwhelming complexity of the world and the universe, the only way of making meaning is to attribute the flow of events to a higher power. Many of the world’s religions aim to put people in touch with this mysterious “wholeness” that defies linear explanation.
The problem for most of us is that either direction leaves us open to exploitation by unscrupulous demagogues. The world is full of examples of people claiming to be “in the know” taking advantage of less well-informed citizens for personal power or private profit. Uncritical acceptance of “systems thinking” as “the answer” makes us vulnerable.
Is there an imbalance in cost/benefit with systems thinking?
In short, it is important to weigh carefully the costs and benefits of systems thinking. Given the challenges systems thinking poses, it is worth asking, “Is it worth the time and effort to learn this approach?” Rigorous application, at the right end of Richmond’s continuum above, requires years of study and sophisticated understanding of modeling and mathematics. Even more modest applications seem to need much reading and contemplation. Does the “80/20” rule apply here? That is, do we need to invest 80% of our time and effort learning a new approach that is useful for only 20% of the problems we face? Even Senge (quoting Kiefer) notes that, “there are still lots of problems for which a linear perspective is perfectly adequate.”[24]
On balance, I’m prepared to keep an open, inquiring mind on systems thinking. After all, it was study of systems thinking that led me to a remarkable amount of stimulating reading, thinking, discussion and writing. Surely that must be worth something.
Perhaps our concern should be directed less at systems thinking itself, and more toward the commodification of systems thinking. Is systems thinking a victim of its own success? Since the phenomenal sales of Senge’s book and other associated publications, systems thinking has become big business. Perhaps the lack of critical consideration is the result of not wanting to kill the golden goose. I’m reminded of Tom Hanks in the movie Big – what chaos he causes when he asks the high powered salesman about the transformer building: “What fun is that?” Does the systems thinking business machine discourage us from asking the critical questions that may allow us to determine for ourselves if the approach is truly useful?