How systems thinking enhances systems leadership

27 thoughts on “How systems thinking enhances systems leadership”

1. Gerald and Catherine, thanks for bringing this up again: the article and the comments touch upon several issues I have come to see as critical in the meantime. Briefly, they have to do with the role of leadership and the perception of power, and the way these issues are dealt with in any discourse platform. One worrisome trend I see increasing, as a result of perhaps confusion about these things, is the retreat of many ‘leaders’ to small / local projects where the perception of of issue scopes, boundaries, and appropriate decision procedures remains manageable for local participants. But retreating to decision modes that don’t address larger ‘non-local’ issues very well, and then paradoxically lead many people to rely upon the strongman leader…

   In a sense, avoiding the perception of power entities (even the most beneficial ‘leaders’ who can initialize discourse projects but on a larger than local platform) as potential big brother powers, using the very sophistication of the new tools and systems diagrams as means of marginalizing input from the less educated and informed — but very much affected — folks out there. Is there an issue of conflict between ‘improving systems leadership’ and democratic participation — especially when the issues transcend traditional governance boundaries so that traditional decision-making of the ‘democratic kind’, like majority voting, simply aren’t applicable? (Look at the contortions of the UN, for all its good intentions, to get around this issue…that still don’t manage to avoid or contain these insane wars). So systems models, empowerment and power, leadership and participation, need new evaluation and decision-making tools: how are these issues dealt with in the usual systems thinking as it is reflected in the (usually just one) systems diagrams?

   Reply

   • Thank you Thorbjørn for your valued thoughts, which sit very much at the core of the crucial issues that we face.

     Plato’s cave?
     Issues of leadership, power and discourse rumble on as they always have (and will) throughout history, and I share your concerns for a trend of a retreat towards manageability of decision procedures via adopting small scales and limited scoping. I interpret this as a desire to stay inside Plato’s cave, if you like. I take your point that there is thus reliance upon a ‘strongman leader,’ but I also perceive a trend where those who are dissatisfied with this situation are beginning to ally themselves to think, work and act in different ways, thus enacting a more emergent, dynamic form of systemic leadership. These are the people who are willing to emerge from Plato’s cave into the reality of the world, share the uncertainty and learn together. The Human Learning Systems movement is a good example of this dynamic impetus. See https://i2insights.org/2023/01/10/human-learning-systems/

     Self-assessment
     At one time I was involved in a Comprehensive Performance Assessment process for a local authority and came to realise that the greatest value of that process is actually the self-assessment that is undertaken in order to provide evidence for the inspection. Self-assessment is not usually attended to.

     A glorious variety of systems thinking approaches
     In proactively exploring approaches from systems thinking, operational research and complexity over the last 18 years, I have discovered a variety of approaches, each of which seem to be well tailored to help address the complex priorities of today and have been designed to consider the reality of multiple viewpoints and emancipation. They constitute a great deal more than just a static model or diagram in permitting new thought processes and discussions to take place, for those who are willing…
     No single model or tidy answers will do the job properly. We need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of approaches from systems thinking, complexity and operational research in the manner of Critical Systems Thinking. See https://i2insights.org/2023/04/04/pragmatism-and-critical-systems-thinking/. That’s why we need to consider extending the dimensions of our thinking, planning, doing, evaluation and learning (both individually and together), around thinking differently, addressing assumptions, wider contexts (than is normal), considering wider participation with people, and systemic effectiveness. I see this as being about social learning for systemic leadership, which will inevitably be messy. ‘System leadership’ and ‘co-creation’ per se can be inadequate without the benefit of the critical (and self-critical) nature of a variety of systems thinking and other approaches. See https://i2insights.org/2016/07/07/co-creation-and-systems-thinking/. Many systems thinking approaches are facilitative, and there is some interesting work around relating systems thinking and design thinking. See https://systemic-design.org/.

     Evaluation too has to evolve differently with these new processes and explorations as they emerge. You may find the work of Bob Williams of interest. See https://www.bobwilliams.co.nz/

     A single crisis
     Working practices should ideally be compatible locally, regionally, sub-regionally, nationally and globally, anchored in sustainability (social, environment and economy): I do not see these scales as separate, but as inextricably woven together in the way we think about things. Yet a misguided concept of containment and ‘manageability’ has resulted in restrictive practices that deny our own capabilities in situations of complexity, both individually and together. I would agree that although there is reference to a state of ‘polycrisis’, our single crisis is one of perception (Capra).

     Participation
     Thinking of your comment about systems leadership and democratic participation, it can sometimes be the case that multi-agency work has the potential to undermine the usual way of democratic decision-making – a UK example of this risk has been the development of Local Enterprise Partnerships which include decision-making around business interests (government funding is to cease in April 2024, providing ‘an opportunity for local leadership to determine local economic strategies and development’). Yet multi-agency working is the ‘bread and butter’ of local governance, and there are good examples of significant efforts of participation in addressing uncertainties and yet deciding to act – the Strategic Choice Approach is an example of this. See https://i2insights.org/2023/10/31/strategic-choice-approach/ . Also, substantial efforts are being made to consider inclusivity through changing practices of discourse. See https://i2insights.org/2023/03/07/inclusive-systemic-thinking/

     We do owe it to ourselves and future generations to add this form of exploratory and sometimes messy design thinking to our capabilities, and indeed to move on to design processes that provide the capacity for this to happen – yet be able design something that is rooted in the practice of every-day, and accepted as such.

     Reply

     • • Thanks, I very much appreciate hearing about such approaches, keeping one from the despair one might sink into just watching the daily news. This compels me to expand on my comment on Gerald’s inspiring ‘Introduction to Systems Thinking (ST)’ event yesterday. There I made a distinction between many approaches flying under the ST flag, focused on understanding of the problems we are dealing with, and the issues I have tried to explore. There are many such approaches, and I do see them as inspiring and useful.

       • The differences are, first, that they usually are described as activities of relatively small ‘teams’, workshops orchestrated by ST experts, leading selected members of the organizations that act as the ‘’client’ of the projects. Those are what I call ’’local’ projects, they involve face-to-face activities and experiences — even with well-intended participation efforts with people in the ‘outside’ affected population. And yes, they can stay within the cave, or make amazing efforts to ‘get out’. But being small ‘live’ events, they can and often seem to rely on consensus-aiming decision tools like the old ‘town hall’ assemblies of small towns of the past.

       • This, secondly, makes it look like they seem to ’stop’ at the collective, cooperative generation of ‘solutions’ – plans, — that emerge from these events, avoiding more thorough comparative evaluation. The ST tools of systems mapping, simulation models may help, but being part of larger organizations, they end up with recommendations which the organizational leadership has to decide to adopt or reject. I am asking whether more ’systematic’ analysis and evaluation procedures should be added to the ST process, and if so how.

       • I see two main lines of justification. As one extreme, let me mention the ‘Pattern Language’ Approach of Christopher Alexander. It looks like an attempt to apply an ‘axiomatic’ approach to the built environment. Basically, he believed that he could identify ‘patterns’ as elements of the built environment, that are universally and timelessly ‘valid’; having what he calls ‘quality without a name’ (‘QWAN). Therefore, if designers, even together with participating users (in ‘live’ face-to-face events) use these valid patterns to construct complete designs of buildings, towns, the result will be guaranteed to have the same quality and validity; so no evaluation is necessary. The approach has been adopted as well as criticized; I won’t get into that. What I am wondering is whether the use of ST tools and approaches (that well may question traditional ‘cave’ habits) actually serve that same validating function, (but now use the ‘patterns’ of participation, questioning assumptions, inviting different frames of reference, and the amazing tools of simulation models), as the Pattern Language claims to guaranteeing Quality. And what would be the basis for the validity assumption for that?

       • The overall concern is that truly ‘global’ projects cannot rely on small group activities, approaches, and decision tools, (though they may play a useful role in the process) I believe (is it an illusion?) that the global planning process must be a d i s c o u r s e, however well supported by new information technology, computer modeling, simulation, even AI tools, etc. The problem is, of course, that we currently do not have a p l a t f o r m to support such a discourse. It’s a problem like that of having to rebuild the ship on the high seas. And this task, together with the questions of what new techniques and provisions must be developed for it, does not even seem to be on the ST agenda? Or what am I missing?

       Reply

       • Hi Thor/Cathy,

         I will restrict myself to comments on aspects of this discussion not already picked up by Cathy. However, first let me indulge in one echoing of Cathy – I very much value Thor pushing against the drift to localism, as (for me) it is central to the question of how we can get to grips with large-scale issues that cannot be dealt with by nation states or geopolitical alliances acting alone.

         First, let’s directly tackle the retreat into local action. I agree that this is happening in many quarters, but I don’t think it is motivated by a desire to remain within Plato’s cave, even unconsciously (if it were unconscious, presumably the base motivation would be the desire for a greater level of certainty). There are two reasons that I resist the Plato’s cave interpretation. First, the growing adoption of systems approaches that conceptualize systems thinking as strongly tied to critical thinking tells me that there is more and more epistemological sophistication out there nowadays: people are becoming increasingly aware that their perceptions are not merely a reflection of a reality ‘out there’ – there is a growing appreciation that we all actively create our realities based on past experiences (i.e., we predict or anticipate what’s out there), and our construction of our own realities is a far stronger force than the error correction we can engage in, so we miss many of our own errors. This kind of epistemological understanding is necessary for effective dialogue and action at any scale – very local or global – and there is increasing knowledge of it (albeit not at the level of sophistication that would be ideal). The second reason I don’t think the retreat to localism is motivated by a desire to remain in Plato’s cave is that the growing epistemological sophistication of decision makers includes a realization that there is no escape from the constructed nature of our own realities. The allegory of Plato’s cave depends on the idea that it’s possible for someone to see how we are all subject to illusion, and therefore appreciate what reality actually is. This is not actually the case. The best we can do is improve our error correction by becoming more consciously aware of the nature of our own perception, and therefore act more deliberatively, but there is no point at which we ‘see the world as it really is’. If I am right here, then it doesn’t matter whether we’re working hyper-locally or at a global scale: our worlds are just as constructed by our own minds, and while we can improve perception by checking things out through dialogue with others, we cannot assume that what we see is absolutely real, even when working at the smallest scale. To do so will disrupt effective action, even in very small groups.

         So, what is actually happening with this retreat to the hyper-local? I suggest that there are several things happening at once:

         1. The large majority of us are dependent on salaries for our survival, and the survival of our families. Relatively few of us can work for organizations like the UN and WHO that consciously set out to address global issues at a global scale. Whether we’re working in the public, private or third sectors, that means we are much more likely to end up as decision makers with a local remit (or at best national). People are simply acting out the remits they have in their jobs, and as far as their roles might let them, they may account for global issues, but there is often restricted scope for this – either because of tragedy of the commons issues (e.g., a company might become less competitive if it accepts a cost increase involved in better addressing its climate impacts) or because their human resources are stretched too thinly. Those of us in universities are similarly caught by this problem because funding agendas require us to work with stakeholders, and most of them will have a local remit (very few get to work with global issues at a global scale). In this sense, the nature of the economic system makes it extremely difficult for 99.9% of us to address global issues at a global scale, however much we might want to. It might be a little bit facile to say “capitalism is to blame”, but there really are systemic constraints here that require global governance solutions. I think this is the largest reason why decision makers appear to be retreating to localism.

         2. Thor correctly identifies the “contortions” that institutions like the UN have to perform, and how their actions so often fall short of what is required to address global concerns. I believe that the inadequacy of global governance institutions has become an existential threat to humanity, and many other species on our planet. It seems to me that this kind of governance dysfunction makes many people find other places to work, where they might be more effective in their actions. Of course, these global governance dysfunctions are tied up with the pursuit of narrowly-defined national and geopolitical interests, and major national powers have stood in the way of the reform of global institutions for fear that they will be forced to adopt policies that compromise their national independence. In this respect, there is insufficient awareness of the potential for using ideas like the Viable System Model (VSM) to structure governance from global to local, as the VSM advocates a form of subsidiarity that grants autonomy at every level of governance, as long as that autonomy doesn’t harm others – if there is harm, then decision making needs to be at a higher level of governance. I have heard some people say that this will result in a drift of policy making to higher levels, thus alienating local populations, but this interpretation fails to appreciate just how radical the idea of local autonomy is in the VSM – it’s “autonomy within constraints”, and the constraints are only those concerned with preventing wider harms (including from the paralyzing effect of the tragedy of the commons). Of course, it’s an open question whether some national powers will ever accept such a model, as in some policy areas they might prefer to pursue narrow self-interest, turning a blind eye to the harms created – but there is at least a good reason to raise awareness of different ways to conceive of governance (e.g., using the VSM). Only then might the preference for localism, motivated by skepticism of any possibility of functional global governance, be countered.

         3. In some countries, like the UK, the use of words like “global” has become taboo in many quarters. When Teresa May was the UK Prime Minister, she actually made the shocking statement that “if you believe you are a citizen of the world, then you are a citizen of nowhere”. It actually became newsworthy that Cambridge University refused to stop using the term “global” in its work. I have seen first hand, when working in New Zealand government, how using certain words like this can end up disqualifying people from funding. This further reinforces the valuing of local over global scales of governance.

         4. Finally, some contemporary paradigms – such as complexity science – actually claim that “changing the world” through global human action is impossible – that the variety we have to manage if we are to directly tackle issues like climate change, biodiversity loss and the damaging impacts of the internet is simply too great for any human organization to manage. I have heard well respected complexity theorists argue that all we can do is encourage local experimentation to address global issues, and hopefully good ideas will spread, and beneficial change will ultimately be an emergent property of how all the millions of local actors interact. I have also heard one complexity theorist specifically criticize systems thinkers for holding onto the idea that directly addressing global issues is possible. If this kind of theory increases in popularity, then it will only further reinforce all the other pressures for localism over globalism. My personal belief here is that *of course* no one group of decision makers can have the variety of thought necessary to understand and address every ramification of action on climate change, but a global governance body wouldn’t need to: it would merely need to have the variety of thought to be able to identify the global limits within which ecosystems can remain healthy, and nation states would retain autonomy as long as they remained within those limits. Global governance would also need a mechanism (some kind of dialogue forum with adjudicating powers) to identify when harm (transgressing the limits) is happening, so intervention becomes necessary. That’s something very different to trying to manage every aspect of the issue across the whole world, so I am more optimistic than some complexity theorists about the potential viability of global rather than just local action.

         Having said all this, I totally agree with Thor that the systems community has so far failed to get sufficiently to grips with the potential of the internet to enable massive, geographically-distributed participation in systemic interventions. This is despite the fact that I am aware of at least two groups who are setting out to deal with this. I think there are four reasons for this failure. First, many systems methods involve visual modelling, and the technology to support collaborative diagramming is not routinely available in people’s homes, even in the most wealthy countries. We are therefore restricted to using things like virtual post-it notes, which is a huge limitation. It certainly means we cannot easily translate face-to-face methodologies online. New methodologies need to be developed, and this requires massive efforts. Second, the cost of developing visually appealing software is huge. I have worked with one of the groups that is serious about moving at least one of the systems methodologies online, and we have written four large bids for funding, none of which were successful (and I think 3 of those 4 were first rate bids – and I would say that I am a reasonable judge of this, having secured over £11m for 112 projects over the years). Third, the reason these bids were unsuccessful was that funders want a social or environmental issue to be addressed, and don’t want to hear that an investment of millions in software development will help with this. Fourth, there is a skills gap: systems thinkers are mostly not software developers, so collaborations are needed, which add to the expense and require people to talk across disciplinary divides. Moving this agenda along will be tough, but is absolutely necessary.

         Finally, I also agree with Thor that the evaluation of systems approaches and practices is necessary. I did a literature review about twelve years ago, which showed that approximately 95% of claims of success in the use of systems methodologies relied solely on the reflections of practitioners, yet I have also demonstrated, through empirical examples, that the practitioner’s perspective on success and failure are often misaligned with the perspectives of participants – in some cases, so badly misaligned that there is almost zero correspondence. This is why I led the writing of a paper in 2013 on evaluating participative and systemic methods, calling for a step change in evaluation activities: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713000945 I think this is downloadable for free.

         Reply

         • Thanks Gerald and Thorbjørn, this has been an interesting discussion, especially bearing in mind that the original think-piece this blog was based upon was one of a number that the National Leadership Centre (now the Leadership College for Government), commissioned the Open Innovation Team of the Cabinet Office to produce about systems leadership. The set of think-pieces on the subject of systems leadership can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-leadership-centre-research-publications . The intention of the provocative think-pieces was “to drive transformational change in the way leaders collaborate, and influence how public services are led and delivered.” (National Leadership Centre, 2022).

           My core experience is in local governance, so it is interesting to hear debates seen through a ‘globalism’ and ‘drift to localism’ stance. In my experience, the local governance agenda was increasingly restrictive in terms of scope and funding, and changed from ‘doing more with less’, to ‘doing the same with less’, to ‘doing things differently’, as well as being subjected to privatisation, digitalisation and performance management targets. There were reasons behind this which there is no point elaborating upon here. Relevant to this discussion is that people working at the level of local governance in the UK would perhaps recognise a drift to nationalism, being made more and more accountable to facing national government, despite continued articulations of a localism agenda.

           I would see the potential of a variety of systems thinking approaches as widening the field of possibilities for decision-making, sending the decision-making to new territory (sometimes with the help of creative dissent), rather than only as a small-scale consensus-aiming decision-tool. My preference has always been to refer to a systems thinking skillset (which should be coaxed into existence at individual, organisational and societal scales), rather than describing it simply as a ‘tool-kit’.

           Where there is creative dissent, a different form of collaborative energy emerges: this process widens the field of possibilities and thus is less of a constraint upon compliance with the ‘business-as-usual’ mentality that many people find comfort in (especially if their job seems to depend on it).

           Thorbjørn’s comments about pattern language and Quality are fascinating, possibly linking well with an idea of Values-Based Public Management rather than purely Evidence-Based, Evidence-Informed or Outcomes-Based Public Management, to which systems thinking approaches could contribute as a form of validation? Something along these lines would make an excellent subject for research programmes.

           It is helpful to focus upon what seems to be possible in a constructive and practical way, rather than be too overwhelmed by judgements about what has gone wrong. At the same time, we may benefit by being as ambitious in our thinking as Buckminster Fuller in his ‘Critical-Path’ ruminations about “systemically interspiraling complexes,” rather than a perception of “overlapping linear modules in a plane…..” (Critical Path, 1981).

           The more one explores a variety of systems thinking approaches, the more one can appreciate its subtleties of design but, like any other methodology, it can be misused. This gives greater emphasis to the need to incorporate systems thinking in education and training programmes. Systems thinking practitioner apprenticeships have recently been instigated in the UK at the equivalent of Masters level, with the aim of ‘supporting decision-makers in strategic and leadership roles to understand and address complex and ‘wicked’ problems through provision of expert systemic analysis, advice and facilitation.’ The Open University has a well-established systems thinking education programme.

           There have been many outstanding systems thinkers over the years who have recognised an absence and, accordingly, developed techniques for thinking differently as a basis for action. Many people do have the ‘wriggle room’ to adopt these if they know about them and think they may be helpful to them. One pressing issue is therefore simply the need to spread the word about the variety of approaches available and what they help to do (or not), as long as one is aware of their strengths and weaknesses. This is the absence that I now recognise, perhaps just at the time when we need it most. Defensive, territorial styles of academia could create a bar to progress, which is why the i2Insights platform and repository is so excellent, by paying sustained attention to the need for integrative applied research, and the open interchange of ideas.

           Expanding to the more-than-local scale (I would not call it non-local), The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI), OECD does interesting work, including systems thinking: https://oecd-opsi.org/work-areas/systems-approaches/ and new economic thinking: https://www.oecd.org/naec/genesys/ . Systems Thinking Accelerator (SYSTAC) is a global community of practice for systems thinking science and practice in health policy and systems research, supported and funded by the WHO Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research https://hive.ahpsr.org/topics/1858/page/about.

           For those who are interested, more information about the Viable System Model that Gerald refers to can be found here: https://i2insights.org/2023/01/24/viable-system-model/. Stafford Beer, who created the Viable System Model, also created ‘Team Syntegrity’; there is scope with these techniques for complex problematic situations to be addressed at a variety of (what we would perceive as) scales. A potential variation of spatial scale is interesting here, as is an understanding that we must constantly adapt through time to a changing situation – this implies the need for a constant combined effort, rather than thinking purely in terms of a set of projects with a start and end time. Those who find the Viable System Model of interest might also consider seeking out Angela Espinosa’s 2023 book: ‘Sustainable Self-Governance in Businesses and Society: The Viable System Model in Action.’

           Michael C Jackson, whose classic 696-page tome “Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity: Responsible Leadership for a Complex World’ (Wiley, 2019), also has a forthcoming book that is due to be published this summer: “Critical Systems Thinking: a Practitioner’s Guide” (Wiley, 2024). The book discusses the need for systems thinking as a complementary approach to science, makes the case for critical systems thinking (CST), shows how CST is put into practice, and how barriers to implementation can be overcome through appropriate systems leadership.

           Public and social innovation labs have sprung up around the world to help address public and social issues: a global directory of government innovation labs can be found here: https://apolitical.co/pages/government-innovation-lab-directory.

           One of the findings of my doctoral research suggested a need for ‘systems thinking animateurs’. I do remain puzzled that the UN goals for sustainable development did not include a goal to help develop the systemic capability and capacity to help achieve these inter-connected goals. As individual organisations (whether local, national, regional or global) tend inevitably to be bound by their own procedures, this would require investment in bold, ambitious and experimental research programmes that function within an accepted style of adaptive social learning, in order to coax a form of leadership that is more dynamically adaptive, constant (through time) and ‘systemic’, rather than consisting of more routinised leadership of time-limited projects within an established ‘system’. There is continuing scope for expanded systems thinking approaches to research, linked with concepts of systems and systemic leadership, public service, and innovation, which would be applicable to the challenges of complex priorities at local, regional, national and global levels of governance. I remain optimistic that many will rise to this challenge and influence change accordingly, but we must also be realistic that human nature continues to be littered with foibles. I envisage a cartoon showing a tug of war between these two forces – the intention is not to win, but merely to gain ground.

           Reply

2. Hi there – I see a parallel with others at Hull – they say that there are three types of single loop learning each with a different centre of learning. Triple loop learning. Are we doing things right? Are we doing the right things? Is rightness buttressed by mightiness and/or mightiness buttressed by rightness? (aka Is it right for us?) Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A., Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley, Chichester, 1996.

   Reply

   • Hello Lewis,

     Your detection of an alliance with triple loop learning is well observed! I have referred to triple loop learning elsewhere in a recent blog that I wrote for Human Learning Systems when I was a Visiting Fellow at Northumbria University https://www.humanlearning.systems/blog/on-dancing-in-three-tenses-and-variety-performances/ [note the e-mail address referred to in the blog is no longer active].

     I see triple loop learning as an important touchstone in exploring and addressing situations of complexity.
     Best, Cathy

     Reply

     • Thanks Catherine!

       Reply

3. Thank-you Catherine and Gerald for your article. During a long career in management consulting preceded by working in a range of industry and government agencies, I found that what I used to call “Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking” (CAST) had universal application in managing all human endeavours. The first key I would mention is to understand that “partially autonomous agents” or individuals (having their own values, interests and incentives, having particular resources and relationships they can exploit, and having capacity to form alliances) capable of influencing results, are indeed entities in the “system” (and its environment) being managed. Second, is the need for leaders to adopt and follow a small number of straightforward management principles, and then to promote alignment (and in turn encourage leadership) among their people.

   Reply

   • That makes sense. One of the oft-repeated principles of systems thinking is that “human systems are different” (compared with natural systems without human components), as the purposes of the parts (people) may or may not align with the purposes of the system they are part of – and they can change over time too.

     Reply

   • Thanks, Graeme, for your interesting comments. I like your terminology of “Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking” as having universal application in managing all human endeavours. I wholeheartedly agree that enhancing an ability for humans to be adaptive is a core (joint) endeavour. Regarding your comment on your first key, my experience is that certain individuals would find leeway or ‘wriggle room’ within a ‘system’ and its environment being managed, to think and work differently. These curious people tend to favour a collaborative style of working and don’t have a hang up about saying they don’t know something! Leading to your second key – promoting alignment and in turn encouraging leadership among their people – such leaders who work differently to the visible norms are perhaps inherently willing to ‘give’ their leadership away, thus being able to galvanise human resources more broadly, whether they are senior in a hierarchy or not. I do think many people have this style naturally and can happily function beneath the radar. However, we now perhaps need this sort of aligned effort around principles that you describe to be better acknowledged, rewarded and more overtly accepted.

     Reply

4. This discussion on both leadership and systems thinking is quite relevant today. One key aspect is how you make things happen. Knowing about different systems and model based approaches to problem solving is not enough. It also matters how you implement the approaches. There is always a personal impact. People have different styles and competences. This is the theme studied in the new emerging area of Behavioral Operational Research see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713001197.

   Complex problem solving with systems thinking is not a one-time event with stakeholders but a participatory process with different stages of modeling and stakeholder engagement. This whole process needs leadership. Managing a modeling approach or a systems thinking session is not enough. A leader does the right thing whereas the manager does the things right. There are different leadership styles and it is important to assign the leadership role to someone in the project. We have discussed this in our recent paper which was referred to in our blog post: https://i2insights.org/2021/02/02/leadership-in-participatory-modelling/ .

   The personal systems skills of the leader are important. This relates to the type 3 systems leadership referred to in the post of Benjamin P. Taylor. Taking a systems perspective from outside is insufficient. This is emphasized in the work of Senge et al. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership which is nicely summarized in the review by Harry Begg : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945426/Systems_Leadership_Rapid_Review.pdf
   We have developed the concept of Systems Intelligence to emphasize the personal skills needed in succeeding in complex settings. Problem solving creates a social system but the system and its context also matters. A system thinker always becomes part of the system of problem solving. She needs to understand her impact on the social system and the impact of the system on her. The Systems Intelligence perspective suggests a personal and action oriented focus on systems where emotional aspects are also emphasized. For more texts visit http://systemsintelligence.aalto.fi/ .

   Reply

   • Thank you Raimo for making these points about relevant links with Behavioural Operational Research, leadership in participatory modelling, the ‘type 3’ personal systems leadership skills and your concept of Systems Intelligence, as well as for providing links to further reading. I shall read your papers and about the work of the Systems Intelligence Research Group with interest.

     It seems that there has been a rapid development in thinking and action which aligns systems thinking and leadership skills: that is all to the good. I have also found this paper of Sue Goss a helpful one: https://eoe.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/Systems-Leadership-A-view-from-the-bridge.pdf (PDF 379KB) – “Systems leadership is at core a learning process”.

     Due credit to the National Leadership Centre for the series of think-pieces around four leadership themes (one set on the theme of systems leadership) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-leadership-centre-research-publications), the rapid literature reviews (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nlc-public-service-leadership-literature-reviews) and for organising a series of leadership-themed roundtable interactive workshops last year in the UK (which Gerald and I were both involved in), all of which went on to inform key areas of research interest and were reflected in the iteration of NLC’s leadership development programme and network activities. Their intention for the think-pieces was for “evidence-based provocations to drive transformational change in the way leaders collaborate, and influence how public services are led and delivered’.

     Reply

   • Thanks for those resources. I am particularly keen on your last point about emotional aspects being included. I have found these to be pivotal, both in terms of enabling (even in some projects almost ‘compelling’) engagement of stakeholders who could otherwise walk away, and also in the sense that a good systemic process takes people through an emotional journey. Emotionally flat workshops are rarely transformative.

     Reply

     • This emotional journey is indeed the key element. As the traditional system thinking approaches do not suggest direct ways to improve our ability to take socio-emotional systems phenomena into account in people engagement we need new tools. Systems intelligence suggests a perspective and tools for this such as the self-evaluation test
       [Moderator update – In March 2024, the original author provided link was no longer available (systemsintelligence.net/sitest/en/) and has been replaced by the moderator with this link:] (https://www.systemsintelligence.net/sitest/en/) and the gamified learning approach (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sres.2750). In a longer lasting problem solving projects it is not only the facilitator or systems specialist who needs to learn to deal with the socio-emotional dynamics but that is also required of all the participants. On the organizational level a proficient leader is able create systems intelligent behavior in the whole organization.

       Reply

       • It’s not entirely true that systems thinking approaches are completely blind to the role of emotions. There are a number of people who use Maturana and Varela’s (1992) understanding of the ‘braiding’ of rationality and emotion. This suggests that “changing one’s mind” is a matter of switching between two rational domains (i.e., two coherent but mostly closed language games), and the switch happens via the emotions, which redirect attention to the need for a new way of thinking. There are some good examples of this informing systemic intervention – for instance, Bilson (1997) in the journal Systems Practice. He has a couple of great case studies of intervention into emotional understanding. Having said this, I think there is much more to be considered than just this understanding of rationality and emotion, but the opportunity is to enhance systems thinking in this way rather than abandoning it.

         Reply

5. Hello, I find the point about “Boundary Critique, or who and what should count” especially illuminating. Too many times the sensemaking process that proceeds decision making was done by a selected small group of people or by external expertise (eg. consultants). I believe it is a big reason why we end up with bad decisions — people who count were not included. Rethinking boundary, getting away from expert and inviting “outside” voices in is one of the key shift we need to make in practicing systems leadership.

   Reply

   • Yes, I’ve been writing about this for thirty years now. There are theories of conflict and marginalization within that body of literature as well, which can usefully inform understanding the dynamics that lead to destructive decision making.

     Reply

6. Hello Gerald – and delightful to see all the institutions, including Hull, that you are still contributing too – QU too! I hope all is well with you and yours as I am sure it is. I really like your idea here of a systems group, almost like an action learning set, which can do the work, demonstrate the benefits relevant to a specific context, while maybe enabling championing/social and formal learning opportunities in strategic locations to support that transformational change in high risk settings. And as Catherine also says – hello Catherine! – we are certainly seeing tipping points even in Australia with the type of leadership you are describing … it’s still a matter of the wave gathering force before it overwhelms the cliff though…. the place of systems thinking and practice in supporting the whole system (dualist and beyond) through this dynamic of change is paramount for institutional stability that is not based on power imposition and damage to people, but appropriate intelligence that holds wellbeing at its centre.

   Reply

   • Thanks, Susan. “appropriate intelligence that holds wellbeing at its centre” is a very apt phrase as the basis for this. You may be interested in the Human Learning Systems approach if you have not already come across it: https://www.humanlearning.systems/

     Reply

7. This is all useful stuff in my opinion, and the Commissioning Academy and latterly Transformation and Place-Based Systems Leadership Academies, delivered first the Cabinet Office since 2011 or so and since 2016 by the Public Service Transformation Academy have been trying to help public service leaders to develop these skills, and by no means alone in that either! We now have the level 7 systems thinking practitioner apprenticeship which should help too.

   In August last year I did a little bit of an overview here: https://stream.syscoi.com/2020/08/03/what-might-systems-leadership-be-and-how-does-it-relate-to-systems-change-a-happily-tentative-essay/

   To summarise, I said that I see broadly these types of ‘systems leadership’
   1- systems leadership as a thing – a form of ‘better’ leadership (focusing on the leader)
   At its worst, this is ‘personal development masquerading as leadership development’, but at its best it is more inclusive, mobilising, and ‘systems aware’.

   2- systems leadership as an ‘activity’, more likely to focus on a focus of change from outside the established ‘system’ – as I said, this shades into ‘systems change’ and ‘systems convening’ (the latter forthcoming from Bev and Etienne Wenger-Trayner, https://wenger-trayner.com/systems-convening/)

   I see a lot of this, particularly, in the NHS, highly focused on institutional ‘systems’, often with lip-service to one or two of the more obvious critical perspectives. This may be a bit harsh, but gives an indication of the pattern. Very often, this has been the ‘holy trinity’ (as taught at Warwick and on the children’s services development programme) of: Adaptive Leadership, Keith Grint’s definition of ‘wicked problems’. and Mark Moore’s public value theory, somewhat aligned with the Myron Rogers/Meg Wheatley approach – I give four sub-categories in the main link.

   Then there’s (3) ‘purpose of change emerging from within the system’ – we might call this ‘facilitative’ system leadership.
   And (4) ‘systems innovation’ – typically a ‘growing seeds of the new within the existing system’ (but this, like all the ‘names’ here, is pretty nebulous).

   Not forgetting, of course, that there are a number of really excellent approaches called ‘systems leadership’ which are about *seeing the organisation* (or occasionally wider) *as* a system, and working as such; Barry Oshry’s Organic Systems Framework and Mac Associates Systems Leadership Theory (from the Elliot Jacques heritage) are my favourites.

   My suggestion, which I think I still stick to, was:
   • Worst form – static systems mapping and mechanistic intervention
   • Also worst form – complexity woo, handwaving
   • Best form, epistemological and ontological complexity (or, better still, non-dualist complexity), appreciation of fundamental human/systems/complexity/cybernetic laws, ethical considerations not mistaken for means, attention to ever-changing nature, contested power and ethical and other dynamics, multiple definitions of system-in-question and of leadership, practical action and triple-loop shared learning.

   This latter clearly focuses on the boundary/framing critique that you raise here, and on some of the approaches you highlight.

   I do think that this, and the latter part of your piece here, rather undermines the entry point ‘recognising that a network of collaborating organisations is a system’ – because that is probably a rather inadequate definition of a ‘system’, taking as it does the ‘observer’, the broader environment, and the public and other organisations rather out of the picture? I think that is your intention, in fact?

   You also asked ‘Do you think that useful distinctions can be made between the terminology of systems leadership and systemic leadership?’
   Frankly, I personally find that the real meaning of this (which I know a number of good people value) always eludes and confuses me (and I’m left with just systemic as ‘procedural, programmatic, thorough’, which I know is not the intended distinction); so I don’t find it useful in practice. But I now see it is in the title of your book, Catherine, which I really loved when I read it – I will revisit when next I am united with the RedQuadrant library 🙂

   Reply

   • Thanks for those thoughts, Benjamin. Just to pick up on your comment that my focus on systems thinking undermines the earlier, rather simplistic definition of systems leadership – yes, absolutely. The original idea of the piece was to call it “systemic leadership”, defined as the use of systems thinking as part of facilitative leadership, but the referees of the piece wouldn’t have it – they insisted that we use the “systems leadership” terminology. We therefore decided to do it, but tackle the very limited notion of systems leadership and show how it can be enhanced.

     Also, I had the experience a couple of years ago of writing that paper on systemic innovation, where Erik Lindhult and I (when we surveyed the literature) found that over half of it was just about cross-organizational collaboration for innovation. We found four different definitions of systemic innovation, but only the least-common one involved systems thinking. That made us write about the need for a paradigm change, but the paper was desk-rejected from the journal “Research Policy” because we were not towing the accepted ‘party line’ on systemic innovation. The editor actually said to me “why don’t you rewrite the paper showing how your explanation of systemic innovation can add value to the conventional one, instead of undermining the conventional one. I realised that he had not understood the fundamental point that “being systemic” is not about working across organizations – you can have systemic innovation even within a single organization. That paper is now under review for “Systems Research and Behavioral Science”. On the one hand I’m glad I didn’t compromise the argument, but on the other, it will end up in a journal that only systems people will read, so I will be preaching to the converted. Shame.

     Reply

     • A fascinating insight into the way discourse is shaped! Thanks for that

       Reply

   • Thank you, Benjamin, for your thorough response and the links to other material. I particularly like your ‘best form’ list.

     There are interesting and crucial linguistic observations raised here. Words are indeed descriptive of what evolves, rather than being static and prescriptive. In the UK and elsewhere, there has been a recent keen interest in ‘systems leadership’ over at least the past 10 years or so. Making distinctions about different meanings and interpretations of ‘systems’ and ‘systemic’ is, to my mind, a fundamentally important opportunity for the field of systems thinking. In this blog – adapted from a commissioned think-piece – we are expanding a commonly-used phrase in new thinking (systems leadership), towards also being informed by allied and more dynamic meanings (systemic leadership) which, in current times, could help with social learning and adaptation. As one of my local governance representatives said when I undertook my local governance-based doctoral research in the UK:

     “With a local authority, the ground is shifting constantly. So you can have a testable hypothesis, but the situation changes. The testing approach relies on having a stable platform, like laboratory conditions. So there are two points to be made about this. Firstly, in practical terms it may not be deliverable due to the context changing. Secondly, in empirical terms, you’re studying a diachronic phenomenon by taking a synchronic approach. I think you’re right not to do that.” (2015)

     That emphasises the necessity of flexibly adopting a variety of established systems thinking, complexity and operational research approaches (as well as other approaches already in use), each of which (such as Boundary Critique as referred to above) can play a valuable part in transformation. This form of flexible approach permits deeper insights and creativity, and helps move in to the ‘adjacent space of possibility’.
     An openness to new approaches was also referred to when I undertook my doctoral research interviews:

     “This approach depends on the willingness and openness of the people involved. I think that sort of openness is greater than it once was; the challenges are large and complex. Authorities are accepting that there are different ways of interrogating ourselves as an organization – “what could we do differently?” If you had asked me four years ago, the answer would have been different [i.e., less scope for openness]. This goes back to the granularity you mentioned earlier, the old best practice model isn’t sophisticated enough to cope with that complexity. This is more fuzzy around the edges, turning weaknesses into strengths, instead of going in circles and not progressing.” (Local governance representative, 2015)

     I think this awareness, willingness and openness has expanded yet further since then, especially since the onset of COVID. I am aware of what I would call systemic curiosity in the UK at local, national and OECD level. Taking these varied scales of curiosity together, this simultaneous occurrence surely presents an Overton window of potential transformation for the field of public policy, in which established systems thinking approaches can play a valuable part and, in the time-honoured tradition of systems thinking, be developed further to meet new needs and demands.

     But the point is that cherry-picking one or two approaches isn’t good enough – what’s needed is the knowledge of a variety of them, as they each do different things, so that these approaches (and indeed new ones) can be developed and applied appropriately. This is an area of high ambition, and a great area of new opportunity for those at an early stage of their career to take on its many facets. Wish I was younger! It’s very encouraging that – amongst other thriving research activities – systems thinking apprenticeships have been underway since 2011.

     Reply

8. Really positive and insightful as always – and encouraging to see that this is a government funded publication. Have been trying to introduce systems thinking to government work places for many years, but have found that while people are interested in anything that looks like a solution, there is little appetite to step into the conceptual realm it requires, and little capacity to make the structural changes and bring a whole workplace along with the leadership to make systemic practice capability a reality. It is a big ask even when the policy pressures are huge. There is always a tendancy to fix problems with what people know rather than what they don’t know and trust.

   Reply

   • Thanks, Susan, for your kind comments. I have shared the same frustrations and difficulties for many years and certainly agree with you that there has been little appetite to step into the conceptual realm it requires. I think, however, that there is more of a keen awareness now about the need for systemic practice and learning. Sticking with what people know also resonates, and I’ve encountered suspicion about a preponderance of quick fix ‘toolkits,’ amongst which established systems thinking approaches have jostled and fanned in and out of popularity. But I think that something much more fundamental is happening now in a dynamic sense, which needs coaxing in a positive and fruitful direction:
     – Developing an openness to starting from where people are (whether academia, policy or practice) and synthesising knowledge and experience. This requires shedding the skins of our previous lives: some people find this easy, some find it hard, if not impossible
     – Emphasising that this is not necessarily about (expensive) restructurings but, more simply, the way we think and work together, and involve others
     – Adopting ways of social learning as a systemic skillset with which we could better address current opportunities and constraints, rather than adding to the list of toolkits to get fast results.

     Reply

   • Hi Susan. Good to hear from you. My experience in the UK is that we’ve hit a tipping point, and there is now massive interest in systems thinking, especially in government. I am in continuing communications with people from several government departments. I reckon the culture in Australia is comparatively anti-conceptual though compared with the UK – very macho, where people seem proud of ‘strong leadership’ rather than collaboration and reflective engagement with complex issues. Perhaps that’s too much of a stereotype, but that’s how it seems when I hear Australian politicians talking. There is real understanding where I am that we need to address wicked problems differently from tame ones, and there are systems groups now in several national government departments, and in many local governments. This has happened relatively recently – perhaps the last three or four years.

     Concerning skepticism about what people don’t know and trust, I quite like Sperber and Wilson’s “relevance theory” (but in a moment, I will propose an important modification of it, which matters in this context). Relevance theory suggests that the relevance of a new idea to a person is determined by the ‘cognitive inferences’ that they can get from it (i.e., the value it adds in practice) minus the work they have to do to assimilate it. In other words, if the benefits are not clear, or it will take too much work to learn, people will not see it as relevant. The trouble with systems thinking is that the benefits are really only clear once we have experienced them: until then, its transformative potential just sounds like overblown claims by advocates. Also, because there are so many methodologies and theories, all with their own jargon, it looks like a hell of a lot of work to learn. This is compounded by there being no neat formula for application: it requires exploration of the context and the design of a systemic approach that is appropriate in that context. So it appears to offer uncertain benefits (unknown cognitive inferences) and a lot of work to assimilate.

     Now my modification of this idea – SOCIAL CONTEXT MATTERS. If you are part of an organization where a systems approach is valorized, or even expected, then other trusted people are saying that the cognitive inferences are substantial, and the work involved in learning systems thinking is worth it. The social context can tip the balance, making people take it seriously when they would otherwise be dismissive. This is precisely what I am seeing in the UK government context – it’s very, very clear that it’s being institutionalized, and that makes all the difference.

     Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.