Systems thinking
What are systems?
Systems thinking relates back to general systems theory by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1972), which explains systems as foundational models of organisation between parts that form a cohesive and relational whole. In other words, a system is as an interconnected set of interacting variables that behave according to governing mechanisms in a way that produces a pattern of behaviours over time. Academics have characterised systems with seven features; interdependency, level-multiplicity, dynamism, path dependency, self-organization, non-linearity, and complex causality. As a system is interdependent from other systems, such as financial, technological and political systems, it is also influenced by those systems. Think of social problems (i.e. poverty) and ecological problems (i.e. energy use). Secondly, because systems are level-multiplicit, agents are spatially embedded inside geographical systems (i.e. natural regions) and hierarchically arranged in sub-systems (i.e. states, corporations), creating power dynamics that form the system. Next, due to its dynamism, a system reacts to various factors, such as increasing extreme weather conditions, that might shape future scenarios. Fourthly, as a system is path dependent, historical factors shape the current landscape. In addition, a system is self-organising, meaning agents constantly change and adapt systems from within. Sixth, as a system is non-linear, agents reciprocally influence each other so that causes, effects and boundaries of issues cannot be unilaterally identified. Finally, because of the complex causality of systems, agents cause responsibilities of problems that cannot be unambiguously assigned. Concluding, because a system operates precisely as it’s designed to, the issues in a system are result of the underlying variables designed to create such issues. These variables must be thoroughly understood by considering the seven characteristics of a system in order to redesign it.
Systems thinking
Systems thinking can be described as: ‘’the process of understanding and changing the reality of a system by considering its whole set of interdependencies.” (Dentoni et al., 2023 p277), which is reflected in cognitive processes, such as learning, memory, problem-solving, decision-making, and updating of mental models. Systems thinking has been shown to be particularly effective for complex decision-making, appearing especially pertinent for the 21century as we navigate a increasingly uncertain, complex, interconnected and rapidly changing world. While measuring systems thinking in cognitive processes appears to be difficult, ‘’heuristic competence’’ – a general competence for coping with complex systems – is shown to be highly analogous with systems thinking. The term “heuristic” originates from Newell (1972) describing simple processes that replace complex algorithms, reducing the effort associated with a task as people must operate within the constraints imposed by both their cognitive resources and the task environment. The characteristics of heuristic competence involves understanding of the system structure, developing strategies, making decisions, and carefully assessing the outcomes. Another study describes the systems thinking competence as ‘’the ability to collectively analyze complex systems across different domains (society, environment, economy, etc.) and across different scales (local to global)’’ (Wiek et al., 2011 p207).
'''Systems thinking is the process of understanding and changing the reality of a system by considering its whole set of interdependencies.’’
Systems thinking methods
To better understand and transform (sub)systems, a various systems thinking methods have been developed. Popular examples of these methods are causal loop diagrams (system maps), value network maps and the Theory of Change. Causal loop diagrams, also known as systems maps or influence maps, are graphical representations of assumed interactions between causes and effects of the multiple elements of a complex problem, often leading to feedback loops to understand underlying patterns. These models should help leaders recognize how these interactions can lead to upcoming, counterintuitive behaviour. Dentoni et al. (2023) see systems of issues and systems of actors as two sides of the same coin and they recognize value network maps as a necessary complement to causal loop diagrams. Value networks encompass webs of relationships between several actors together with tangible and intangible resources transferred, exchanged, shared or co-created among them that should help determine whether to enter, develop or end a relationship (Allee, 2008). Alongside causal loop diagrams, a well-established method that also employs illustrative models represented by boxes of phenomena with arrows connecting them, is the “Theory of Change”. This approach serves as a blueprint and includes assumptions and expectations built into change initiatives by offering a situational analysis of the system, explaining what occurs, why it occurs, and the mechanisms driving these changes. By employing systems thinking methods, such as those mentioned above, one is able to identify points in a system which are capable of accepting positive change and points where it is vulnerable. However, most graphical representations to form reliable and valid assumptions require significant time and resources.
One of the most powerful ways to change a system
Good news for those with limited time and resources (or without the willingness to spend it), one of the most powerful ways to influence the behavior of a system is through its purpose or goal. That’s because the goal is the direction-setter of a system, the definer of discrepancies that require action and the indicator of compliance, failure, or success toward which balancing feedback loops work. However, if that purpose or goal is defined badly, if it doesn’t measure what it is supposed to measure and/or if it doesn’t reflect the real welfare of the system, it can lead to highly undesirable results. Additionally, because a system of issues and a system of actors reflect two sides of the same coin, a clear understanding of how we, individually and collectively, relate to the problem needs to be developed. Cultivating an honest, non-judgmental, and mindful perspective enables individuals to realistically understand their place within the system and, more importantly, to determine the right path forward.