# data[].attributes.body
Article is about interconnected systems in the workplace. That this is the process of linking manpower, technological resources and other items of capital together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An interconnected system in the workplace is the process of linking manpower, technological resources and other items of capital together. Such a system typically improves efficiency and accountability throughout the organization.

However, an interconnected system also has drawbacks: When one link of the chain experiences difficulty, this can cause a ripple effect throughout the organization; consequently, the business experiences delays and setbacks. Nonetheless, the benefits of an interconnected system often cause organizations to pursue such a practice.

An interconnected system includes intertwining manpower and job functions into one unit. Instead of keeping roles as distinct tasks divvied between workers, a linked system cross-trains workers. Thus, a netting effect occurs that enables the company to function independent of one worker's absence.

This type of system also adopts a unified, interconnected ethos. Sandra Goodall, author of "Business and Professional Communication in the Global Workplace," explains this view is encompassed by recognizing shared goals, interdependence and openness in the office.

An interconnected system as it relates to the business' technological functions is one where the software is shared and easily transparent between departments, according to IT business Equinix. For example, the changes made by the accounting department are easily viewed by related divisions such as finance and the purchasing team.

This linking of the system enables staff members to see up-to-the-minute changes and allows smoother coordination between groups. A downside to a linked system is the potential for a single threat to devastate the system and affect many groups at once.

For instance, one virus on a single system wreaks more havoc than the same virus isolated to just one user group's network. Customer databases, ordering systems and outstanding deliveries are examples of technological components that may be interconnected between work groups.

A company's supply chain is a primary example of an interconnected system in the workplace, explains Customer Lifecycle. Whether or not a company takes control of its production and distribution or outsources certain tasks, the interconnectedness is the same.

Hedley Reese, author of "Supply Chain Management in the Drug Industry," states that a supply chain consists of moving parts through a series of connected phases, which include physical production, delivery and the waiting period. One of the systems thinking principles is that a business relies on each step to go smoothly in order to ensure the success of the goods' overall production and delivery.

An interconnected system has traits of accountability and transparency. The work of one employee is easily reviewed and audited by a secondary party. In some cases, this linked system functions by one worker signing off on the caliber of work performed by another. A systems thinking model looks at how each link in the chain affects the others, according to EcoChallenge.org.

Interconnection also pertains to the ease with which businesses can work with its customers and other organizations. In "The 12 Factors of Business Success," Kevin Hogan explains how the Internet has revolutionized the way organizations can connect to their consumers and vendors. Hogan explains that developing interconnected networks of like minds is one of the fastest ways to achieve success in the workplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is an Interconnected System in the Workplace?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Is an Interconnected System in the Workplace?. An interconnected system in the workplace is the process of linking manpower, technological resources and other items of capital together. Such a system typically improves efficiency and accountability throughout the organization. However, an interconnected system ...

# data[].attributes.body
Article is about a new path to understanding systems thinking, why people get confused about what systems thinking is. Also we can find information about 17 practices of systems thinking and some research about preferences for each systems thinking practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many readers will recognize this scenario: A group in your department is planning a highly complex project, but the conversations you're hearing about it center only on immediate, individual interests and the need for short-term deliverables. A week later, the project comes to a halt because the team discovers that the initiative is negatively affecting another department. Conflict and blame ensue.

Just like the rest of the world, functions within our organizations are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Complex situations requiring a systemic approach are much more common than in the past. Nonetheless, many leaders and managers regularly use linear thinking, with its sequential, short-term focus on individual parts, which not only creates more complications, but also frustrates those of us who seem to "naturally" use systems thinking.

Why aren't more people applying systems thinking tools and skills to manage the complex needs in the world today? In some ways, systems thinking is like chess: It is easy to learn the basic rules, but you need experience to become good at it. While many resources exist to enhance one's ability to learn and practice systems thinking (including The Systems Thinker), our experiences tell us that certain people don't seem to "get it," use it, or even care about it. As Dave Packer observed in a 2004 article, "Whatever the reason, despite the promise of systems thinking, its impact has been surprisingly limited" (The Systems Thinker, V.14, N.10).

Why Don't More People Use Systems Thinking?

We believe that at least two major barriers exist to the widespread adoption of systems thinking:
1. People get confused about what "systems thinking" means.
Multiple terms. Even highly educated professionals are often uncertain about how to define "systems thinking." Similar concepts about systemic thinking are used in various applications throughout the world, including fields of study related to a systems approach to complexity - i.e., cybernetics, systems theory, complexity science, chaos theory, family systems theory, system dynamics, etc.

Internal debates. In the United States, arguably the most popular academic understanding of systems thinking developed out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Professor Jay Forrester founded system dynamics in the 1950s, and where Peter Senge (a student of Forrester's) raised awareness of systems thinking through The Fifth Discipline (1990). Twenty years after the publication of this bestselling book, an internal debate still festers among practitioners regarding the history and scope of systems thinking and system dynamics. As these internal debates continue, the arguments can confuse individuals seeking to clarify which tools, skills, and approaches are necessary and useful for better working with systems.
2. The tools and skills of systems thinking are not always consistent with the way people naturally think.
Learning to easily apply the tools and language of systems thinking has been compared to becoming fluent in a foreign language, in that it requires time and repetition with the material to build skills and confidence in applying it (Michael Goodman, "Systems Thinking as a Language," The Systems Thinker, V2N3; David Bridgeland, "Technology Versus Discipline: Why I Am Not a Systems Thinker," The Systems Thinker, V9N2). Yet our experience has shown that even with repeated exposure, some individuals within any group consistently disregard the majority of systems thinking practices, dismissing their value or return on investment. In contrast, within any group, some individuals quickly embrace and delight in discovering the "language" of systems thinking. (In our classes, these are the students who say, "This is the way I've always thought; you're just giving me language to express it.")

Our Study and Survey

While many great teachers and organizations are helping to clarify what systems thinking means, we have found little research regarding any connection between how people think and the use of systems thinking skills. Curious about the different levels of appreciation for systems thinking, we engaged in a study to see if at the individual level, a link might exist between a person's personality and his or her preference for using systems thinking skills. Our research study asks: In what ways might the preference for systems thinking be connected to one's preference for how to learn and evaluate information? In our post-study reflections, we also consider: How can we use our findings to help spread the appropriate use of systems thinking more broadly?

For our study, we engaged in two main activities:

1. We developed a comprehensive inventory and administered a survey of practices commonly associated with systems thinking.

2. We compared assessment responses to participants' Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) typologies. Note: While many other useful and credible tools for assessing personality and style types are available, we chose the MBTI based on its popularity, name recognition, and the possibility of comparing our data to other MBTI correlation studies.

What We Mean by Systems Thinking

Given the variety and vagueness of definitions of systems thinking, we decided to clarify what we mean by systems thinking as a basis for collecting our data. Analyzing multiple sources, including material from Linda Booth Sweeney, Barry Richmond, and the Waters Foundation, we methodically developed a list of 17 practices that we consider important to systems thinking. (Immense thanks to our colleague Lucy Garrick for her partnership in the development of the list and survey instrument. For more information about the source materials, see www.lindaboothsweeney.net, www.watersfoundation.org, and Barry Richmond's The 'Thinking' in Systems Thinking (Pegasus Communications, 2000).

17 PRACTICES OF SYSTEMS THINKING

How We Collected Data

We developed a questionnaire to assess a respondent's preference for using any of the 17 systems thinking practices. Participants were asked to consider a brief scenario of a complex problem and answer 17 questions, each representing one of the systems thinking skills.

Imagine that you are on a citizen panel working on solutions to decrease crime in your hometown. You are given a great deal of data and requested to propose solutions. Think about how you would naturally want to process information and approach the issues.

Study volunteers were asked to choose the one answer that best fit with their preferred approach to learn and understand the information, given the scenario. We also requested that participants provide their MBTI types. If they were uncertain of their current MBTI type, they were able to take a validated online MBTI assessment at no charge. (We appreciated the grant assistant from Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP) for this project.)

Results were scored and means calculated for the level of preference for each of the 17 systems practices in the survey. We also conducted one-way analysis of variance tests as described in more detail later (see "Correlating Preferences for Using Systems Thinking with MBTI Type Dimensions").

Findings

Overall Use of Systems Thinking. Our first analysis was to explore the level of preference for the 17 systems thinking practices contained in our questionnaire. "Participants' Preferences for Each Systems Thinking Practice" summarizes the level of preference by the respondents for each of the 17 practices. Our purpose in developing this summary was simply to evaluate the level of familiarity the respondents had with systems thinking practices. As you will note, all practices were quite familiar to the survey respondents.

CORRELATING PREFERENCES FOR USING SYSTEMS THINKING WITH MBTI TYPE DIMENSIONS

PARTICIPANTS' PREFERENCES FOR EACH SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICE

The table may seem to indicate strong acceptance of system thinking processes, but a fair degree of variation does exist. This is why we were interested in further investigating whether the MBTI dimensions might explain some of this variation.

Using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI)

The MBTI is a survey based on the theory of psychological type introduced by Carl Jung in the 1920s. The survey results provide a level of preference individuals have for each of four dimensions, which can help explain how they perceive and judge situations they encounter as well as how they prefer to behave in routine interactions. The survey provides preferences for four dimensions:

Extroversion (E) or Introversion (I), which relates to how individuals focus their perception on the world around them. Individuals associated with E tend to gather information by exploring the world around them versus I individuals, who tend to focus more inward.

Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N), which relates to whether you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in (S) or whether you prefer to interpret and add meaning (N).

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), which relates to making decisions. T individuals prefer to first look at logic and consistency as opposed to S individuals, who first look at the people and special circumstances.

Judging (J) or Perceiving (P), which relates to how one deals with the outside world. J individuals tend to like to have things decided whereas P individuals tend to prefer to stay open to new information and options.

If you're interested, we encourage you to explore the many resources describing the MBTI on the web for further information. One site in particular we recommend is the Myers & Briggs Foundation.

Systems Thinking Practices and MBTI Dimensions. Our second analysis assessed whether any of the four primary factors of the Myers-Briggs indicator were correlated with the level of preference for any of the 17 systems thinking practices. To do so, we employed a simple analysis of variance to test

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT PREFERENCES FOR SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICES, BY MBTI DIMENSION

whether any of the four MBTI dimensions was statistically more identified with responses to any of the 17 practices. In short, we were interested in whether someone who was intuitive (N) expressed a higher level of preference for a given systems thinking practice than someone who was sensing (S), etc. Our findings are shown in "Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension."

In summary, 11 of the 17 systems thinking preferences were statistically significant for intuition (N) and 6 of the 17 for perceiving (P). Only one systems thinking variable was significant for extroversion (E) and two for feeling (F).

The data suggests that respondents who identified themselves as intuitive (N) and, to a lesser extent, those identifying as perceiving (P) are more likely to express preference for systems thinking practices than those identifying themselves as having other types.

What Might This Analysis Mean?

The findings from the overall analysis suggest that within the general population, some segment of people naturally practice and prefer systems thinking as a way for them to better understand complex issues. This tendency is not necessarily related to someone's capability of applying a given systems thinking practice or its frequency of use. Given the generally high percentages of strong/moderate preference for all of the practices, we may be able to generalize to say that if someone prefers to practice one aspect of systems thinking, he or she will also likely prefer several, if not all aspects of systems thinking. While this conclusion fits with our observation that some people tend to use more systemic thinking than others, the variance in the findings suggests that some practices remain less used overall: in particular, being comfortable with ambiguity (#6) and being cautious of a win/lose attitude (#14). Indeed, it may be possible that these and similar practices are actually discouraged in classrooms and the workplace in favor of other Western ideals such as knowing the "right answer, right away" and competing to win.

This systems thinking/MBTI analysis offers one explanation for the varied levels of appreciation and use of systems thinking in the workplace. It also suggests an approach of focusing on one or more specific practices to encourage the spread of this approach.

Application

We see several applicable lessons here about how to use knowledge about MBTI types to help engage more people in systems thinking practices. Here are a few that we believe are particularly useful:

"Preference" Doesn't Mean "Ability." As Myers Briggs professionals are quick to point out, one's type is only a preference, and it is possible to learn how to adapt to situations as necessary. Put another way, just as someone with a strong P might adopt a to-do list to ensure she doesn't forget to perform critical tasks, we believe people can use a variety of tools and techniques to help them focus on utilizing systems thinking practices. Some suggestions are included in "Sample Actions to Enhance Systems Thinking Practices."

Remember That Systems Thinking Is One of Many Approaches. Recall the famous Mark Twain quote, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." As groups begin to gain skills and confidence in systems thinking practices, they will be tempted to see every organizational problem as a systems issue. This is of course not the case. Systems thinking is best used only under certain circumstances - with complex issues where the problem is not clear and the solution is unknown, what Ron Heifetz refers to as "adaptive challenges." This is in contrast to a complicated or linear technical issue - where the problem is understood and the solution is known. For more on adaptive challenges versus technical problems, see Heifetz's book, Adaptive Leadership (2009).

The point is this: if you do not have an adaptive issue on your hands, don't spend time with systems thinking practices. A systemic approach may over-complicate the situation - and turn people off from the practices as they'll see limited value for the time and thinking invested.

To Improve Systems Thinking as a Whole (Overall List of Practices), Pay Attention to the Parts (Individual Practices). Make sure you understand the basic idea of each practice. If a particular practice is relevant but underused in your organization, refer to "Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension" to help identify whether that particular practice may be related to individual MBTI preferences. If so, you may need to raise awareness first as opposed to immediately ordering another training.

SAMPLE ACTIONS TO ENHANCE SYSTEMS THINKING PRACTICES

For example, individuals with a strong MBTI preference for S, J, or both may refer to "Statistically Significant Preferences for ST Practices, by MBTI Dimension" as a guide to deciding which systems thinking practices may be less comfortable for them. So, someone with a J preference may want to focus on Practices 2, 3, 4 etc. first. In "Sample Actions to Enhance Systems Thinking Practices," we provide suggestions for how to enhance this awareness and use it for two of the 17 practices. We suggest working on no more than one or two practices at a time.

To use this table, review the definition of the practice in the middle column and then think of how you might incorporate the suggested tools provided in the third column the next time your group faces a complex issue. Individuals working on building their systems thinking competencies are encouraged to self-reflect and seek feedback from others as to how effectively they are able to engage in the particular systems thinking practice and how their use of the practice affects results. We have found that this kind of focused approach can have a significant impact on people's comfort with systems thinking practices and their development of new insights, both of which increase the perceived value of a systems thinking approach.

Implications for Using and Spreading Systems Thinking

We can draw a number of conclusions from the study that should be helpful to those applying or thinking about applying systems thinking in their organizations. For one thing, familiarity with systems thinking concepts appears to be quite widespread, indicating that most of us likely have the basic skills that are required to be successful in applying them to our organizational challenges. Second, not surprisingly, our personal preferences may affect our use of systems thinking, particularly from the standpoint of our omitting certain practices when they are not aligned with our preferred means of learning. By becoming aware of how our preferences might influence our (or other's) desire to engage in systems thinking, we can begin to consciously focus our effort on specific learning tools to support the use of systems thinking when it might be helpful.

Most descriptions of systems thinking do not explicitly delineate the full set of 17 practices used in our survey. We recommend incorporating this list of practices into academic and professional development curricula to help expand awareness of the capabilities involved, as well as to bolster the confidence of new learners about their existing mastery of some of the practices.

Possibilities for Future Research

We caution that this study was an initial investigation into the use of MBTI types to think about preference for systems thinking use. It was not meant to be comprehensive or representative of the general population or even the subset of current users of systems thinking. Rather, the study sought to determine if any relationship might exist between the four MBTI dimensions and systems thinking practices among a small set of volunteers in order to determine if further investigation may be appropriate. We believe this study provides sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation and suggests:

1. The replication of this study with a larger sample that more clearly represents the four MBTI dimensions.

2. The development of an expanded methodology to identify a priori those likely to employ systems thinking and those less likely.

3. The inclusion of appropriate demographics into the selection of respondents to test whether factors such as age, sex, education, etc. may have intervening or direct consequences in the adaptation of these practices.

4. The inclusion in future questionnaires of indicators of frequency of use and a self-assessment of the degree of capability the respondent has in a given systems thinking practice.

5. An exploration of systems thinking correlating with other behavioral assessments, such as DiSC and FiroB.

While further research is needed to better understand personal preferences for systems thinking, it seems clear to us that this way of thinking is developed through a combination of both nature and nurture. We hope that this idea can serve those of us who are "natural systems thinkers" in at least two ways. First, it can remind us to be more patient and less judgmental when our colleagues don't seem to "get it." Second, it can help us look to specific exercises and tools to build capacity for particular systems thinking skills in both ourselves and others. We hope that, over time, with enough encouragement and practice, organizational groups will begin to naturally engage in systems thinking practices when complex issues come up - resulting in more systemic strategies and better, more sustainable solutions.
Nalani Linder Jeff Frakes, Ph. D., serves as CEO of Performance Innovations, Inc., which provides coaching and conferencing in the human and organization development fields. He is a field faculty member for the organizational management program at Fielding Graduate University. Jeff has more than 20 years of experience as a human resources executive. He has contributed extensively to the use of Statistical Process Control and the administration and monitoring of drug dosages for those with neurological diseases. is founder and principal of N P Linder Consulting, providing organizational development and systems thinking resources to organizational and community change agents since 2005. Nalani has been teaching systems thinking workshops since 2008. She currently divides her time between facilitating organizational change efforts for clients and consulting to Washington State K-12 educators about integrating systems thinking into their curriculum. Nalani received her master's degree in Whole Systems Design from Antioch University-Seattle.
NEXT STEPS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
﻿A New Path to Understanding Systems Thinking - The Systems Thinker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
any readers will recognize this scenario: A group in your department is planning a highly complex project, but the conversations you're hearing about it center only on immediate, individual interests and the need for short-term deliverables. A week later, the project comes to a halt because the team discovers that the initiative is negatively affecting ...

# data[].attributes.body
Article is about systems mapping. It describes the basic steps to doing a cluster map. We can also learn about different types of system mapping (connected circles, casual loop diagrams, iceberg model, behaviour over time graphs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Systems thinking requires a shift in our perception of the world around us. In order to build a new multidimensional thinking framework, we need to discover the dynamics and interconnectedness of the systems at play. This is where systems mapping tools come in - they provide an exploration of the system, communicate understanding, and allow for the identification of knowledge gaps, intervention points, and insights.

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this series, I have been teaching systems thinking in relation to activated change making for years. While there are some great digital tools out there (like Kumu), every budding and experienced systems thinker will need to employ analog systems mapping tools as well. When I say 'analog,' I mean pen-and-paper style - no digital products - so get your writing hands ready.

It's funny how hard some people find it to get back to analog approaches. I have tested and refined these quick systems mapping tools, and use them constantly in my own practice, and with the UnSchool and Disrupt Design. I have tried to be as articulate as possible in explaining these approaches, but to be honest, I am usually explaining while people are doing, making it a very iterative learning experience. I would suggest that once you have read all of this, give a quick systems map a go to experience the discovery process first hand. Here is an example:

I always get people to start exploring complex problem arenas with a cluster map, or as I like to call it, a 'brain dump' map, which is what it feels like you're doing.

It's important to note that while similar, this is not a mind map. There's nothing wrong with mind maps, it's just the approach you take for a mind map is very different to the approach and objective of a systems map.

In a cluster map, we throw a topic, question, or arena down in the middle of a page, and then free associate nodes (elements within the system). There are no wrong or right words or ideas here, as everything is interconnected. We quickly move from one part to another, diving into an exploration of the elements that make up a system along with all the relationships and connections that feed into its maintenance.

Once all the elements, agents, actors, nodes, components (whatever you want to call the parts you place on the page) are mined, the key part is drawing the connections and relationships between them. This is where you can start to tease out all the non-obvious parts and seek to develop a more complex view of the system you are exploring.

From this, insights can be drawn, and potential interventions points can be identified. While it may look simple (and it really is, once you get into it), I find many people get stuck and want to impose order on the chaos that is a dynamic system. So one of the key learnings here is to suspend the need to solve and embrace the chaos of the system. Relationships are messy, so the map should also be a complete mess. I encourage a the messier the better approach, as this shows that you have had one insight lead to another in your exploration of relationships and interconnections.

Another thing I've noticed is that many people feel the need to have a 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the exploration. However, cluster mapping is just that - an experience of exploration, trying to mine the collective knowledge of you and/or your team to find out what's going on in the arena you're seeking to understand or make change within.

Cluster mapping only takes a few minutes to do, and is a critical part of the Disruptive Design Method.

1. Grab a large piece of paper and some markers/pens (different colors help, as you can start to use them to explore the different elements of the system).

2. Start by identifying what you want to explore and writing it in the center of the page (this could be 'education,' 'voter apathy,' or 'childhood obesity,' for example).

3. Make sure everyone working on the map has a pen (this is not a scribbling experience where one person writes what others say; it should be that all people are contributing to the map).

4. Start to throw down everything that relates to the arena you are exploring (there is no wrong concept, word, or idea here - just free associate all the parts that make up the system).

5. Once you have a page full of random works/concepts/nodes, then start to draw connections between them (here is where you can create a key and use different colors to define different flows, such as 'power' and 'government').

6. Keep going until you have filled your page and it's a complete mess or intermingled lines and words. Then, start to identity the key areas of interconnection and seek to define three new insights that have evolved from the exercise.

Here are the basic steps to doing a cluster map:

Once you have done a cluster map, you can move onto more detailed maps, such as Interconnected Circles mapping.

Practicing systems thinkers know how hard it can be to get to the root causal relationship of a problem area, let alone define what the area of intervention is. I adapted the Interconnected Circles Map to help people think through and explore systems. It's an individual map that allows for a deep exploration of relationships and cause and effect in systems dynamics.

This sounds way more complicated than it is. The map should empower you to see the parts and the whole along with the relationships. It enables a synthesizing of the key flows in the system, and provides a tool for enabling emergence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tools for Systems Thinkers: Systems Mapping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Systems thinking requires a shift in our perception of the world around us. In order to build a new multidimensional thinking framework, we need to discover the dynamics and interconnectedness of the...

# data[].attributes.body
Article is explaining how we can learn to name and define systems, define and describe 3 key systems: social, industrial and natural system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Words have power, and in systems thinking, we use some very specific words that intentionally define a different set of actions to mainstream thinking. Words like 'synthesis,' 'emergence,' 'interconnectedness,' and 'feedback loops' can be overwhelming for some people. Since they have very specific meanings in relation to systems, allow me to start off with the exploration of six* key themes.

*There are way more than six, but I picked the most important ones that you definitely need to know. To dive deeper, check out my 'Tools for Systems Thinkers' series on Medium.
Systems thinking requires a shift in mindset, away from linear to circular. The fundamental principle of this shift is that everything is interconnected. We talk about interconnectedness not in a spiritual way, but in a biological sciences way.

Essentially, everything is reliant upon something else for survival. Humans need food, air, and water to sustain our bodies, and trees need carbon dioxide and sunlight to thrive. Everything needs something else, often a complex array of other things, to survive. Inanimate objects are also reliant on other things: a chair needs a tree to grow to provide its wood, and a cell phone needs electricity distribution to power it. So, when we say 'everything is interconnected' from a systems thinking perspective, we are defining a fundamental principle of life. From this, we can shift the way we see the world, from a linear, structured "mechanical worldview' to a dynamic, chaotic, interconnected array of relationships and feedback loops. A systems thinker uses this mindset to untangle and work within the complexity of life on Earth.

In general, synthesis refers to the combining of two or more things to create something new. When it comes to systems thinking, the goal is synthesis, as opposed to analysis, which is the dissection of complexity into manageable components. Analysis fits into the mechanical and reductionist worldview, where the world is broken down into parts.

But all systems are dynamic and often complex; thus, we need a more holistic approach to understanding phenomena. Synthesis is about understanding the whole and the parts at the same time, along with the relationships and the connections that make up the dynamics of the whole.

Essentially, synthesis is the ability to see interconnectedness.

3. Emergence

From a systems perspective, we know that larger things emerge from smaller parts: emergence is the natural outcome of things coming together. In the most abstract sense, emergence describes the universal concept of how life emerges from individual biological elements in diverse and unique ways. Emergence is the outcome of the synergies of the parts; it is about non-linearity and self-organization and we often use the term 'emergence' to describe the outcome of things interacting together.

A simple example of emergence is a snowflake. It forms out of environmental factors and biological elements. When the temperature is right, freezing water particles form in beautiful fractal patterns around a single molecule of matter, such as a speck of pollution, a spore, or even dead skin cells. Conceptually, people often find emergence a bit tricky to get their head around, but when you get it, your brain starts to form emergent outcomes from the disparate and often odd things you encounter in the world.

There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it will be a butterfly - R. Buckminster Fuller

Since everything is interconnected, there are constant feedback loops and flows between elements of a system. We can observe, understand, and intervene in feedback loops once we understand their type and dynamics.

The two main types of feedback loops are reinforcing and balancing. What can be confusing is a reinforcing feedback loop is not usually a good thing. This happens when elements in a system reinforce more of the same, such as population growth or algae growing exponentially in a pond. In reinforcing loops, an abundance of one element can continually refine itself, which often leads to it taking over.

A balancing feedback loop, however, is where elements within the system balance things out. Nature basically got this down to a tee with the predator/prey situation - but if you take out too much of one animal from an ecosystem, the next thing you know, you have a population explosion of another, which is the other type of feedback - reinforcing.

Understanding feedback loops is about gaining perspective of causality: how one thing results in another thing in a dynamic and constantly evolving system (all systems are dynamic and constantly changing in some way; that is the essence of life).

Cause and effect are pretty common concepts in many professions and life in general - parents try to teach this type of critical life lesson to their young ones, and I'm sure you can remember a recent time you were at the mercy of an impact from an unintentional action. Causality as a concept in systems thinking is really about being able to decipher the way things influence each other in a system. Understanding causality leads to a deeper perspective on agency, feedback loops, connections, and relationships, which are all fundamental parts of systems mapping.

6. Systems Mapping

Systems mapping is one of the key tools of the systems thinker. There are many ways to map, from analog cluster mapping to complex digital feedback analysis. However, the fundamental principles and practices of systems mapping are universal. Identify and map the elements of 'things' within a system to understand how they interconnect, relate, and act in a complex system, and from here, unique insights and discoveries can be used to develop interventions, shifts, or policy decisions that will dramatically change the system in the most effective way.

Although this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to systems thinking, the key takeaway is that ultimately, approaching life from a systems perspective is about tackling big, messy, real world problems rather than isolating cause and effect down to a single point. In the latter case, "solutions" are often just band-aids that may cause unintended consequences, as opposed to real and holistic systemic solutions. Looking for the links and relationships within the bigger picture helps identify the systemic causes and lends itself to innovative, more holistic ideas and solutions, for a more sustainable future that works better for us all.

------------------

If you are ready to dive deeper into the world of systems thinking, then you should take our Systems Thinking course online, or if you are a bit more advanced, then continue to leverage that knowledge in learning to design systems interventions in this course.

You can also explore the Circular Classroom, which is a free, multilingual educational resource accessible to anyone but designed specifically for students and teachers alike to integrate circular thinking into high school and upper secondary classrooms, all packaged up in a fun, beautiful format. It offers the opportunity to think differently about how we design products, how the economy works, how we meet our needs as humans, and how to support the development of more creative professional roles that help to design a future that is about social, economic, and environmental benefits - and of course, this all begins with a systems mindset.

I explain in detail how to do many applied systems thinking practices in my Circular Systems Design handbook, and we run in-person programs at the UnSchool that equip people to become applied systems thinkers for enacting positive change in the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systems Thinking 101 | Leyla Acaroglu on System Change for the Circular Economy | UNSCHOOL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Words have power, and in systems thinking, we use some very specific words that intentionally define a different set of actions to mainstream thinking. Words like 'synthesis,' 'emergence,' 'interconnectedness,' and 'feedback loops' can be overwhelming for some people. Since they have very specific meanings in relation to systems, allow me to start off with the exploration of six* key themes.

# data[].attributes.body
Article is explaining what interconnected thinking is. It says that interconnected thinking is multidisciplinary, is a transformative mindset, is multicentric by including various perspectives and levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interconnected thinking is also a transformative attitude and alternative way of seeing the world. It encompasses empathy, sensitivity, the courage for experimentation and failure, mutual exchange and being critical about circumstances, facts, and topics. This attitude can be learned by being reflective, taking a critical view and taking time to investigate and understand oneself and others.

Besides, time is a crucial element of Interconnected thinking. Time, as well as patience, is needed to reflect, to regenerate, and to understand circumstances, problems, and underlying structures holistically. The approach fosters a conscious perception of time by including several time frames of the past, present, and future as well as short-term, mid-term, and long-term perspectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interconnected thinking is also a transformative attitude and alternative way of seeing the world. It encompasses empathy, sensitivity, the courage for experimentation and failure, mutual exchange and being critical about circumstances, facts, and topics. This attitude can be learned by being reflective, taking a critical view and taking time to investigate and understand oneself and others.

# data[].attributes.body
Article is about tools for systems thinkers - the 6 fundamental concepts of systems thinking :
1. Interconnectedness
2. Synthesis
3. Emergence
4. Feedback Loops
5. Causality
6. Systems Mapping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 6 Fundamental Concepts of Systems Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this series on systems thinking, I share the key insights and tools needed to develop and advance a systems mindset for dealing with…

# data[].attributes.body
Article is about elements of systems thinking, interconnections and goals and it also includes the short story on how it can change the way of thinking about problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've spent almost a decade working on homelessness and affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. The experience of homelessness results from a complex and interconnected system of other experiences such as job loss, family upbringing, addiction, eviction, and mental illness. Those experiences, in turn, are influenced by even more complex systems such as macroeconomics, national politics, the real estate market, and systemic racism. Many contemporary issues - immigration, climate change, foreign policy, healthcare - are similarly complex ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systems Thinking Part 1 - Elements, Interconnections, and Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've spent almost a decade working on homelessness and affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. The experience of homelessness results from a complex and interconnected system of other experiences such as job loss, family upbringing, addiction, eviction, and mental illness.

# data[].attributes.body
Article is about what does systems thinking involve, how to use systems thinking tools, where to start and it has a lot of useful tips for beginners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're reading The Systems Thinker®, you probably have at least a general sense of the benefits of applying systems thinking in the work-place. But even if you're intrigued by the possibility of looking at business problems in new ways, you may not know how to go about actually using these principles and tools. The following tips are designed to get you started, whether you're trying to introduce systems thinking in your company or attempting to implement the tools in an organization that already supports this approach.

What Does Systems Thinking Involve?

TIPS FOR BEGINNERS

It's important to remember that the term "systems thinking" can mean different things to different people. The discipline of systems thinking is more than just a collection of tools and methods - it's also an underlying philosophy. Many beginners are attracted to the tools, such as causal loop diagrams and management flight simulators, in hopes that these tools will help them deal with persistent business problems. But systems thinking is also a sensitivity to the circular nature of the world we live in; an awareness of the role of structure in creating the conditions we face; a recognition that there are powerful laws of systems operating that we are unaware of; a realization that there are consequences to our actions that we are oblivious to.
Systems thinking is also a diagnostic tool. As in the medical field, effective treatment follows thorough diagnosis. In this sense, systems thinking is a disciplined approach for examining problems more completely and accurately before acting. It allows us to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions.
Systems thinking often involves moving from observing events or data, to identifying patterns of behavior overtime, to surfacing the underlying structures that drive those events and patterns. By understanding and changing structures that are not serving us well (including our mental models and perceptions), we can expand the choices available to us and create more satisfying, long-term solutions to chronic problems.
In general, a systems thinking perspective requires curiosity, clarity, compassion, choice, and courage. This approach includes the willingness to see a situation more fully, to recognize that we are interrelated, to acknowledge that there are often multiple interventions to a problem, and to champion interventions that may not be popular (see "The Systems Orientation: From Curiosity to Courage,"V5N9).

Why Use Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking expands the range of choices available for solving a problem by broadening our thinking and helping us articulate problems in new and different ways. At the same time, the principles of systems thinking make us aware that there are no perfect solutions; the choices we make will have an impact on other parts of the system. By anticipating the impact of each trade-off, we can minimize its severity or even use it to our own advantage. Systems thinking therefore allows us to make informed choices.
Systems thinking is also valuable for telling compelling stories that describe how a system works. For example, the practice of drawing causal loop diagrams forces a team to develop shared pictures, or stories, of a situation. The tools are effective vehicles for identifying, describing, and communicating your understanding of systems, particularly in groups.

When Should We Use Systems Thinking?

Problems that are ideal for a systems thinking intervention have the following characteristics:

The issue is important.

The problem is chronic, not a one-time event.

The problem is familiar and has a known history.

People have unsuccessfully tried to solve the problem before.

Where Should We Start?

When you begin to address an issue, avoid assigning blame (which is a common place for teams to start a discussion!). Instead, focus on items that people seem to be glossing over and try to arouse the group's curiosity about the problem under discussion. To focus the conversation, ask, "What is it about this problem that we don't understand?"

In addition, to get the full story out, emphasize the iceberg framework. Have the group describe the problem from all three angles: events, patterns, and structure (see "The Iceberg").
Finally, we often assume that everyone has the same picture of the past or knows the same information. It's therefore important to get different perspectives in order to make sure that all viewpoints are represented and that solutions are accepted by the people who need to implement them. When investigating a problem, involve people from various departments or functional areas; you may be surprised to learn how different their mental models are from yours.

How Do We Use Systems Thinking Tools?

Causal Loop Diagrams. First, remember that less is better. Start small and simple; add more elements to the story as necessary. Show the story in parts. The number of elements in a loop should be determined by the needs of the story and of the people using the diagram. A simple description might be enough to stimulate dialogue and provide a new way to see a problem. In other situations, you may need more loops to clarify the causal relationships you are surfacing.

Also keep in mind that people often think that a diagram has to incorporate all possible variables from a story; this is not necessarily true. In some cases, there are external elements that don't change, change very slowly, or whose changes are irrelevant to the problem at hand. You can unnecessarily complicate things by including such details, especially those over which you have little or no control. Some of the most effective loops reveal connections or relationships between parts of the organization or system that the group may not have noticed before.
And last, don't worry about whether a loop is "right"; instead, ask yourself whether the loop accurately reflects the story your group is trying to depict. Loops are shorthand descriptions of what we perceive as current reality; if they reflect that perspective, they are "right" enough.

THE ICEBERG

The Archetypes. When using the archetypes, or the classic stories in systems thinking, keep it simple and general. If the group wants to learn more about an individual archetype, you can then go into more detail.
Don't try to "sell" the archetypes; people will learn more if they see for themselves the parallels between the archetypes and their own problems. You can, however, try to demystify the archetypes by relating them to common experiences we all share.

How Do We Know That We've "Got It"?

Here's how you can tell you've gotten a handle on systems thinking:

You're asking different kinds of questions than you asked before.

You're hearing "catchphrases" that raise cautionary flags. For example, you find yourself refocusing the discussion when someone says, "The problem is we need more (sales staff, revenue)."

You're beginning to detect the archetypes and balancing and reinforcing processes in stories you hear or read.

You're surfacing mental models (both your own and those of others).

You're recognizing the leverage points for the classic systems stories.

Once you've started to use systems thinking for inquiry and diagnosis, you may want to move on to more complex ways to model systems-accumulator and flow diagrams, management flight simulators, or simulation software. Or you may find that adopting a systems thinking perspective and using causal loop diagrams provide enough insights to help you tackle problems. However you proceed, systems thinking will forever change the way you think about the world and approach issues. Keep in mind the tips we've listed here, and you're on your way!
Michael Goodman is principal at Innovation Associates Organizational Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, and How? - The Systems Thinker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
f you're reading The Systems Thinker®, you probably have at least a general sense of the benefits of applying systems thinking in the work-place. But even if you're intrigued by the possibility of looking at business problems in new ways, you may not know how to go about actually using these principles and tools.