Waldman (2007) defines a thinking system as a complex adaptive system (CAS) “…with two additional, unique characteristics: (1) having goal(s) separate from survival, and (2) having the capability to structure its own learning and to innovate purposefully.” (p. 271).
He also makes the following observations:
- “Thinking systems are unique because they can have diverse intentions (beyond survival) and can envision preferred outcomes in the far future.” (p. 273)
- “…the actions of a thinking system are influenced by the system components (humans) and therefore results emerge rather than follow inexorably and predictably.” (p. 276)
- “…the nature of a thinking system is to innovate, to co-evolve and self-organize, to modify the process and to produce results different from those initially intended.” (pp. 277-278)
According to the author, one of the best examples of a thinking system is health care. Specifically, he states:
- “Healthcare can be considered a paradigm of the thinking system and is repeatedly plagued with unintended, adverse outcomes, particularly fixes that fail.” (p. 271)
- “Current healthcare systems are malfunctioning because they are thinking systems viewed as and managed like machines.” (p. 281)
In my opinion, the most thought-provoking section in the article is:
“The application of systems thinking to thinking systems requires acceptance of the inherent nature of a thinking system: it has free will, it learns and it innovates. This means the planner or leader must develop a process for change, NOT a detailed strategic plan. Thinking systems will reject the strategic plan for two reasons. First, the system is composed of people who must be engaged and must own to do, otherwise, they will subvert the change to preserve the status quo. Secondly, thinking systems self-organize, the parts co-evolve and results emerge from these interactions. If a strategist tries to implement his or her plan, the thinking system will still self-organize thereby changing the planned process, will still co-evolve altering the initially designed structure and function, and the results that will emerge are unlikely to correspond to those originally intended.” (pp. 281-282)
This is an important reminder to any leader that’s attempting to foster organizational change.
References
