<p> Systems Thinking In a messy world, systems thinking is essential. - Robert Garmston and Bruce Wellman What is systems thinking, and how does it relate to organizational change? Systems thinking is a particular way of looking at organizational behavior. It is a body of knowledge and tools that helps identify underlying patterns and suggests how they can be changed. In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge (1990) outlines 11 “laws” that are characteristic of systems thinking. Three of these are especially relevant to bringing about change in organizations. “Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions” (p. 57). Although we usually hope that solving a problem takes care of a situation, in reality, solving one problem usually creates another. For example, the high school that instituted a high minimum grade point average for all athletes found that its dropout rate increased. Instead of motivating students to study harder and get good grades, the rule had the effect of pushing a certain group of students off the teams and out the door. Solving problems in a system without simply transferring a problem from one part of the system to another is a delicate business. “Cause and effect are not closely related in time.” (p. 63). In simple situations, seeing a direct and timely relationship between cause and effect is common. For example, children learn very quickly that if they don’t share their toys and play nicely, they are likely to be removed from their play group. But direct cause-and- effect relationships like these are uncommon in complex systems such as our organizations. For example, in the “problem” example above, cause and effect were not what this well-intended group of educators expected them to be. “Small changes can produce big results – but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious” (p. 63). In systems thinking, the most obvious solutions don’t work. Setting a grade point average cutoff for participation is the most obvious solution for dealing with student athletes who are not doing well academically. The only problem is that it doesn’t have the desired effect (pp.57-67). A powerful example of a small change that led to a dynamic impact is that of Rosa Parks, in 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. She refused to give up her seat for a white man and move to the back of the bus. Her act sparked the civil rights movement across the United States. We know from chaos theory that often some small, insignificant action strategically placed can result in significant and lasting improvements. These are called high-leverage changes. The problem, with such changes is that they are not obvious and not closely connected in time and space to the problem at hand. Although difficult, it is possible to find high-leverage changes. Senge (1990) recommends that learning to see the underlying structures, patterns, and assumptions that drive thinking and action in organizations – instead of simply reacting to events – points us in the right direction. </p><p>Kaser, Joyce. Mundry, Susan. Stiles, Katherine E. Loucks-Horsley, Susan. Leading Every Day. Day 28. (pp. 118–119) 2002.</p>