System Leadership Institute

Why is SD/ST so important to learn? (Click)

The OECD and UNESCO are also emphasizing Systems Thinking as a core competency. This is because we increasingly need to think holistically, surpassing the limitations of fragmented and linear thinking resulting from reductionism. However, I want to share my fundamental reason for advocating systems thinking. 

It is due to "Change". 

The magnitude and speed of the changes that we must cope with in the future will always surpass our expectations and will significantly impact our lives. Therefore, we must contemplate and teach how to understand, adapt to, and, if possible, create the desired changes.

So, we need training to view the world from the perspective of change.

I'm married to Systems Thinking because, in my experience, no other discipline explains change as well as System Dynamics and Systems Thinking. If there is a discipline that explains change better than System Dynamics and Systems Thinking, I would divorce it.

The I Ching, or the Book of Change, one of the Eastern philosophies, also explicates change effectively. However, it illustrates various changes through Yin and Yang and the 64 hexagrams, which cannot be interpreted in the languages of mathematics and engineering understood by the Western world. Therefore, Systems Thinking, which can be expressed in the language of mathematics and engineering, has better explanatory power than the I Ching.

Systems Thinking explains change through three interacting axes.


Each of these three pillars of thinking contains what could be called future capabilities.

First up is Operational Thinking. It is the antithesis of correlational thinking because it contemplates cause and effect. Correlational thinking, like heavy eyelids after a few days of all-nighters, blinds us from seeing the cause of a problem with a clear mind.

Causality, which only God can know, humbles us. Systems Thinking requires us to be open to multiple interpretations of a system because systems are value-neutral, meaning they can be interpreted in any number of ways depending on how you look at them. It's typical for the stakeholders to analyze the system's problems with limited information. Therefore, they still need to be open to the possibility of being wrong, so the approach of approximation to the truth requires the attitude of a wanderer in search of truth. Therefore, Systems Thinking is an element of scientific thinking that logically follows the steps of hypothesis and verification. 

Think of a classic correlation.  Maybe it's trying to judge a person by their blood or MBTI type or making decisions based on Big Data.  It's great to leave correlation as a hypothesis to be tested, but unfortunately, we rarely see that level of effort. Of course, correlation can include causation. Unfortunately, there is a lack of effort to determine which of the myriad correlations are truly causal and which are not. This is where Systems Thinking differs from correlational thinking. Thinking that explores how things work emphasizes the constant search for elusive causal links, so there's no room for confirmation bias. This is why Systems Thinking is critically needed in this age, where, due to AI algorithms, we are increasingly becoming addicted to confirmation bias and experiencing deepening polarization in thinking.

The second pillar of Systems Thinking, Feedback Thinking, is so refreshing and shocking that it renders debates over correlation, causation, and their relationships trivial, as it introduces the concept of circular thinking, something never encountered in our educational system.

The conveyor belt system, a symbol of industrialization, has propagated the myth of the Division of Labor. The concept that putting in one’s best effort in one’s assigned role leads to producing a finished product has become deeply embedded in our society. Thoughts like, " I am my position.", "All one needs to do is perform their best in their role" and "Mind your own business" have become deeply rooted mental models. We have become unrelated entities—I have become disconnected from you, the environment, and the Earth. It has obstructed our realization of interconnectedness.

Through the experiences of World War I and II, the top-down system was strongly experienced by the entire human race. In extraordinary circumstances like wars, there is a need to minimize holistic thinking and maximize the mindset of diligently accomplishing assigned tasks to prevail. In such contexts, the belief that doing one’s best in one’s place is virtuous becomes firmly established. Consequently, the need to concern oneself with or contemplate other roles diminishes.

Through Reductionism, academic disciplines have been fragmented into more specific and isolated fields. With racehorse blinders over their eyes, numerous scholars don't feel the need to communicate with other disciplines and are dedicating themselves to their independent research. This has led to the creation of an educational system where courses in languages, morality, mathematics, English, history, and literature are each taught separately.

Adding fuel to this situation is the discipline of statistics, which has played a significant role in developing mathematics, engineering, science, and civilization. However, every coin has two sides; the downside of statistics is that it has strengthened one-way thinking, an aspect of linear thinking, focusing solely on the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Is there significant research into how dependent variables, in turn, influence independent variables? How many scholars are showing interest in such aspects?

The specialization, top-down culture, Reductionism, and statistical thinking mentioned above have all fostered Linear Thinking. This linear approach has deeply embedded itself in our brain stem, hindering our ability to embrace feedback and circular thinking. However, with the escalation in complexity, the feedback attribute becomes increasingly pronounced. Feedback also acts as the operating mechanism inducing change.

Finally, the third pillar is Delay Thinking (Dynamic Thinking). Delay Thinking is intended to highlight the delay in change. The general nature of change can be explained by feedback. However, the shifts in the dominant feedback over time make decision-making difficult and lead to policy resistance. In other words, it is the attitude towards delay that can be the cause of policy failure. We may not be aware of that delay, but we often ignore it even when we are aware. That's why the more we contemplate sustainability issues like The Tragedy of the Commons and impacts beyond the term of decision-maker, the more we need to consider the effects of delay. It has become a key topic in civics education, global citizenship education, and sustainable development education.

As we've seen, Systems Thinking concerning change focuses on the causes of change (Operational Thinking) and illuminates the mechanisms by which change is created (Feedback Thinking) and the delay effects that are crucial for decision-making (Dynamic Thinking).

By tracing the causes of change, we can cultivate scientific thinking skills to formulate and validate hypotheses and, by understanding the mechanisms by which change occurs, develop ecological sensitivity emphasizing circular thinking and connectivity. This way, we can rebuild our relationship with the world, ourselves, and nature. Considering the effects of delay enhances our awareness and concern for sustainability, linking to civics and global citizenship education, overcoming the limitations of democratic systems where the term of elected officials restricts the implementation of long-term policies.

What do you think? Does Systems Thinking appeal to you? Don't hesitate to fall in love with Systems Thinking.