In a world where literally everything is connected, it's essential that we remember and value what many aboriginal societies knew centuries ago: that social, environmental, and economic benefits arise from being able to develop and maintain an ability to think in terms of how people, objects and events relate harmoniously to one another.
In modern parlance this ‘entanglement’ is referred to as systems thinking. It stems from biological science, although it’s not something you will usually find taught in schools.
The capacity to make connections that aren't necessarily obvious is especially needed where a variety of social, technological, cultural, environmental and economic threads are entangled and not easily unravelled. It's hard to imagine such an interactive knot of conflicting patterns and dynamics without some kind of overarching picture or description of what we're dealing with - in other words the whole messy phenomenon of connections and interrelationships evolving dynamically over time.
Take one random topic: global food security. Here, industries such as health care, education, nutrition, agriculture, manufacturing and logistics are all influenced in different ways, from time to time, by a range of local events - like droughts, land degradation, pest infestations, shipping disruptions, fuel shortages, famine, economic instability and wars. Underlying causal factors beyond the control of any single authority - climate change and demographics, for example - also enter the equation as a backdrop to everything else.
It should be clear from just this one example that throwing resources into solving discrete problems within one part of a complex system is likely to be ineffective and possibly futile - at least without a profound knowledge of how the entire thing works. It may even aggravate a situation that is already extremely fragile. Instead, critical thinking about the entire system, its higher level rationale, networks of relationships, operational abberations and internal constraints, must take priority over everything else.
Systems mean different things to different people. Most commonly though, a system is best understood as a set of interacting components that form an integrated whole - like a human body, an organization, a rainforest, or indeed the biosphere. Organic systems, too, as distinct from purely mechanical and information systems, can be defined in a number of ways. But essentially what we visualize when we depict or talk about an organic system is a multifaceted web of affiliations between agents, events, structures, processes and activities, which evolve over time in ways that are both predictable and uncertain. This latter tension results in what is often referred to as emergence - spontaneous evolutionary events that were not anticipated, and are impossible to predict, which arise from the sheer variety and dense interplay within such structures. These systems are said to be dynamically complex and adaptive.
To make matters even more confusing very large systems, like planet Earth for example, have a limitless number of interconnected components - higher level meta-systems and lower level sub-systems, that are infinitely recursive, all displaying similar degrees of sophistication.
Such richness, or ineffable variety, is a potential impediment to any complete understanding of the system under scrutiny. It can also coerce us into supposing we can grasp the workings of the entire system through radical simplification, or by way of a highly specialized, technical knowledge of the discrete parts. We cannot. Actually, that's a cruel delusion prolonged by our penchant for analysis - an indoctrinated way of ‘making sense’ of the world. There is bound to be a degree of lucidity under or beyond the surface complexity. But that’s only accessible to those who have the capacity for synthesis.
Whole systems invariably behave very differently to anything we can assume by examining the discrete parts. Rationality is often absent. Prediction is at best hit and miss. Even in situations where our technical knowledge of the various parts is extensive, our understanding of the whole will not be enriched one iota. It's true that we can sometimes approximate the likelihood of certain conditions occurring through the use of smart data and sophisticated computer modelling. But the slightest shift in assumptions regarding contextual conditions, or how variables spontaneously interact, will consign our findings to irrelevant conjectures very quickly.
An analogy often used to point out differences between living and mechanical systems is the stripping down of an automobile compared to the dismemberment of an organic life form such as a frog. A mechanic can strip down a car and put it together again systematically with no loss of efficiency. Well-oiled and maintained, the machine's performance will be as good as new. Better even. The same cannot be said for the frog which will inevitably end up irreparably disabled, or dead.
So, while being systematic can ensure technical functionality, it certainly can't be relied upon to improve an organic system. A far deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the system's anatomy, neurology, and physiology is needed in order to alter the pathology, or to improve the life-force within an organic system.
Being systemic is to inquire into the complexity of living organisms and ecosystems in the hope of gaining profound knowledge (of that system) for change. While systematic evaluation occurs within methodical, deliberately ordered procedures, systemicity is more to do with the evolutionary manifestations of the whole system - its past, present and possible states. These states can often be unpredictable and surprising unless the underlying constraints within the system, and within the system's external environment, are well understood.
We are schooled to be systematic and it's true that much of our everyday existence relies on this facility. However, many of the problems facing humanity today are systemic in nature. The use of linear analysis and systematic thinking is not very enlightening in our globalized and highly complex world.
If we really want to understand the workings of an organic system then pattern-seeking and synthesis, rather than analysis and prediction, become the most beneficial skills. Even then we're up against factors outside of our control. Bizarrely, as quantum physics demonstrates, just the actual observation of a system can change its behaviour in the most unpredictable of ways.
Quantum physics aside, the main point of misperception for many people is the difference between systemic states (generally unfathomable without an intimate knowledge of those key factors causing the system to constitute itself and behave as it does) and outputs which are systematically derived (ie. that are mostly predictable and can be engineered to occur). Indeed, the confusion between these two 'effects' probably accounts for the number of times corporations optimistically reengineer discrete processes, expecting to get different whole-of-enterprise results, only to be bitterly disappointed when company performance remains much the same as before, or actually deteriorates.
Another critical factor is the divergence in cognition and aesthetics when designing systems as opposed to processes. One-dimensional design processes are used by engineers to assure robustness in structures and efficiency of outputs. Security agencies use this kind of ‘systematic’ thinking to minimize risk. It is also used in organisational design to assure economical workflows. Such 'linear' design thinking is at the core of good project management. It's methodical and watertight - or should be!
Organic systems, on the other hand, need to be supple, adaptive and responsive to even the smallest nuances and shifts in external conditions. Because of this systems design is more integral, ethical and holistic - a process of evolution requiring us to continuously monitor, map, navigate and recalibrate in order for the system to remain aligned to its shifting context. If systematic practices are linear and planned, systemic methodologies are fluid, aesthetic, and endlessly adaptive.
The main point of this lengthy and rather pedantic explanation into the differences between systematic processes and systemic inquiry is to highlight situations where some of our more common practices serve only to reify bad habits. This occurs within organizations when the rigid, hierarchical nature of cultural structures butt up against the materiality of most operational processes. In that environment almost any attempt to improve performance of the whole system will fail. There are simply too many cultural and political constraints to deal with.
That is not to say there are no alternatives. For example, one might begin with an in-depth appreciation of the various states the organisation has generated (and continues to produce) within its industry and/or community. A systemic inquiry could be undertaken in which the most significant trends and patterns are sought. Where and how the system generates value (social, financial, cutlural) would be identified. Relationships, both significant and incidental, would be examined. Beliefs, values, promises and brand 'resonance' would receive attention, especially where these conflicted or created unanticipated stress points. Abstractions, or invalid assumptions about the workings of the business would be systematically eliminated during the course of such an inquiry. The resulting map or visualization would reveal the few key factors that are causing unwanted results. Design, benign yet precise, would then identify the smallest of nudges to change the energetics of the system towards optimal performance. Configurations, processes, and reporting relationships might need only nominal changes, or none at all. Often, enterprise results can be transformed with the least amount of effort.
What will be apparent, even from this single example, is the precise synthesis needed to surface relevant patterns; the need for appropriate tools for helping to visualize complex information from various altitudes; the curation of an inclusive dialogue that's sufficiently erudite to avoid the traps set by ego, status, power and ambition; and a willingness to let go of current hypotheses in order to explore the whole territory before arriving at preliminary conclusions. Generally speaking, whole systems can be shifted with the tiniest of prods and with minimum disruption. The large consulting firms will not tell you that by the way, even if they know which is unlikely.
Another example is at an altogether higher level of complexity - but elegantly illustrates the points around interconnectivity I was making previously. The world-system is often broken down into a number of life critical sub-systems (energy, industry and economy for example) with little or no appreciation for the dynamic relationships between these domains, and even less for how they relate to create a viable and enduring whole.
A few months ago, I gave the opening keynote address to a UN conference in Manila. My topic concerned the literacy of social and economic 'development' and, in particular, how our assumptions about foreign aid need to shift away from neo-colonial responses. During the ensuing discussion, one of the participants from India asked what strategic questions we should be asking about recent events that could beneficially disrupt the prevailing paradigm. My interrogator was chiefly concernd with slum dwellers, whose numbers are set to increase from 1 billion to over 3 billion by the turn of this century, and how the wealthy will be mostly immune to any food shortages caused by global heating.
My response was to suggest two questions, for which I already knew the answers. First I proposed we should find out whether there is a correlation, or even a direct causal link, between the escalation of extreme weather events around the globe and the outbreaks of social unrest we are witnessing around the world. There is.
I then submitted that a more profound knowledge of climate resilience might come from investigating the linkages between wheat shortages, price fluctuations and supply chain disruptions, caused by a number of factors including global heating, and the tipping point for revolutions. It does.
The fact that such causal relationships probably do exist is important for three reasons. First they illustrate the reality that local hazards can easily escalate into global conditions. Second they help us work out what can be done to improve the overall efficacy and security of (in this case) the global food system. Third they act as potential 'acupuncture points' for shifting the energetics within a social system, particularly in settings that might otherwise be considered too outlandish to be taken seriously. So, for example, nations around the Middle East could transcend the risks posed by climate change by investing in and transitioning to renewable energy and clean technologies. This would bolster employment as well as mitigating the more immediate impacts being felt from environmental collapse. This kind of applied foresight in government policy could turn two of the region's most formidable challenges into meaningful opportunities.
The first point I was trying to make was about interconnectivity - that everything is linked to everything else. But that we only become conscious of that when we have tools to see that is the case. The second point has to do with purposeful design - that patterns detected at one level, and the underlying causes for the way such patterms manifest at a deeper level, are all linked in ways that really do matter in terms of strategic outcomes.
So, food security in one part of the world is linked to peace and stability in far distant places. Renewable energy initiatives can lay the foundations for green growth in arid territories while water conservation projects to enhance climate resilience could bring otherwise-divided communities together, thereby helping to resolve conflict across an entire region.
Ultimately the nexus between human rights, biodiversity, natural resources, climate change, urbanization, food security, migration and social discontent all synthesize into fundamental patterns that can only be discerned and adequately addressed through engaging in systemic design from the perspective of renewal. Without that capabilty the more toxic impacts from these patterns will deteriorate and the world-system will turn on its dark side. Chaos will prevail.