Systems Thinking: How to Actually Solve Problems

A pragmatic guide to finding solutions.

What is systems thinking?

In school, we are taught linear thinking: A causes B, C causes D. This works for some tasks, like following a recipe or doing basic math. However, the real world is nonlinear; trying to fix societal issues with linear thinking is like trying to fix an entire car by replacing a single bolt.

Systems thinking is the holistic approach to solving problems; where linear thinking treats symptoms, systems thinking addresses causes. It is the mental shift from seeing pieces to seeing the whole.

Systems thinking isn’t something you see.

It’s how you see.

How can I use systems thinking?

You don’t need a degree in complexity science to think systematically. You can start applying it today using three simple habits:

Analyze implications

In cause and effect thinking, it’s all too easy to flatten complex problems into binary A + B = C thinking. In reality, the effect of a large decision isn’t one neat, singular outcome; it’s a complex ripple of effects.

Analyzing implications means seeing past the immediate consequences—the “C” of the problem—and understanding the effects of the decision as a whole.

As an example, let’s talk about the time America reversed a river. In the late 19th century, Chicago was pouring its sewage into the Chicago River, which then flowed into Lake Michigan—where the city got its drinking water. This was causing cholera and typhoid outbreaks in the city. To “solve” this issue, they dug out a 28 mile long canal connecting the Chicago river with the Des Plaines River, completely reversing the flow.

This saved the city’s drinking water, yes.

But it also caused major flooding, destroyed ecosystems, introduced invasive species to lake Michigan, and created a five million square acre dead-zone in the Gulf. Five years after the reversal, 300 lawsuits had already been filed. 126 years after the reversal, the effects are still there in lost land and eroding river banks. The engineers did not know this would happen. This is linear thinking at its worst—trying to solve the immediate problem without any regard for the future.

Consider incentives

There are two kinds of incentives: positive incentive and negative incentive. Positive incentive encourages you to do something; for example, doing a good job at work may result in you receiving bonuses or a pay-raise. Negative incentive works very differently—it encourages you not to do something; a great example being if you don’t abide by the law, you get thrown in prison.

All human action is highly incentivized. Freedom, free will, sovereignty, autonomy—whatever you want to call it—yes, we have it. But free will does not overpower parameters. You have to obey hundreds of thousands of laws due to negative incentive—you’ll be thrown in prison if you don’t. Positive incentive has a huge control over your career and personal beliefs; pay rate and peer pressure encourage you to pick certain options over others. Your day to day actions—your small choices, your habits, your patterns—are all affected by social, economic, and legal incentives. This is not to say that free will doesn’t exist or isn’t powerful, or that humans don’t sometimes make unpredictable decisions—it’s to say that plans cannot be built on the basis that the human thought-process isn’t influenced. When designing a business, an institution, a government, or any kind of plan that involves people, incentives must be analyzed, understood, and integrated.

With our understanding of incentives, let’s analyze a relevant socio-economical question: which pay structure encourages the best employee behavior? Hourly wages are effective for jobs with fixed-shifts, but when the shifts start varying in length, a huge problem arises: employees are encouraged to work slower. This is because the incentive is backwards; instead of encouraging efficiency, it encourages inefficiency. The solution is simple: flip the incentive. Instead of encouraging inefficiency by paying employees more the longer it takes, pay them fixed daily amounts with early-release. The encouraging factor is no longer money; it is allowing the employee to go home as soon as the job is finished. The goal shifts from “how can I drag this out?” to “how can I complete this efficiently?”

The concept of incentive is well-understood by many types of leaders, including the menial, daily kind, such as (effective) parents. When you need someone to do the “right” thing, the question isn’t “how can I force them to do it?” it’s “how can I encourage them to do it?” This small shift is what makes the difference between a guide and a dictator.

Understand precedent

Actions are not self-containing, as we talked about earlier; the implications of any decision can ripple outward with numerous consequences. One type of these consequences is called precedent—the standard set by any one decision. Where linear thinking only asks “what are the immediate consequences?” systems thinking asks “what does this decision pave the road for?”

One of the worst precedents humanity ever set was the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these weapons was framed as a way to prevent an “even greater loss of life.” Maybe it succeeded. Maybe it didn’t. What’s relevant isn’t the decision itself, but the doorway it opened; the question shifted from “will these ever be used in war?” to “under what conditions can these be used again?” And that is a doorway humanity has been struggling to keep shut ever since.

Precedent is not about what happens once; it’s about what becomes easier the second time.

Conclusion

Linear thinking is great for menial tasks—but it will not fix the world. Systems thinking will not give you simple, convenient “C” answers. It demands patience, perspective, and a willingness to sit with complexity instead of flattening it. It means understanding every decision has implications, is incentivized, and sets a precedent.

The most powerful part of systems thinking is this: instead of dealing only with the outcropping of the problem, it changes the conditions that allowed the problem to arise in the first place.