Systems Thinking

Four Key Questions

Barry Richmond
Managing Director
High Performance Systems, Inc.

©1991 High Performance Systems, inc.

1

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 1

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
1 1
 Systems Thinking
Four Key Questions
Systems Thinking, A Systems Approach, System Dynamics, Systems Theory, and just plain 'ol
"Systems" are but a few of the many names commonly attached to a field of endeavor that most
people have heard something about, many seem to feel a need for, and few really understand. This
paper is an attempt to provide concise answers to four key questions about "systems". Each answer
really could be developed in a great deal more detail. What I've tried to do is provide a starting
point—what I hope is a good springboard.

As I prefer the term "Systems Thinking", I’ll use it throughout as the single descriptor for this field of
endeavor. The questions that I will seek to answer about Systems Thinking are: What is it? Why is it
needed? What works against its being adopted on a broader scale? And, finally: What can we do to
increase both the speed and breadth of its adoption? I am hopeful that the answers which I provide
will help to fill something of an information void as to what this "systems stuff" really is all about. They
also should help to focus and leverage the efforts of both those seeking to develop proficiency in the
field, as well as those who are working to encourage a broader adoption of the approach.

What is Systems Thinking?

Systems Thinking, in practice, is a continuum of activities which range from the conceptual to the
technical:

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
2

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 2

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
2 2
when you can see the forest (of relationships), for the trees. You are not employing a systems
perspective when you get "trapped in an event". Anyone who has gazed out at the lights from high
above a city, or gazed down upon a river valley from a mountain top, has a good sense of what
"standing back far enough" means. Details fade. Patterns of relationships emerge. And, time seems to
slow. Conversely, anyone who's been caught in the frenzy of rush hour traffic on a multi-lane freeway
knows what being "trapped in an event" really means. The former is inherently awesome, empowering
and expansive. The latter is inherently mundane, consuming and constraining.

Moving rightward along the continuum, activities become more concerned with implementation of the
viewpoint. As they do, they also become progressively more disciplined and analytical. You might
typically begin implementation by developing an influence diagram — a simple map of the reciprocal
relationships which you believe to be principally responsible for producing the behavior patterns that
a system is exhibiting. These maps basically show what's hooked up to what. Next, you might
construct a structural diagram. This is a more disciplined map. It attempts to show what really makes a
system tick. At this stage of the process, you're laying out the mechanisms you think the system is
using to control itself. 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. Completing this step enables you to simulate the system's behavior on
a computer. Being able to do this often is very important because it permits you to "close the loop" on
your thinking. You can answer the question: Can the set of reciprocal relationships that I've pieced
together in fact generate the behavior patterns that are being produced by the actual system?

Few practitioners of Systems Thinking are equally proficient at all activities along the continuum. And
few applications of Systems Thinking involve all activities. It is clear, however, that to be good at any
of the implementation activities, it is essential to have a firm grasp on the perspective. There are many
talented equation writers. There are few people who can construct good Systems Thinking
simulations models.

Why is Systems Thinking Needed?

The easiest problems to solve are "local" in both space and time. If you tip over a glass of milk, there
really is no need to cry. The spill will confine itself to a relatively small area. And, spilled milk doesn't
stain. So, you simply fetch something absorbent, plop it down, soak up and then discard the errant
booty. No traces. No remorse. No problem.

Now consider spilling either radioactive waste, "the beans", or "your heart out". Each of these "spills"
will have far broader and longer-lasting consequences than spilled milk. And, in each case, the
consequences ramify far from their point of origin in both space and time. They affect not just the
"spiller" and the immediate area. The impact no longer is "local". Indeed, applying local solutions to
far-reaching spills usually only serves to make things worse both locally and distally.

As our personal relationships, technologies, jobs, institutions and communities continue to grow
increasingly complex and interdependent, the occurrence of "spills" will increase. At the same time, the
chances of any spill remaining "local" diminish. Almost any "fix" that we implement reverberates 3

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 3

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
3 3
through a web of interconnections, producing a wave of counter-reactions that are widely distributed
in both space and time. Only by increasing our appreciation for the growing "systemicness" of our
reality, can we begin to function as responsible web-mates, and can our social institutions (from
families, to corporations to governments) achieve some modicum of effectiveness and stability. As
interdependency increases, we must learn to learn in a new way. It's not good enough simply to get
smarter and smarter about our particular "piece of the rock". We must have a common language and
framework for sharing our specialized knowledge, expertise and experience with "local experts" from
other parts of the web. We need a systems Esperanto. Only then will we be equipped to act
responsibly. In short, interdependency demands systems thinking. Without it, the evolutionary
trajectory that we've been following since we emerged from the primordial soup will become
increasingly less viable.

What works against the adoption of Systems Thinking?

So, if -- as it would appear -- the case for developing increasing proficiency in Systems Thinking is so
compelling, why then has its adoption been so slow? I believe that there are seven major impediments
to the rapid and wide-scale assimilation of Systems Thinking. I have divided the seven into two
classes, although the compartments are far from hermetically separated. I have classed three of the
impediments as "situational". By this I mean that we, ourselves, largely create these impediments. This
implies that we, ourselves, can directly do something about them. By altering our behavior, the form of
our institutions, the way we "do business", we can do much to eliminate the impediments in this class.

I have labeled the second class of impediments "fundamental". Impediments in this class arise more out
of "the way things are"; i.e., the nature of "objective reality", and the legacy of our biological heritage.
To the extent that things really are the way you perceive them to be, and that intentionality can exert
some influence over biology, we have some power to lessen these more "fundamental" impediments as
well. Personally, I am optimistic. I feel there is much that we can do to remove the barriers to
wide-scale adoption of Systems Thinking.

Fundamental The first of the "fundamental impediments" to the adoption of Systems

Impediment Thinking is that we're prisoners of our frame of reference. Ever have the
Number 1 experience of visiting another continent? Somewhere where people speak
a different language, and have adopted a different set of customs?
Invariably, after you're there for awhile, you begin to see things about
your homeland that previously had been invisible. You couldn't see them
at home because you'd been living and breathing them since birth. They
had become part of your "givens", your stock of taken-for-granted
assumptions. This unconscious bedrock is the source of a fundamental
impediment to the adoption of Systems Thinking. Because of it, it's
difficult to "stand back far enough" to really see what's what.

Few of us live on the upper floors of skyscrapers or atop mountain crests.

And, even those of us who do, can ill afford to spend much time gazing
out. Most of our waking hours are spent "in the fray". We're down there
in that traffic flow. We're participating in that meeting in the Conference 4

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 4

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
4 4
 Room. We're writing that memo, or doing that analysis. We spend most
of our time right up against the reality, interacting locally in particular parts of the
web. In short, when you're part of the action, it's very difficult to simultaneously
"stand back far enough". The fray thus becomes your unconscious bedrock. To
take an extreme example, few people practice Systems Thinking on slow-moving,
crowded elevators! The attachment to the here and now simply is too complete.

It is possible to develop the ability to "sense the whole while you're

playing a part". Yogis, consultants, teachers, jazz musicians, and
consummate team players all have it to varying degrees. However, it does
take time to develop. And, without a sustained effort to hone this skill
you'll remain solidly manacled to the fray.

Fundamental The second "fundamental impediment" to adoption of Systems Thinking

Impediment really is an artifact of the first. Because we live in fray, we've
Number 2 accumulated a storehouse of fray-conditioned experiences. These
experiences, in turn, color the way we view and interpret subsequent
experiences. The prevailing interpretation, combined with the weight of
evidence in the storehouse, make it difficult to adopt a Systems perspective.

Nearly all of our everyday experiences, as they unfold, appear to be "open-

loop". That is, they do not appear to be the product of ongoing
reciprocal processes — as a Systems perspective would have you believe.
Instead, they look and feel like one-way occurrences. For example: we get
hungry; we eat; hunger is gone. Or, we're late; we step on the accelerator;
we make it on time. Such sequences, as experienced, are much like those
that you'd have in a carnival shooting gallery. A target pops up...BLAM...
you blow it away. Next target, please. The sense, that one derives from
the flow of such experiences is that of facing an oncoming stream of
"to do's" which pop up, and which then must be "dealt with." Individuals
have little sense of their role in creating the stream. They're simply the
"shooters". Working folk. Someone else is controlling what's coming down
the pike. Living is responding.

One important reason why the flow of experience seems like a shooting gallery is
that there's frequently a significant asymmetry in the elapsed time associated with
the two links which make up a reciprocal relationship. Specifically, it takes much
less time for an action to produce a result, than it does for the result to return to
initiate another action. As a consequence, it's easy to conclude that your role is
only to "fix it" when something pops up, and not that your "fixes" are part of a
circular process which ensures that the something will pop up again! Take the
hunger example. You sense hunger. It then usually takes 15-20 minutes of
concerted effort to "fix it". Once hunger disappears, it stays gone for 3-4 hours.
There are usually lots of non-hunger-related things to occupy your attention
during this intervening period — a period in which you're undoing what you just
5

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 5

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
5 5
 fixed (i.e., storing and burning up the calories that you just took in). And
then...bingo! Up pops the target again.

The pattern is the same for most of our everyday experiences. We're awake for 18
hours. We then "fix" the resulting fatigue by assuming a horizontal position,
shutting our eyes, and letting go. Before we know it (because we've lost
conscious track of time), bingo! We're back, ready to tire ourselves out again.
Although it's always a circular process, we tend to see only one of the two links
in the causal chain because the "un-fix" link takes so much longer to complete
than the "fix" link. We are therefore led to conclude that our relationships in fact
are one-way rather than circular. This, in turn, encourages us to view ourselves as
"responders to" rather than "creators of." Such viewpoints are antithetical to a
systems perspective, and hence mitigate against its adoption.

Fundamental The third of the "fundamental" blocks to the adoption of Systems

Impediment Thinking has to do with what you see when you open your eyes. No
Number 3 matter whether your gaze is from afar, or "up close and personal", when
you look with your eyes, you see "stuff". You see material things like
people, cars and buildings. You have to squint (with your mind) to see
relationships. But the very essence of Systems Thinking is being able to
perceive relationships, not objects! This means that those who choose to
adopt this view are doomed to a life of squinting. Squinting takes effort,
more effort than simply opening your eyes and letting the appropriate
chemical receptors be simulated. And, although with time, squinting gets
easier, it still takes more energy than just opening your eyes. This extra
energy requirement, particularly in the start-up phase, serves as the third
impediment to the adoption of Systems Thinking.

Fundamental The final "fundamental" impediment to the assimilation of Systems

Impediment Thinking is an artifact of our biology. It has to do with our survival
Number 4 instincts. Long ago, we acquired the baggage which enables us to react.
We're here today, as a species, because when something went bump in the
night in the primeval forest, we reacted! In today's more ritualized jungle,
saber toothed tigers have ceased to be a concern. Now, with the lights on,
we must instead deal with snakes in the grass in the conference room and
foreign predators. And, when confronted with these ritualized threats to
our survival, our biology still reacts in essentially the same way. Our
instinct is to lash out with a knee-jerk reaction. Survival instincts triumph
over intuition and reflection. Ready, fire, aim.

Reactions work fine, when they're local. However, in a web, they can wreak
havoc! Most people know this. But oftentimes, especially in the heat of the
moment, knowledge is no match for hormones. When it's the fourth quarter of a
critical year, and you've got two weeks left to "make your numbers," you're not
6

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 6

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
6 6
 going to find high enrollments in Systems Thinking seminars! The problem is that
— for too many people, in too many organizations — it's always Q4 of a critical
year, and there always are just two weeks left. Because of our evolutionary
baggage, and because of the "perpetual fire fight" which exists in many
organizations, Systems Thinking remains only a curiosity—something to explore
sometime soon. The irony here is that to the extent that reactionary fixes serve as
kindling for the next blaze, "sometime soon" will never arrive.

Fire-fighting really is a situational impediment. It can be managed. It's the

existence of a great capacity for generating knee jerks that's fundamental. The
existence of the capacity predisposes creation of a fire-fighting environment. The
developing environment then provides ample opportunities for nourishing and
sustaining the capacity. This vicious cycle, operating in many organizations,
constitutes a formidable barrier to the adoption of Systems Thinking.

Situational The first situational impediment to the assimilation of Systems Thinking is

Impediment lack of technical expertise. People sniff the air surrounding this "systems
Number 1 stuff", smell computers, and then promptly proceed to have nightmares
about high school algebra problems that they were never able to solve (and
the final is tomorrow.) Although advances in technology are making
technical impediments less of an issue, for some people, technology itself
is frightening, de-humanizing, or otherwise dastardly. To fully implement
Systems Thinking, it's likely that you'll need to rely on a computer and an
equation or two somewhere along the line. The human mind simply is not
capable of juggling all the actions and counter-actions in a complex web
of relationships. In point of fact, only addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division are needed. Until we let go of our "math anxiety" and
technology phobias, Systems Thinking will largely remain on the shelf.

Situational The second situational impediment really is a "resistance." People resist

Impediment Systems Thinking because it can be threatening. It can be threatening in
Number 2 several ways.

People who rely on information monopolies, specific technical expertise, or

sharply-demarcated turf boundaries, in order to sustain their sense of personal
power, will find Systems Thinking inherently threatening. Pursuing a problem
with Systems Thinking tends to carry you across disciplinary, cultural, and
functional boundaries. The search is for how the web of interdependencies is
creating the problem. Answers to the "how" usually do not lie within a single
fiefdom, or within a particular part. Rather, they involve altering the relationships
between fiefdoms, changing the way the parts play together, working at the
interfaces. Such pursuits threaten local power bases. They can create "turf issues".
They can (and usually do!) reveal gaps in knowledge bases. Scary stuff, this!

For all of these reasons, Systems Thinking does not tend to root very well in
organizations which operate via traditional top-down, hierarchies. Organizations
7

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 7

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
7 7
 where the people at the top always "know the answer", and the people below
merely pull the triggers when the targets pop up, are not places where Systems
Thinking will flourish. In organizations where power is delegated, individual
development and autonomy are celebrated, and competitive advantage is
perceived to depend on everyone getting smarter together, Systems Thinking can
blossom!

Situational The third, and final, impediment that I’ll mention is the analogue of
Impediment situational impediment number 2 at the level of the individual. For a
Number 3 person to be willing to adopt a Systems perspective she or he must feel
empowered. It takes courage and strength to believe that you can make a
difference in the way a system works. You obviously can not control the
whole system, as you could a local piece. Hence, the commitment to
influencing something that you know you can't "control" really is an
admission of some lack of power. But there's a paradox here. To make
such an admission, you must feel empowered. It takes strength to own up
to weakness. The owning up is what enables you to operate from a
position of strength.

Individuals who lack a sense of personal power, or who sustain this sense
by trying to remain "in complete control" (via any one of a multitude of
strategies), will resist Systems Thinking. Just as a skyscraper can be
terrifying to someone who fears heights, Systems Thinking will spook
individuals who lack a true sense of empowerment. In embracing this
approach, you must give up control in exchange for gaining influence.
You must trade knowing for continual learning. You must accept trust in
exchange for dominance. It's difficult for disempowered individuals to
accept any of these exchanges.

What Can Be Done to Facilitate the Adoption

of Systems Thinking?
The seven impediments which I have identified, in effect, constitute an agenda of things which can be
done to increase the rate of assimilation of Systems Thinking. This agenda does not include seeking to
alter the fundamental conditions of our existence. It is likely therefore, at least for the foreseeable
future, that we'll continue to see material objects (and not relationships) when we open our eyes. And,
it's also likely, that in our day-to-day activities we'll be "right up against" those objects — rather than
three steps back from the fray. The "fundamentals" won't change. However, we can take steps to
expand and sensitize our perceptual filters. We can systematically confront our unconscious bedrock.
And, we can develop our intuition for web dynamics. One tool which offers tremendous potential in
all of these pursuits is the personal computer.

As pc's grow more powerful and more widely available, they'll also grow in their capacity for
underwriting simulated "stand far enough back” experiences. As links to video disks become more
common, and graphics-generation becomes ever more powerful, we’ll become less and less tied to
8

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 8

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
8 8
actual experience as the primary medium for producing awe, empowerment and heightened perceptual
sensitivities. Increasingly, we’ll be able to use personal computers to create active, visceral learning
environments where both individuals and groups can engage in Systems Thinking. Simulations can be
used to compress space and time. In this more intense mindscape, the full systemic ramifications of
many alternative courses of action can be "experienced" rather than merely conceived of. The
potential for creating new ways of learning — for both individuals and groups — that is inherent in
the nexus of the evolving technologies of personal computers, sophisticated sound systems, and
interactive video disks, is enormous.

A second arena in which we can advance the cause of Systems Thinking is in formal education. We
need offerings (at all levels) which address what's similar between disciplines, rather than courses that
celebrate what's different. Part of the reason why we so easily become "trapped in the specifics" is that
we are conditioned via formal education to analyze, to decompose, and to attend to the details of each
part. Too little effort is spent in developing peoples' ability to see what's generic, what persists across
disciplinary boundaries. Not enough time is devoted to exercising peoples' "intuition for the whole".
As a result, when survival instincts are stimulated, it's knee-jerk reaction that gets the call.

The third arena in which significant improvements which favor the adoption of Systems Thinking can
be made, lies within our social institutions — our families, social groups, corporations and public
institutions. Any organization which operates in a "power flows from the top down" manner will resist
adoption of Systems Thinking. At the same time, individuals operating within such organizations will
feel little need, and lack a sufficient sense of empowerment, to adopt this framework. Only in
institutions where individuals really can, and feel that they really can, make a difference, is it possible
for Systems Thinking to take root. These organizations need to be sought out. Efforts to implement
Systems Thinking need to be focused here. Too much of the limited time and effort of Systems
professionals now is being spent on organizations who hold little promise of flattening their
hierarchies and giving individuals real power. Let success in the individual-empowered organizations
speak for itself. Power-centralizing organizations then will either adapt or perish.

If the arrow of evolution — coursing toward ever-increasing interdependency — is to remain aloft, it

is essential that Systems Thinking be more widely embraced. Webs are exciting but fragile
environments. Ours, at all levels, are showing signs of wear. The time is now.

Systems Thinking: Four Key Questions • 9

©1991 High Performance Systems, Inc.
9 9