By its own nature and origin, the discipline of systems thinking, in its various forms, is inter-disciplinary in the face of volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) situations. It is best to address such situations with as many different perspectives as possible, so that we can learn from and with other people who come from diverse backgrounds and who might also have different goals to us.
Systems thinking offers a common language for dialogue. During the twentieth century and stemming from the work of biologists, philosophers and psychologists, among others, science often arrives at a single and communal idea: that of a system. A set of inter-related, inter-connected parts whose interaction leads us to consider what emerges, or could emerge, if we decide intervene in situations (although we cannot fully control or determine what is to emerge).
As discussed before in this blog (see latest post), in practice, this arrival is often accompanied by a similar one: Acknowledging one's own values in relation to those perceived to be enacted or lived in the system. The emergence also includes shift in people's identities. Faced with the complex nature of situations, we and others might not see as experts anymore.
I have called this dual situation (one as ethical subject, the system or systems in which one is operating) as 'arrivals', many of which could be acknowledged as common by different science or management professionals or practitioners. In my systems thinking journey as both practitioner and academic, these arrivals include ethical reflection on the type of person I have been and want to become. Arrivals also include a realisation that am only a part of systems or situations, so any change does not depend entirely on me, even if my perfectionist self would say otherwise (or the institutional metrics require). A realisation to continue being engaged in situations, now protecting my own sanity and that of loved ones.
Other systems thinkers like Jean Boulton, adopting ideas from Taoism and Metaphysics, would prefer to call arrivals becomings. The difference between these two terms could only be epistemological and in relation to how a system thinker places him/herself in relation to what goes on. Boulter's take seems to be more directed at not distinguishing much the individual, but oriented more towards the fluid and emerging patterns of interaction betwen human and non human elements of a 'system'. Here the idea of a system seems to be better understood as relational processes (of becoming), which one could also term as processes of organising.
Systems thinker Mike Jackson (2024), on the other hand, would prefer to first distinguish ingfeatures of systems or situations using systemic perspectives. These, in my mind, are metaphorical narratives, comparisons that, using our inherited ability to associate or filter things via language devices, can help us identify and appreciate salient features of how things and people 'work' or relate. All of this under a big realisation that we will never gain a full appreciation of what goes on in a situation. A big arrival, which can then taken to promote practical improvements in a situation.
In his latest development (EPIC), Mike Jackson has enriched his set of perspectives with features provided by popular systems methodologies and methods, to be also tackled with their help. For example, a perspective of interrelationships aims to identify and bring to debate how people and issues, activities and technologies become interrelated so that the action or behaviour of one impacts on others and vice-versa. Also, a methodology or method like systems dynamics could then help us better identity and address such relationships (in terms of stocks and flows for example), if that is deemed to be relevant by stakeholders.
To this kind of 'procedural' logic of Mike Jackson (many other systems thinkers, including myself, would share it), Jean Boulton would add that it is important to first look at what is becoming, and act as promptly as possible, so that if there is a detrimental pattern of interaction in a situation (system), it can be then avoided in its potential escalation. It is researchers and practitioners who are to navigate this complexity of becomings (emerging patterns). To effectively do that, they had better become flexible and bendy. If needed, they can then promote more beneficial patterns, being helped by systems methodologies or methods.
In both of the above cases (Boulton, Jackson), either by intervening early or later, with or without systems methodologies or methods, researchers or practitioners (individuals) would need to keep an eye on what goes on, given that through time other issues which would emerge from adopting other perspectives (i.e. mechanistic, cultural/political, social/environmental) require changes in an intervention strategy. This, inevitably, will also bring us inside the picture, where we would need to reflect on our own preferences and biases, our blindness, influenced by what we think are our own values and those of others.
Arrivals in practice
When reviewing and using Boulter and Jackson's ideas in my own practice (that includes teaching systems thinking), I find myself arriving at certain points where reflection and (in)flexibility is required. An educator or a student that notices something salient in a situation, for example an opportunity to implement a creative idea, or a pressing issue that nobody wants to discuss inside or outside the classroom, arrives at some realisations, emerging from his/her understandings, which s/he can share with others. It is then when s/he has an opportunity to 'steer' things in certain directions. Like a football game, the ball falls at his/her feet. What to do then? What is the next move?
Doing nothing is one option. Inviting other people, from other backgrounds or disciplines to contribute is another; leaving others to decide another one; or taking action on his/her own another one. From the perspective of an educator, there is also the tempation to say: "Let the students sort themselves out!". Myself, I prefer challenging students to go beyond the classroom, and if possible, supporting them, until I realise that my own sanity comes first. In a future post, I will talk about a recently completed project with my students.
In any case, we then arrive at a kind of paradox. The systems thinker, someone who has been somehow leading the observing of a situation (or inviting others to do so), using the idea of a system and its derived applied methods or methodologies, comes to the foreground to almost inmediately disappear, as if s/he has not been there at all.
A curious insight. Hamlet's words "to be or not to be" resonate with me at this point. And te reader might ask at this point: How can we then appear and disappear (shortly after presumably)?
One thing to say about this question is that systems thinkers are not magicians, that is for sure. But we can make sure that we have some presence in situations.
Many years ago, a student of mine asked me a similar question: How can we be systems thinkers without being 'punished' by that? She wanted to use systems thinking in her job, but feared to be sidelined. She wanted to be and not be there I think.
My reply then was: "Do your best. Work as openly possible with other people's views. Let them know yours. If possible, focus on learning about a situation, and trust your use of a systems methodology. And hope that what comes out is beneficial for us all."
Today I can say that my perspective would be very similar. Only to add that in a situation, there might be a need to let people know that you are or were there, but not as the main character or leader. That would be self-defeating. We are not the system that is trying to promote improvements.
So if people ask: What should we do? You can always say: "I really do not know [I was/am not there!], but if you keep asking, we can always try to find out answers together".
