Systems Thinking as a Cognitive Skill

In my last LinkedIn article, I talked about the growing popularity of systems thinking. Towards the end of that article, I also wrote that further research and advocacy is required to make systems thinking more accessible. The limited uptake of systems thinking in general management is attributed to the challenges of the discipline’s own philosophical?baggage and the way it is presented to the world in terms of highly technical models and methodologies (for more on this argument, read my research paper on this topic).

Associating systems thinking with methodologies can be limiting. It may also pose challenges for greater adoption of systems thinking in the industry as various methodologies, accompanied by jargon-laden concepts and theories, can keep it away from practitioners who work outside the realm of operational research and management science.

Levy and Wilensky (2008) and Eilam and Reisfeld (2017) talk about “higher-order systems thinking”, where systems thinking is not to be learned step-by-step as a methodology, but rather to be regarded as a way of perceiving and appreciating complex systemic characteristics.?

Greene and Papalambros (2016) note:?

Systems thinking — like all thinking — is at its core an exercise in cognition, and relies upon high-order cognitive skills and a knowledge of why, when, and how to utilize them.?

Cabrera (2020) calls for the need for systems thinking to act as a bridge between the physical and the cognitive worlds; he further believes that systems science has a great deal to learn from recent advances in cognitive sciences. Drawing from various traditions, Cabrera says that systems thinking is informed by studies of cognitive systems, especially metacognition, neuroscience, psychology, development, etc. Several other scholars (Chowdhury 2019, 2022; Evagorou et al. 2009; Hmelo et al. 2000; Somme 2005; Tang 2020; Verhoeff 2003; Verhoeff et al. 2018) have posited similar arguments to regard systems thinking as a cognitive skill.?

Systems thinkers act in a certain way because of a set of cognitive styles, competencies, and/or preferences that they possess. A combination of both genetic (i.e., innate in some way) and environmental factors (such as parental training, formal education) come into play to shape such cognitive capabilities required for systems thinking. There is increasing evidence to show that the way in which different regions of the brain process information has a huge impact on how one perceives of the world, contexts, and problems. Other factors such as sex, gender identity, life experiences, and neurodiversity play a role in how one processes information and makes decisions (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001; Everatt et al. 1999; Reed et al. 2011). Cabrera and Cabrera (2019) and Cabrera (2020). Draw inspiration from works of Bateson, Maturana, Midgley, Prigogine, Gell-Mann, Capra, Bertalanffy, Forrester and many others, we can infer that systems thinking need not be about methodologies but about how one can make sense of the world with an alternative holistic perspective.

Frank (2000) attributes systems thinking to distinct personality traits, drawing from which, he identifies sixteen cognitive competencies of successful systems engineers, which are directly mapped to concepts in cognitive psychology. These attributes are: understand the whole system and see the big picture; understand interconnections; understand system synergy; understand the system from multiple perspectives; think creatively; understand systems without getting stuck on details; understand the implications of proposed change; understand a new system/concept immediately upon presentation; understand analogies and parallelism between systems; understand limits to growth; ask good (the right) questions; (are) innovators, originators, promoters, initiators, curious; are able to define boundaries; are able to take into consideration non-engineering factors; are able to “see” the future; are able to optimize.

Several works (Chowdhury 2022; Pushkar and Potrashkova 2008) also argue that systems thinking must be rooted in human consciousness as the ability to have an integrated view of the world is deeply rooted in one’s understanding and realization of the position of one’s own self in the wider scheme of existence. In a similar vein, Henning et al. (2012) consider systems thinking as an ethical imperative “as all of us live within systems, rely upon them, and interact with them for our survival and pleasure, any decision or action we take for our own good will impact others – for others, too, share the systems in which we live, on which we rely, with which we interact”. They argue that systems thinking brings in considerations of responsibility into one’s actions as we are now in the realm of “profound relatedness”, where one has a morally responsible role of purposive human activity in the natural, economic, cultural, etc. worlds.?Jackson (2019) talks about approaching problems from a variety of systemic perspectives or lenses in order to have a holistic understanding of issues at hand.

Drawing inspiration from Eastern mysticism, I have argued that the understanding of consciousness can lead systems practitioners make decisions with mental clarity and responsible goals (Chowdhury 2022). A conscious awareness can go a long way in helping systems managers drop their ego, display emotional balance, and work in unison with the universal forces of existence. Even in the toughest situations, consciousness will allow managers to stay calm and undertake a journey that is fulfilling for the self and the society. I call for systems practitioners to invest in greater self-awareness and to look inwards to engage with organizations and societies in a more responsible manner creating an intimate connection between themselves and the larger whole (Chowdhury 2023).

Drawing from the above deliberations, systems thinking can be regarded as a “state of mind” or a worldview that is based on one’s cognitive frame. I have previously undertaken a detailed study of applied systems thinking projects and highlighted how a systemic “state of mind” can help understanding and approaching complex problems and craft satisficing approaches to address them with or without the use of systems methodologies (Chowdhury 2019). Burge (2015), similarly, talks about systems thinking as a “state of mind” that helps grappling with complexity.

Henning et al. (2012) talk about the “worldview” of systems thinking. They draw from the work of Laszlo (1996) and highlight that:

The systems view perceives connections and communications between people and nature, and emphasizes community and integrity on both the natural and the human world.

Considering systems thinking as a cognitive skill can create greater acceptability of and openness to the discipline from practitioners and researchers outside operational research and management science. systems thinking as a cognitive skill will help popularize and democratize the discipline.

My conceptual lens of Holistic Flexibility can help practitioners to move beyond methodologies and apply systems thinking as a cognitive skill, as I have argued in several of my papers and books. Holistic Flexibility is defined as the dynamic interplay between a state of mind that has the ability to absorb systemic complexity and a state of practice that has the ability to embrace flexibility both in intent and in form. Holistic Flexibility argues for a pragmatic stance in systems thinking emphasizing on a practitioner’s ability to seamlessly manage and work with multiple variables, stakeholders, and factors to deliver responsible outcomes with the aid of learning loops. Holistic Flexibility is not a methodology; rather, it is a conceptual lens for practitioners that can offer them intellectual, emotional, and tactical elasticity in systems practice.?

In my upcoming book, I advance my conceptual lens of Holistic Flexibility and make an appeal to practitioners to be open to making use of various types of thinking, reasoning, and doing; of anticipating, creating, and negotiating; of managing, enabling, and facilitating; of investigating, modelling, and analyzing.

The five main building blocks of Holistic Flexibility are holistic thinking, flexibility, learning, responsible outcomes, and pragmatic practice. A brief description of each of these building blocks is provided below:

• Holistic thinking: The ability to transcend a modular approach to problems by approaching systemic boundaries critically and considering them to be contextual and in a state of evolution. Further, the interrelationships between the various sub-systems within the evolving system are also dynamic and evolutionary. This leads to the emergence of a situation as a continual representation of perceived reality from one state to another progressively.
• Flexibility: Holistic thinking has a consummate relationship with flexibility. As a system evolves with its dynamic boundaries, a practitioner needs to display three kinds of flexibility to adapt to it: cognitive flexibility (ability to think flexibly), formulative flexibility (application of a variety of methodologies that enable flexible and adaptive practice), and substantive flexibility (access to resource alternatives that can bring flexible practice to life).
• Learning: A practitioner and the context of intervention must continually learn and adapt to changing circumstances, expectations, and complexities. Learning is central to the dynamic interplay between holistic thinking and flexibility. Learning can be typified as single-loop learning (are we doing things right?), double-loop learning (are we doing the right things?), and triple-loop learning (why are we doing what we are doing?).
• Responsibility: A practitioner must aspire for systemic value addition – social, economic, and environmental – in their area of work. Additionally, they must endeavor to emancipate the situation of stakeholders through practices that are inclusive, participatory, and empowering. Finally, they must provide solutions that are sustainable.
• Pragmatic practice: A practitioner must pragmatically bring together the above four building blocks with focus, dedication, direction, and practice. They must hone certain demonstrable behaviors that include being open to challenge, questioning conventional paradigms, being ready to embrace diversity, and shifting between thinking and acting with seamlessness and tenacity.

I have elaborated the above building blocks as principles in one of my peer-reviewed papers.

It is important to note that Holistic Flexibility does not mean that a practitioner has to abandon systems methodologies. Rather, training in systems approaches and methodologies is essential as it exposes one to the philosophical underpinnings and practical intent of such methodologies.?

Discussions presented in this article is an attempt to further the argument for pragmatism in systems thinking. Holistic Flexibility is a distinctive conceptual lens that brings together a range of dimensions – holistic thinking, flexibility, learning, responsibility, and pragmatic practice – to pragmatize systems thinking as a cognitive skill.

Stay tuned for my upcoming book...

References

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Skinner R, Martin J, Clubley E (2001) The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Males and Females, Scientists and Mathematicians. J Autism Dev Disord 31(1):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005653411471

Burge S (2015) Systems Thinking.?https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/Uploaded/1/Documents/What-is-Systems-Thinking.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2022

Cabrera D (2020) Systems Thinking version 4.0. https://blog.cabreraresearch.org/systems-thinking-version-4.0-1

Chowdhury R (2019) Systems Thinking for Management Consultants. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8530-8_1

Chowdhury R (2022) Holistic Flexibility For Critical Systems Thinking Inspired By The Nataraja. J Manage Spiritual Relig 19(2):154–185. https://doi.org/10.51327/NHIY7714

Chowdhury, R. (2023). Conscious systemic leadership. Journal of Awareness-based Systems Change, 3(1), pp. 39-67. https://doi.org/10.47061/jasc.v3i1.5416

Eilam B, Reisfeld D (2017) A curriculum unit for promoting complex system thinking: the case of combined system dynamics and agent based models for population growth. J Adv Educ Res 2:39–60. https://doi.org/10.22606/jaer.2017.22001

Evagorou M, Korfiatis K, Nicolaou C, Constantinou C (2009) An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: a case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. Int J Sci Educ 31:655–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313

Everatt J, Steffert B, Smythe I (1999) An Eye for the Unusual: Creative Thinking in Dyslexics. Dyslexia 5(1):28–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(199903)5:1%3c28::AID-DYS126%3e3.0.CO;2-K

Frank M (2000) Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking. J Syst Eng 3(3):163–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6858(200033)3:3%3c163::AID-SYS5%3e3.0.CO;2-T

Greene MT, Papalambros, PY (2016) A cognitive framework for engineering systems thinking. 2016 Conference on Systems Engineering Research. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/42_greene_a_cognitive_framework_for_engineering_systems_thinking_1.pdf

Henning PB, Wilmshurst J, Yearworth M (2012) Understanding systems thinking: an agenda for applied research in industry. ISSS Journals. https://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings56th/article/download/1909/612/7586

Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9:247–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2

Jackson MC (2019) Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity. Wiley. ISBN: 978–1–119–11839–8

Laszlo E (1996) The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for our Time. Hampton Press. ISBN-13: 978–1572730533

Levy TS, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a ‘mid-level’ to make ends meet: reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cogn Instr 26:1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798479

Pushkar AI, Potrashkova LV (2008) The Foundations of Scientific Research and Organization of Scientific and Research Activity: A Study Guide. Kharkiv: "INZHEK" Publishing House.

Reed GM, Mendon?a Correia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M (2011) The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification. World Psychiatry 10(2):118–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.x

Somme C (2005) Untersuchung der Systemkompetenz von Grundschulern im Bereich Biologie. [Study on the Primary Students' Systems Competence of in Biology]. Dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universit?t Kiel/Germany.

Tang M (2020) Systems thinking as a cognitive mode for knowledge organization and transformation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341598907_Systems_thinking_as_a_cognitive_mode_for_knowledge_organization_and_transformation. Accessed 16 July 2021

Verhoeff RP (2003) Towards Systems Thinking in Cell Biology Education. Utrecht: C.D.? Wetenschappelijke reeks (dissertation).

Verhoeff RP, Knippels MPJ, Gilissen MGR, Boersma KT (2018) The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking: Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education. Front Educ. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00040