The art of thinking in systems
Systems thinking is, at its heart, looking at problems in a way we haven’t before. It is a realization that everything is interconnected, and we should look at things as a whole rather than just a group of independent parts.
The parts of a system
Systems are made up of three parts: elements, interconnections, and a function or a purpose. The word “function” is used when talking about a non-human system, and the word “purpose” is used for human systems. [iv]
We figure out the purpose or function of a system from the way it behaves, not from our expectations or the purpose the system says it has.
Change and impact correlation
While certain elements may be very important to the system, by and large, if the elements are changed, the system can still continue to exist in a similar form and work to achieve its purpose or function.
When the interconnections of a system are changed, the whole system is changed drastically
Each part of the system is equally important as they work hand in hand, but changing a system’s purpose has the greatest impact on the system as a whole.
Level of system thinking
There are different levels of systems thinking maturity: Level 0 — Unawareness Operating at a level 0 of systems thinking means you are totally unaware of the systems thinking concept.
Level 1 — Shallow AwarenessThis level of systems thinking means that you are aware of the concept of systems thinking, but you do not exhibit any depth of understanding. You may feel like you are a systems thinker because you are comfortable speaking using the terminology that accompanies systems thinking, but you have not exhibited success in being able to distinguish between a good systems analysis and a bad one. Many people get stuck in this level of systems thinking maturity.
Level 2 – Deep Awareness
- If you are operating at this level of systems thinking maturity, you are completely aware of the key concepts of systems thinking and you understand how important this type of thinking is and what can be achieved at its full potential. You would be able to read and comprehend the casual flow diagrams and simulations models that are a part of systems thinking, and even be able to think with feedback loops at a beginning level, but you would not yet be able to create good diagrams and models of your own. You understand system structure and know what reinforcing and balancing feedback loops are at this level, and you can see why the forces that the feedback loops create are so powerful when it comes to human systems.
Level 3 — Novice
- Operating at this level of maturity means that you have a deep awareness of systems thinking, and you are even starting to dig into the black box that assesses why a system behaves in the manner it does. You can now create your own causal flow diagrams and can use them to help you solve some easy and moderately difficult problems. A really good novice would also be able to read simulation models well.
Level 4 — Expert
- If you are at the expert level, you are now able to use system dynamics to create your own simulation models. You are able to solve difficult and complex social system problems. Organizations who are working on complicated sustainability problems would be well-served to have at least one expert leading their team through the analysis, along with many novice level participants.
Level 5 — Guru
- This level of systems thinking maturity is rarely achieved. If you are a guru, you can teach other people to become experts, and you are able to offer significant input in solving the most challenging of social system problems.
Books to read next
- The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Peter Senge
- Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World by John Sterman.
Eight clues to detemine whether something you dealing is problem or symptom
Eight clues, based on the work of Jim Ollhoff and Michael Walcheski, to look for as you try to determine if what you are focused on is part of a larger problem or actually the problem itself.
- The size of the problem doesn’t fit the amount of time and energy you are spending on it. If the issue seems smaller than the effort you are putting into addressing it, chances are it is simply a symptom and not the true problem.
- People have the power to solve the problem, but choose not to. If they would rather spend their time complaining as opposed to fixing the situation, you are likely dealing with a symptom of a bigger problem.
- You have tried to solve the problem repeatedly and haven’t been successful — if you keep trying to solve a problem, but it changes into a related issue or keeps turning up again like a bad penny — the odds are good that you haven’t uncovered the real problem yet.
- There is an emotional barrier that stands in the way of solving the problem. If there are some things that people in an organization seem unwilling to address or even talk about, they are acting as an obstacle to imagination and innovation, and won’t get solved until you break through the true problem.
- If the problem has a pattern and seems to be predictable, it is probably a symptom of something more.
- If a problem is kept around, an organization may subconsciously like it, and it may give them some comfort in being able to focus on it instead of getting to the real problem and fixing it permanently.
- If an organization seems stressed out and anxious, it is quite likely that only symptoms are being focused on and the real problems are not being addressed. People may be afraid to speak their minds about the true nature of their concerns.
- Just as you “solve” one problem, another one pops up in its place. If an organization is more focused on finding a cause and effect connection and fixing it quickly as in linear thinking, you may find that it becomes like playing whacka-mole. New related issues will keep popping up as symptoms until the deeper problem is addressed.
Ten enemies of system thinking
Ten Enemies of Systems Thinking According to Ollhoff and Walcheski, there are ten statements — red flags — that linear thinking may cause and which act as obstacles to systems thinking.
- “Let’s fix it quick!” [xvi] There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to get a problem fixed as soon as possible, and systems thinking doesn’t require you to be slow in responding to problems, but jumping into a “solution” without fully understanding the problem is never positive in systems thinking.
- “Just put a Band-Aid on it and we’ll come back to it later.” [xvii] The problem with putting a Band-Aid on a problem is that it may serve to mask the symptoms while the problem continues to infect the organization.
- “We need the budget finalized before the end of the year!” [xviii] When budgets are involved, linear thinking is usually at work. Budgets cause us to make choices based on money rather than whether an idea is actually the best one. Once we add a fixed deadline into the mix, we couldn’t be farther away from systems thinking.
- “We must respond right away!” [xix] Panicking and trying to come up with an immediate solution causes us to rely on linear thinking, as we are in a rush. Calmly analyzing the situation would be a more systematic way of thinking.
- “Who cares?” [xx] Being apathetic instead of being curious, creative, and imaginative in searching for solutions often means an organization is stuck in a rut and won’t be able to break through and effectively solve problems.
- “We need more information.” [xxi] This may sound like it fits with systems thinking, and there are times when it does for sure, but if an organization thinks gathering more data will solve the problem by itself, then linear thinking is more at work. The people have to be willing to examine the data and then be willing to act on it.
- “You are overthinking things.” [xxii] This means that we are trying to take a complex problem and break it down into small pieces. If someone accuses you of overthinking things, it probably means that you are disagreeing with their point of view. Systems thinking requires us to stretch outside of our comfort zone, and not everyone welcomes that.
- “Forget the rest of the organization, we have to take care of ourselves.” [xxiii] Linear thinkers often come up with win-lose solutions in order to be certain their needs are met. This is kind of the dinner table mentality. If you want seconds of dessert, you might hurry to eat so that you can go back for more before someone else eats it all. It also happens in schools when teachers know there is limited money to spend on supplies in the school budget, so they rush to get their requests in first, hoping that the money will be spent on their classrooms instead of others’. Systems thinking would try to find win-win solutions instead.
- “We don’t want any conflict.” [xxiv] Some people would rather keep the peace at all costs, even if it is a hindrance to getting to the root of real problems and concerns. This reminds me of my extended family coming over for a Thanksgiving or Christmas meal. We avoid discussing politics at all costs because we know it will cause tensions to rise. Luckily, in our case, we aren’t avoiding solving problems over the dinner table like some organizations do when they avoid conflict. We are simply trying to ensure that everyone will get up from the table still speaking to one another.
- “We will do it this way.” [xxv] Often, people in positions of authority rely on this linear way of thinking by imposing their individual will on the entire organization. This can stymie creativity and innovative thinking, as well as a collaborative effort to solving problems
it is often the most challenging things that bring you the greatest rewards
When a system is policy resistant, everyone pulls in different directions and works hard to keep the system from moving too far away from their individual goals. What ends up happening is all of that effort keeps the system in a place that no one really wants it to be — motionless, and often stuck with the status quo.
The most successful way to overcome policy resistance is to find a way to unite the goals of all of the subsystems. A unifying goal that everyone can work toward is a powerful one, indeed
focusing on short-sighted, selfish goals can lead to unimaginable tragedy and many unintended consequences.
When individual actors and subsystems lose sight of the guiding goal of the system, or when the system lacks a clear and unifying overarching goal, there will be a power struggle and competition of sorts as everyone tries to pull the stock of the system closer to their own narrow goals.
You probably found yourself gaining weight even though you tried to follow a diet. Or perhaps you started a new exercise routine, expecting that it would only last a few weeks before you would no longer continue it. Maybe you worked in a restaurant or store which continuously showed a decline in the quality of customer service, or were part of a business that consistently performed poorly in the stock market as the price of shares continued to drop. These are all examples of systems operating in a state of decline.
Human nature tends to believe negative news more than positive news. Often, the most positive results are explained away as being flukes while the more negative results get embedded in our memories, making us perceive things as being worse than they actually are.
Often, the actors in a system will respond by saying things like: We did as well as could be expected, given the circumstances.Everyone else is struggling too. Excuses begin to be made, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How the system erodes quicker because of false notions
The lower the perception of a system’s performance, the lower the goal and expectations of how the system is capable of performing drop. Since the gap between perception and expectation is narrowing, there will naturally be less corrective action taken. When less corrective action is taken, the actual performance of the system decreases. If this negative loop continues unbroken, the system will enter a state of perpetual decline.
There are two ways to combat the erosion of goals and expectations.
The first is to maintain standards that are absolute no matter what happens in terms of performance. The second way is to set goals that are tied to the best performances from the past. This makes the perception of what is possible in terms of performance more positive. When poor results occur, they are viewed as a temporary setback that the system is able to overcome, allowing it to get back on track to a better performance.
Systems thinking involves being aware that the choices we make may have unintended consequences, so they deserve careful and deliberate thought.
instead be willing to ask the tougher questions like, “What is it that we are missing?” or “What don’t we understand about the problem?”
Every system that involves human beings is bound to include errors, as there is no such thing as a perfect person who never makes mistakes