e are only a third of the way in, but 2020 has already been an extraordinary year for humanity. We unexpectedly find ourselves at a socioeconomic crossroads, and before we decide which way to turn, we must collectively find a radical new approach to managing complex global problems.
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) sweeping the globe has caused countries to take the unprecedented but necessary step of shutting down their economies to protect the health of their people. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
Anyone paying attention in 2019 would’ve seen the writing being written on the walls of 24/7 newsrooms and social media feeds. From climate change disasters to the World Health Organization’s concerns of a “Disease X”—the signs were there for all to see.
So, we must ask: why are we not prepared?
It turns out that the real issue behind our general unpreparedness is as fundamental as the way we think about the world and the problems we meet.
For the past three centuries, our civilization has been blessed by a handful of incredibly influential polymaths. Intellectual giants from Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein have pervaded most fields of academic study, to the extent that the predominant worldview of those with a formal education tends to be characterized by a mechanistic and reductionist perspective—the scientific method.
We have become hardwired to believe that things work in a structured, linear way—like machines. And that the best way to understand and fix something is to break it down into smaller parts and reassemble it in a more efficient manner. To date, this has served us exceptionally well and brought great prosperity to our world.
But we are at a tipping point. Not all problems can be understood and addressed using a mechanistic and reductionist approach: if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Treating every problem with the same approach that we always have can have unexpected and potentially disastrous consequences.
When humans think, our brains are doing four different things: making distinctions between things, organizing things into systems of parts and wholes, identifying relationships between cause and effect, and assimilating perspectives from our worldviews. There are two critical parts of this process that need elaboration.
The conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
The conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
First, our worldviews regulate how we understand phenomena around us. They comprise a set of imbibed values and assumptions based on the aggregate of what we have experienced and learned, and for most of us, we are completely unaware that these culturally nurtured biases even exist.
Second, the conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
It is important to make the distinction between complicated and complex systems. Simple and complicated systems can be managed by using what is called convergent thinking: we gather data, analyze it and develop solutions. Mechanistic and reductionist thinking—the scientific approach—is perfectly suited for this. Complex systems need an entirely different approach. They can only be managed in a dynamic, incremental way that requires empathy, abductive reasoning and rapid prototyping. This is where “systems thinking” becomes critical. It allows us to adopt a more holistic approach to problem solving, which complements the scientific approach.
Most of us, and the institutions we work for, have been trained in the scientific approach. We use analysis to try and reduce complex systems to complicated or simple systems, to a point where we can force a solution. This may work temporarily under certain conditions. But it inevitably breaks down and produces unpredictable outcomes. This year, the results of this one-size-fits-all approach are everywhere around us to see.
So, how can we manage complex systems? A “systems thinking” approach shows us that we need to build into our organizations ways of dealing with uncertainty and crisis. We need to get used to expecting outcomes that are both/and, rather than either/or. Most importantly, we need to be able to approach these systems from multiple perspectives, while being aware of our own embedded biases.
This is starkly different to the way we currently work and requires repeated cycles of objective setting, active interventions, observation, and reflection. It requires elevated levels of self-awareness, empathy, and the ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity. It requires people who can work on equal terms with scientifically trained subject matter experts who are skilled problem solvers.
In the eye of the COVID-19 storm, the exceptional actions taken by governments around the world have demonstrated that the unthinkable is possible. We should take this hiatus in existential normality to try a different approach to managing complex problems, or risk future crises as severe or worse than the present one.
a global affairs media network
It’s Time for a New Approach to Solving Complex Global Crises
April 3, 2020
W
e are only a third of the way in, but 2020 has already been an extraordinary year for humanity. We unexpectedly find ourselves at a socioeconomic crossroads, and before we decide which way to turn, we must collectively find a radical new approach to managing complex global problems.
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) sweeping the globe has caused countries to take the unprecedented but necessary step of shutting down their economies to protect the health of their people. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
Anyone paying attention in 2019 would’ve seen the writing being written on the walls of 24/7 newsrooms and social media feeds. From climate change disasters to the World Health Organization’s concerns of a “Disease X”—the signs were there for all to see.
So, we must ask: why are we not prepared?
It turns out that the real issue behind our general unpreparedness is as fundamental as the way we think about the world and the problems we meet.
For the past three centuries, our civilization has been blessed by a handful of incredibly influential polymaths. Intellectual giants from Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein have pervaded most fields of academic study, to the extent that the predominant worldview of those with a formal education tends to be characterized by a mechanistic and reductionist perspective—the scientific method.
We have become hardwired to believe that things work in a structured, linear way—like machines. And that the best way to understand and fix something is to break it down into smaller parts and reassemble it in a more efficient manner. To date, this has served us exceptionally well and brought great prosperity to our world.
But we are at a tipping point. Not all problems can be understood and addressed using a mechanistic and reductionist approach: if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Treating every problem with the same approach that we always have can have unexpected and potentially disastrous consequences.
When humans think, our brains are doing four different things: making distinctions between things, organizing things into systems of parts and wholes, identifying relationships between cause and effect, and assimilating perspectives from our worldviews. There are two critical parts of this process that need elaboration.
The conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
The conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
First, our worldviews regulate how we understand phenomena around us. They comprise a set of imbibed values and assumptions based on the aggregate of what we have experienced and learned, and for most of us, we are completely unaware that these culturally nurtured biases even exist.
Second, the conceptual systems that our brains create can be divided into four broad types: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Complex systems are characterized by unexpected emergent properties: they are unpredictable and with many possible outcomes. Most of the global challenges we face are called “wicked” problems, which are characteristic of complex systems and are impossible to solve.
It is important to make the distinction between complicated and complex systems. Simple and complicated systems can be managed by using what is called convergent thinking: we gather data, analyze it and develop solutions. Mechanistic and reductionist thinking—the scientific approach—is perfectly suited for this. Complex systems need an entirely different approach. They can only be managed in a dynamic, incremental way that requires empathy, abductive reasoning and rapid prototyping. This is where “systems thinking” becomes critical. It allows us to adopt a more holistic approach to problem solving, which complements the scientific approach.
Most of us, and the institutions we work for, have been trained in the scientific approach. We use analysis to try and reduce complex systems to complicated or simple systems, to a point where we can force a solution. This may work temporarily under certain conditions. But it inevitably breaks down and produces unpredictable outcomes. This year, the results of this one-size-fits-all approach are everywhere around us to see.
So, how can we manage complex systems? A “systems thinking” approach shows us that we need to build into our organizations ways of dealing with uncertainty and crisis. We need to get used to expecting outcomes that are both/and, rather than either/or. Most importantly, we need to be able to approach these systems from multiple perspectives, while being aware of our own embedded biases.
This is starkly different to the way we currently work and requires repeated cycles of objective setting, active interventions, observation, and reflection. It requires elevated levels of self-awareness, empathy, and the ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity. It requires people who can work on equal terms with scientifically trained subject matter experts who are skilled problem solvers.
In the eye of the COVID-19 storm, the exceptional actions taken by governments around the world have demonstrated that the unthinkable is possible. We should take this hiatus in existential normality to try a different approach to managing complex problems, or risk future crises as severe or worse than the present one.
