Systems

Theory
A Guide For Systems Changers
 What we Will Cover in This Guide
Systems theory represents the core set of concepts or paradigm at the heart of systems thinking.
These central ideas hinge around the difference between a wholistic synthetic-view of the world
and an analytical-reductionist vision. This guide is designed to help you learn or teach this
“systems paradigm” in a structured and coherent fashion. After giving an overview to systems
theory we focus on four main themes, holism, emergence, relational thinking and process
thinking. By the end of this guide, the student should be able to articulate the difference between
the linear analytical paradigm and the synthetic holistic paradigm while being able to highlight the
key features of both.
1. Holism 2. Emergence
We explore the two basic See how nonlinear
paradigms of holism and causality and synergies
reductionism. lead to emergence

3. Relations 4. Processes
Learn how relational We look at process
thinking helps us see thinking & systems
patterns & networks micro-macro dynamics
 What is Systems Theory?
Systems theory represents the core set of ideas at the heart of
systems thinking constituting this paradigm. A paradigm is a
model, perspective, or set of assumptions that form a worldview
underlying the theories and methodology of a particular
domain. The systems paradigm is then a coherent set of basic
concepts and axioms that form the worldview or perspective
underlying systems thinking.

What defines the systems paradigm as distinct from others is

that it is based on a holistic view of the world. Holism means
that we are thinking about things in reference to the whole that
they form part of.

The main aspects of systems theory covered in this guide are

designed to help us to do exactly this - understand the parts of a
system in the context of the whole by looking at relationships,
synergies, emergence and processes of change.
 Why Systems Theory?
Systems theory has been defined as an approach that attempts
to balance holistic and analytical reasoning. In systems theory, it
is argued that the only way to fully understand something is to
understand the parts in relation to the whole. By taking the
overall system as well as its parts into account this paradigm
offers us fresh insight that is not accessible through the more
traditional reductionist approach.

Our traditional analytical view of the world that focuses on parts

can, and does, blind us to looking at the network of relationships
between things; it fails to account for processes of emergence or
radical nonlinear change where the whole context changes. By
understanding systems theory we gain a more comprehensive
view of the world that equips us to understand complex systems
and better deal with complexity.
This icon will take you
to the explainer video
 What is a Paradigm?
Systems theory is often called an 'alternative paradigm' thus before we
can start to expand upon it we need to understand what a paradigm is
first. A paradigm is a model, perspective, or set of ideas that form a
worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular
domain.

All reasoning and scientific inquiry rests upon a set of assumptions about
fundamental philosophical questions. Before any kind of constructive
inquiry into the world around us can be conducted a number of basic
philosophical questions need to be answered, including basic ontological
questions, e.g. what is the nature of being? How does causality work?
How do we know something and how can we prove that we know it?

Every coherent body of knowledge needs to provide some kind of answer

to these questions, which will then form the basis to that conceptual
framework shaping how we see the world when using it, and ultimately
the kind of answers that can be derived within that paradigm.
 Mechanistic Paradigm
The traditional paradigm taken within modern science, and by
extension the modern world, is what we call the Newtonian or
Mechanistic Paradigm. The absolute space-time coordinate system
created by Sir Isaac Newton in the 1600s gave us the framework for
a fixed, orderly, predictable and deterministic universe where all
events are driven by the linear interaction of discrete components
of matter creating a mechanistic vision to the world.

In this paradigm the universe is seen to be comparable to a big

mechanical clock. It continues ticking along like a perfect machine
with the turning of its gears governed by the laws of physics making
every aspect of the machine perfectly orderly, knowable and
predictable. Within this paradigm, we can understand and know this
whole machine of the universe by understanding all of the parts and
the simple linear interactions between those parts.
 Systems Paradigm
By the second half of the 20th century - with changes in science,
culture and society - a new paradigm was gradually being formulated,
this new paradigm we can call the 'systems paradigm'. The systems
paradigm is a coherent set of basic concepts and axioms that form the
worldview or perspective underlying systems thinking. The systems
paradigm is characterized as being holistic, meaning that it always
refers to the whole system or environment as the most appropriate
frame of reference for understanding something.

Systems thinking is based on synthetic reasoning instead of analysis

and deals with processes that involve nonlinear feedback loops of
interdependence. It is a relational paradigm, meaning it looks at the
connections between entities and how networks of connections can
shape the elements. Finally, the systems paradigm is focused on
understanding the world in terms of constant change and is process
orientated in nature.
 Subjective & Objective
While our traditional mechanistic paradigm is very much objectivist
in nature - seeing the world as out there with little interest in how we
subjectively perceive it - the systems paradigm includes recognition
and awareness of our subjective view of the world.

The systems paradigm posits that the subjective dimension of the

individual interpreter should be of equal importance to our
understanding of the objective world. Systems thinking sees any
knowledge of the world as a product of an interaction between the
conceptual system used by the individual and the objective
phenomena being observed.

Thus to gain a fuller understanding of the world one must both

question and develop the subjective framework being used as well as
what is being studied. To do this, it is important that the
assumptions, paradigm, and models used in an inquiry are made
explicit so that everyone can examine the assumptions.
 Holism &
Reductionism
 Overview
In this section, we explore the two basic approaches of holism
and reductionism and their counterparts synthesis and analysis.
These are the two processes of reasoning that form the
foundations of our thinking in general. In this section, we give a
clear distinction between the two different approaches, how they
interrelate and the consequences of using each approach.

Holism and reductionism represent two paradigms or worldviews

that provide fundamentally different accounts as how to best
view, interpret and reason about the world around us.
Reductionism places an emphasis on the constituent parts of a
system, while holism places an emphasis on the whole system.
While reductionism breaks an entity down so as to reason about
the entire system with reference to its elementary parts, holism
always tries to understand something in reference to the whole
system or environment that it is a part of.
 Reductionism
Reductionism is the practice of analyzing and describing a complex
phenomenon in terms of elementary parts that exist on a simpler or
more fundamental level. Reductionism attempts to create a unified
description of the world through reducing it to a set of elementary
components from which any phenomenon can be explained as some
combination of these parts.

The aim of reductionism is an explanation showing how the higher-

level features of a whole system arise from the elementary parts.
Thus, the higher-level features of a system can be largely ignored
within the inquiry; allowing us to focus on the lower level parts that
constitute it.

For example, this approach to understanding cognition would

attempt to reduce higher-level cognitive phenomena such as
awareness, emotions, and concepts to the basic physical building
blocks of the brain: neurons and synapses.
 What is Holism?
Holism refers to any approach that emphasizes the whole, rather
than the constituent parts of a system. Holistic accounts of the
world look for how an entity forms part of some larger whole and is
defined by its relations and functioning within that broader system.

What all holistic approaches have in common includes the principle

that the whole has priority over its parts and the assumption that
properties of the whole cannot be explained by the properties of its
parts—the idea of emergence. Within this paradigm, the ultimate
sources of knowledge are seen to derive not from elementary
component parts but, instead, from a reference to the system’s
broader context.

For example, the wetness of water only emerges when the two
atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are combined to give water. In such a
context it is required that we look at the system as a whole to
understand it properly.
 Example
Architecture is considered a holistic discipline as it is
primarily concerned with how the whole building works;
rather than prioritizing any single element to the building
the architect must look at how all the parts interrelate to
form the whole system.

In contrast, building engineers are required for the analysis

and design of the physical parts to ensure that it will
function, each engineer can focus on their specific domains
- electricity, water, heating , etc. - with less consideration of
the whole.
 Downward vs Upward
Reductionism and holism reflect two different perspectives on
the nature of causality. Reductionism leads to the idea of
upward causation seeing higher-level phenomena as being
caused by lower-level entities. Phenomena that can be
explained fully in terms of relations between other more
fundamental features are called epiphenomena. Typically, there
is an assumption that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal
effect on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.

Holistic accounts are primarily interested in the workings of how

the function and structure of an entity are defined by the
broader system or whole that it is a part of. As such, it places a
strong emphasis on downward causation, how the whole
macro-level affects a downward cause on the formation of the
parts. For example how social institutions or culture shape the
individuals within those systems.
 Dimensionality
A central aim of the reductionist approach is to reduce phenomena
to their single lowest denominator and then define all higher-level
phenomena in terms of those elementary parts. Thus, reductionist
approaches actively strive to reduce all accounts to a single
dimension, defining all higher-level phenomena as deriving from a
single low-level dimension. As such reductionism can be said to be
mono-dimensional in its approach.

Because holistic accounts are grounded in the concept of

emergence—whereby new and qualitatively different phenomena
and patterns emerge as we put parts together—it places great
emphasis on the multidimensionality to systems that exhibit any
degree of complexity. A holistic approach suggests that there are
different levels of explanation and that, at each level, there are
emergent properties that cannot be reduced to those of a lower
level.
 Synthesis & Analysis
The terms analysis and synthesis stem from the Greek words,
meaning “to take apart” and “to put together,” respectively.
Analysis can be defined as the procedure by which we break
down a complex whole into parts. While synthesis means the
combining of constituent elements into a single or unified
entity.

Synthesis and analysis represent two fundamentally different

processes of reasoning, but both are required to perform a full
process of inquiry, as analysis helps one to understand the
parts while synthesis helps to understand the whole of a
system.
 Analysis
Analysis is based on the premise that our basic unit of interest should
be the individual parts of a system. Analysis is the process of breaking
down or reducing systems to their constituent parts and then
describing the whole system primarily as simply the sum of these
constituent elements.

This approach is deeply intuitive to us, if we look at a child we will see

them taking things apart to try and understand them. When we wish
to understand how a car or a bird work, the first thing we do is isolate
it by taking it into a garage or lab and we break it down into its
constituent elements. Analysis is often described in terms of a three-
step process that we use for analyzing things.
 Process of Analysis

1. Isolate 2. Properties 3. Combine

With analysis when we wish to Once broken down into Lastly, we recombine these
understand something we take elementary parts, we analyze these components into the original
it into a controlled environment individual components in isolation system that can now be described
and decompose it into its to describe their properties and in terms of the properties of its
constituent parts. functioning in isolation. individual elements and their
direct interactions.
 Synthesis
More complex systems are primarily defined by the relations
within the system and not the static properties of their elements.
The reductionist approach is not designed for this so we need to
change our basic paradigm to one more focused on these relations
- this is where synthesis and systems thinking find their
application.

Synthesis means the combination of components or elements to

form a connected whole. It is a process of reasoning that describes
an entity through the context of its relations and functioning
within the whole system that it is a part of. Thus synthesis focuses
on the relations between the elements, that is to say, the way
those elements are put together or arranged into a functioning
entirety. And like with analyses one can also identify a few key
stages in this process of reasoning.
 Process of Synthesis

1. Environment 2. Functioning 3. Interrelations

The first step in the process is to Next, we try to gain a broad Lastly, we try to understand how
identify the overall system or outline of how this whole system the parts are interconnected and
environment that the entity of functions through its network of arranged to function within the
interest is a part of. connections entirety.
 Creative Thinking
Whereas analysis can tell us how things work it cannot really tell us
anything fundamentally new; it gives incremental improvements
and optimization. Because analysis simply breaks things down it
can only build upon what already exists. Thus while analysis is
synonymous with inside-the-box thinking synthetic thinking can
enable major paradigm shifts due to its creative, emergent nature.

The basic word “synthesis” means putting things together to form

some new entity. For example, in botany, plants perform the core
function of photosynthesis wherein they use the sunlight’s energy
as a catalyst to make an organic molecule from a simple carbon
molecule. Thus, synthesis is essentially a creative process, synthetic
thinking is designed to create new out-of-the-box ideas and
solutions.
 The Why & How
Both analysis and synthesis provide very different insights: while
analysis reveals the structure of a system and how it works,
synthetic thinking reveals why it behaves as it does. No amount of
analysis of the Spanish automobile would reveal why they drive on
the right side of the road. Why this happens is a historical
contingent, explained only by the broader evolutionary context
within which the car exists.

Whereas an analytical inquiry may give us detailed insight into the

internal workings of something, and thus an understanding of how it
functions, it is also argued that reductionist approaches do not allow
us to identify why behaviors happen. Synthesis resolves this by
referring to the broader context. Synthesis helps us to understand
the meaning of something because the meaning of something is in
its functioning within some larger system.
 Combination
A key thing to note is that the methods of synthesis and analysis
are not mutually exclusive. They should both be a part of any
well-developed process of inquiry, but each will have particular
relevance depending upon the type of system we are dealing
with. The effectiveness of either method is very much
contingent on the context. Some phenomena and
circumstances lend themselves well to analytical reductionism,
others not so well.

Which paradigm is most relevant may be understood to be

contingent on the degree of complexity to the system we are
dealing with: simple systems are amenable to the reductionist
approach, while complex systems are not; this is due to their
highly interconnected and interdependent nature.
Emergence
Theory
 Emergence Overview
Emergence is one of the central concepts within systems theory as it
describes a universal process of becoming or creation. A process
whereby novel features and properties emerge when we put elementary
parts together as they interact and self-organize to create new patterns
of organization.

Emergence being a highly abstract concept is literally everywhere, from

the evolution of the universe to the formation of traffic jams, from the
development of social movements to the flocking of birds, from the
cooperation of trillions of cells giving rise to the human body to the
formation of hurricanes and financial crises.

Emergence can be understood as a form of nonlinear pattern formation.

Where synergies between elementary parts give rise to self-organization
and the formation of a distinct pattern, that creates new, emergent
levels of organization, that are driven by an evolutionary dynamic.
 Patterns
The process of emergence can be understood as a kind of pattern
formation. Systems theory is interested in the study of patterns more
than the study of parts. We can understand a pattern to be any form
of correlation between the states of elements within a system. The
robustness of the pattern is a function of the number of relations
and the strength of the correlations between the elements. When
there is no correlation then the system is random. If all the parts are
interconnected and change exactly with all the others, then we have
a strong or robust pattern.

Emergence involves the creation of order within a system, this order

can be understood in terms of the correlations or symmetry between
the parts. The term symmetry comes from the Greek word meaning
‘to measure together.’ For example, a snowflake has an order to it, a
geometric symmetry to its form, what is called a reflection
symmetry, where one side can be transformed into the other by
applying a reflection transformation; this is a type of order.
 Information
Ordered patterns can be more precisely defined in terms of
information theory. For example, if we had a numbered pattern of say
2, 4, 8, 16, 32 we would not need to itemize each element in the set,
we could just state the first element and then the transformation of
doubling that would generate all the elements - thus generating the
whole set with just one piece of data and one rule.

Because symmetries define order we can describe an ordered system in

terms of some small set of data and transformations, in so doing
compress the amount of information needed to describe it. Inversely,
because asymmetry, in the generalized sense means a breaking of a
rule, for every asymmetry we will need to add more information.

Complexity can be understood as some interaction between symmetry

and asymmetry to create a pattern that has order but is also somewhat
random and chaotic; it is this interplay between the two that is a
defining feature to complex patterns of all kind.
 Simple System Complicated System Complex System
A set of pentagon tiles is a simple A tangled ball of string is complicated Complex patterns involve the
pattern because there are many because there are no symmetries to interaction between symmetries and
symmetries, meaning a small set of the pattern, thus a detailed description asymmetry; a disorder with underlying
rules governing the system can be of the entire pattern is needed to order, neither too random nor too
used to generate the whole pattern. understand it fully. symmetric.
 Simple Rules
We tend to think that things that are complex are the product of a
complicated set of rules, however many complex systems that we
see are not, they are instead a product of the interaction between
parts governed by simple rules; such as can be seen with cellular
automata or ants within an ant colony.

The rules under which the agents act is very basic. Individual ants
interact and communicate through exchanging chemical scents
that induce other ants to do more or less of a given activity in this
way feedback works to create emergent patterns.

Through feedback loops, some local pattern or behavior can

become amplified to create an attractor state that will draw local
elements into a particular synchronized configuration. Thus arising
some pattern of organization without the need for any form of
top-down control system.
 Autopoiesis
We can see how emergent processes are in some sense self-
creating, we call this process of self-creation ‘autopoiesis.’
Autopoiesis derives from the word auto- meaning “self” and poiesis,
meaning “creation or production”. A system is termed autopoietic if
the parts to the organization interact with each other in such a
manner that they are continuously producing and maintaining the
pattern and the elementary parts that constitute the system.

In contrast to this is an 'allopoietic' system which refers to a system

created by some other external entity. For example, almost all
engineered systems are produced through a human being imposing
a preconceived pattern on a set of elements to create something
other than themselves; a form of allopoiesis. Emergent processes
are autopoietic in nature. Living systems are good examples of
autopoietic systems.
 Something New
The dictionary definition of the term emergence comes from the Latin
word meaning ‘bring to light’. In this sense it means the process of
becoming visible or coming into existence. In its most abstract and
metaphorical sense emergence describes the universal process of
creation that is both a very fundamental and pervasive feature to our
world as it plays out in all types of systems.

Emergence involves the creation of something new that could not be

expected from a description of the parts prior to its creation, indeed the
17th Century Latin meaning to the word meant something similar to
‘unforeseen occurrence’.
 Unpredictable
Processes that are emergent are generally unpredictable. This is largely to
do with feedback between the system and its environment as it develops.
For example, our lives are emergent unpredictable processes as the actions
we take change the environment we find ourselves in which then feeds
back to affect the choices we make in the future.

Weak emergence describes any emergent process that given enough

information, can theoretically be simulated by a computer. Novel features
and properties may emerge within a system that could not have been
predicted a priori. However, once they have emerged it is possible, at least
in theory, to derive them from underlying component parts.

Strongly emergent processes are ones that cannot be derived, even in

theory, from a full understanding of the properties and interactions of the
component parts on the lower level. The higher-level emergent properties
and features must then be understood as a whole in terms of the macro-
level dynamics without referring to micro-level mechanics.
 Irreducibility
Because emergent properties are a product of the synergies between
the parts, they cannot be observed locally in the subsystems, but only
as a global structure or integrated network. In such a way emergence
creates a system with two or more distinct and irreducible patterns of
organization, called integrative levels.

New descriptive categories are necessary for the different levels when
referring to phenomena that involve emergence. As emergent macro-
level phenomena cannot be described within the vocabulary applicable
to the parts; these emergent features require new terms and new
concepts to categorize them.

As an emergent phenomenon is thought to be irreducible, in some

sense, to an account of its elementary parts, a true emergent
phenomenon is one for which the optimal means of prediction is
computer simulation.
 Integrative Levels
An integrative level is a pattern of organization emerging on pre-
existing phenomena of a lower level. The concept of integrative levels
is used to describe how synergies and emergence give rise to
successively higher levels of organization. More complex higher-level
phenomena are seen to be constituted by lower-level more elementary
parts with each level coming to have its own internal properties,
dynamics, and processes.

As components combine to produce larger functional wholes in

hierarchical series, new properties emerge, and one cannot explain all
of the properties at one level from an understanding of the
components at the level below.

The concept of integrative levels of organization is a general description

of the evolution of entities through successive and higher orders of
complexity and integration.
 Features of Integrative Levels

Dependency Fewer Instances Increase Complexity

The higher levels depend on the lower The higher up the level the fewer the The sequence of levels is often described
level ‘building blocks' because they instances. As emergence involves a process as one of increasing complexity as through
emerge out of them making the higher of synthesis, or merging of different things synthesis systems form with increasingly
levels more precarious due to this the number of elements is thus reduced many subunits, which are also increasingly
dependence because they are being combined. interdependent, enhancing complexity.
 Systems Hierarchy
The term hierarchy in systems theory describes the emergent pattern of
organization where smaller subsystems form part of larger systems which
in turn form part of larger supra-systems. Central to hierarchy theory is
the attempt to provide a framework for considering relationships among
levels and their ordering according to emergent processes that form
nested, multi-leveled structures; also called integrative levels. This
emergent, nested structure of integrative levels can be found in virtually
all systems whether physical, chemical, biological, social or engineered.

Hierarchy and emergence give rise to the design principle of

encapsulation, describing how smaller subsystems are nested or
encapsulated within larger structures. Hierarchical encapsulation
through abstraction is central to the structural design of complex
systems of all kind and can be seen as a fundamental pattern of
functioning ordered systems of complexity, as it works to distribute
components out across different levels.
 Micro-Macro Dynamic
As soon as we have emergence and hierarchical structure we have a
new dynamic between the different levels to the system. The process of
emergence creates new levels of organization and structures that have
some integrity to their parts and within which some process takes place.
This new level then feeds back to shape and constrain the components
on the local level.

We get the emergence of some new process, but for the process to take
place there needs to be an enabling structure. The components must
differentiate their states to perform the various structural and
functional roles required to process the resource on the macro-level.

This need for the higher level to constrain and control the lower levels
in order to enable higher-level processes creates a complex dynamic
between the micro and macro levels, as they become interdependent.
For example societies create institutions wherein individuals have to
fulfill certain roles that constrain their actions.
Relational
Thinking
 Relational Paradigm Overview
In the general sense, a system means a configuration of parts connected
by a web of interdependent relationships. When talking about any
system, the emphasis is typically on connections and interdependencies
as the defining feature to the organization. Systems theory
fundamentally rests on a relational view of the world - that is to say that
the connections between parts is our primary focus rather than
focusing on the parts themselves.

The relational paradigm of systems thinking emphasizes how

connections, interdependencies and context shape the component
parts of the system and not so much vice versa; which is the more
traditional assumption. The traditional analytical paradigm is
component-based. Analysis is focused on the properties of "things" in
isolation and how those things cause change through direct
interactions. In contrast, when looking at the world through a relational
paradigm we search for how interdependencies and networks of
connections shape the properties and behavior of the parts.
 Why Look at Relations?
An analytical component-based view of the world leaves us with a
vision of the individual or component as an actor affecting change
within their environment, it downplays the influence of connections
and context in affecting and shaping the individual parts - this is not
a problem if there are limited connections and interdependencies
within the system.

Systems thinking helps instead to focus on how the network of

connections around the individual parts affect and shape the system
as a whole. This perspective becomes of particular relevance when
the system comes to have a high degree of connectivity. The
distinction can be illustrated in the famous saying: “It is not what
you know but who you know.” What you know is a property of a
part, who you know is relational, they are two very different ways of
looking at the world.
 Interdependence
Interdependence is one of the central concepts within systems theory.
Most definitions for a system involve the idea of interdependency between
a set of parts. Indeed the idea of interdependency is often the central
concept that is used to define a system; because without interdependency
between parts, there is no system, just a set of independent elements.

Interdependence is a type of connection or relation between elements.

Relations may be defined as either dependent, co-dependent,
independent or interdependent. Unlike the other kinds of relations, the
essence of interdependence involves autonomy, differentiation, and
emergence.

Two or more autonomous elements coming together, differentiating their

states with respect to each other, to create some combined organization
that is greater than any of the parts, through the process of emergence.
Elements retain their autonomy with respect to each other, but they are
interdependent with respect to the overall combined organization.
 Synergies
A synergy is an interaction or coordination between two or more
elements or organizations to produce a combined effect greater, or less,
than the sum of their separate effects. A synergy is a particular type of
interaction between parts - it is a nonlinear interaction where the
specific way the parts interact creates an effect greater or less than the
simple sum of their effects in isolation.

Synergistic interactions are pervasive in our world. Examples of synergies

include ants working together in a colony to achieve results far greater
than the sum of their activities in isolation, two drugs having a combined
effect that is greater than each taken in isolation, or two companies
merging to create a more effective combined enterprise through the
combination of their capabilities and resources.

Interdependence is foundational to the formation of synergies. The

elements within a positive synergy are interdependent in that they have
to each perform different functions or roles with respect to each other.
 Positive Synergy Negative Synergy
A positive synergy is a constructive interaction between A destructive interaction between two or more
elements whereby they work together in some fashion elements where the parts work in a counteractive
to create a combined organization that is greater that a fashion to dampen down or destroy the effects of each
simple summation of the effects in isolation. Positive other. Negative synergies are typically a product of
synergies often require the parts to be specifically components failing to coordinate or differentiate
differentiated and coordinated with respect to each effectively. The net result of a negative synergy is a
other. combined organization that is less than the sum of its
parts.
 Differentiation & Integration
The interdependence between the parts within a synergy is a function of
the degree to which they are both integrated and differentiated.
Differentiation means that the parts are performing different functions
or occupying different states with respect to each other. All the players
on a football team do different activities, the organs of the human body
perform different functional roles, the bees in a colony perform
different activities.

This differentiation means that the parts can focus specifically on a

limited number of functions and thus perform them more efficiently as
they become more specialized. However, differentiation is of no use if
those different parts cannot be then reintegrated towards performing a
collective function. For example, all the members of a team or the
members of a business need to be coordinated into the common
process required to achieve the overall group objectives. Integration is
just as important as differentiation in that it ensures all the different
parts are working together.
 Causality
Holism and reductionism present two very different accounts to the
workings of causality. Causality describes a relationship that exists
between two or more things where a change in one thing causes a
change in another. The essence of causality is a phenomenon being
dependent on some other effect. As such causality is a connection or
linkage between states or events through which one thing, the cause,
under certain conditions gives rise to or causes something else, the
effect.

Causality forms a fundamental and pervasive part of our perception

and interpretation of the world around us. Equally, our ability to act in
the world depends on our grasp of causal relationships among things;
the way things act and interact and how we make sense of that.
Although cause and effect appear a central characteristic of our world,
they are in fact simply associations we make between events. The
philosopher David Hume illustrated how there are no necessary
connections between events in this world.
 Linear Causality
A central part of the analytical paradigm is the idea of linear
causality. The primary endeavor of modern science has been to
control for external variables, to isolate one or two input variables
that are thought to cause some effect within the system. The aim is
to ignore weaker influences from the environment and develop a
model that is based on what are considered to be key observations;
the primary driving variables causing change within the system's
state. These cause and effect relations are then encoded in
equations and thought to describe how the system behaves.

Linear causality follows a sequential order, where a direct link

between cause and effect can be drawn, with there being a clear
beginning and a clear end in time, effects can then be traced back
to one or a limited number of causes. This paradigm is extended to
general reasoning where people see events as a product of some
linear interaction, the perception that A causes B causes C in a
sequential fashion.
 Nonlinear Causality
Systems thinking is focused on nonlinear causality where multiple
factors affect an outcome as they work together synergistically in
a networked fashion. Nonlinear causality sees causation flowing in
a bidirectional or multidirectional pattern. Nonlinear causality
involves cyclical processes where one thing impacts another which
in turn impacts the first; although this chain of events leading to
feedback may be mediated through several events or over a
prolonged period of time.

The holistic paradigm posits that effects can be the product of

many causes. To gain a full understanding of the effect we need
not drill down to find a single cause but instead look at multiple
different factors and how they interact to give rise to the outcome
as an emergent phenomenon. This emergent, combined result can
be greater, or less, than the sum of their effects in isolation.
 Feedback
Systems theory looks for circular or mutual causality; how two
things affect each other and how every effect feeds back to its
source over time. Feedback loops describe a relationship of
interdependence over time, meaning what happens now is going
to affect what happens in the future.

In the model of a linear system, there is an input to the system that

generates some output, but this output does not affect its future
input. The result is that things grow or decay in a linear fashion.
This type of linear development is the product of independence
between states over time.

However, many things in the real world are nonlinear as they

involve feedback loops over a period of time. What happens in the
past feeds into effect what happens now and what happens now
will feed into affect the future. Through this we can get a
compounding effect as things build on top of themselves.
Process
Thinking
 Process Thinking Overview
Process thinking is a way of interpreting events in terms of the
processes of change that create them. It focuses on the nonlinear
dynamics of change over time that create certain patterns out of
which events emerge. Process thinking involves considering
phenomena dynamically; concerning movement, activity, events,
change and temporal evolution.

This approach to the understanding of phenomena draws its

inspiration from process philosophy. Process philosophy is based
on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature
of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive
account of how the world works. This paradigm draws on a
tradition of thinkers from Heraclitus to twentieth-century process
philosophers all of whom, in various ways, viewed reality in terms
of ceaseless process, flux, and transformation rather than as a
stable world of unchanging entities.
 A Static View
Systems thinking adopts a process-based ontology, where objects are
not seen to create change through direct cause and effect, discrete
interactions, but instead processes are seen to have internal patterns
that generate and condition events. This is an inversion of our traditional
conception that sees objects as having precedence over processes of
change.

Process thinking can be contrasted with a more static way of thinking

that sees events as generated by linear cause and effect relations
between a system’s component parts. Even though we experience our
world as continuously changing, the modern analytical paradigm has
long emphasized describing reality as an assembly of static events
whose dynamic features are taken to be ontologically secondary and a
derivative of the interaction between elementary parts. The analytical
process of reasoning that breaks systems down to understand their
internal parts leads to a detailed description of a system’s constituent
components and a static understanding of its structural properties.
 Everything Changes
One of the guiding rules of holism is “panta rhei” meaning “everything
flows.” The idea that everything changes was expressed by the Greek
philosopher Heraclitus’ observation that one cannot step into the same
river twice. In the 20th c. Ludwig Von Bertalanffy noted how systems
theory related to Heraclitus’s perception when he wrote that from the
Heraclitean and systems view, “structure is a result of function and the
organism resembles a flame rather than a crystal.”

The analytical approach is typically based upon excluding a changing

environment, as described by the term "ceteris paribus" which means all
other things remaining constant. This static nature to the environmental
variables makes it possible to repeat an experiment, to isolate and
detect stable cause and effect interactions that are believed to be the
drivers of change - which leads to predictable outcomes as long as it is
possible to hold the environment constant.
 Closed vs Open Change
Systems thinking is focused on open systems within the context of
their environment. A key consideration is how systems change with
respect to the changes within their environment? This leads to the
idea of adaptation and evolution, where changes in the environment
feedback to affect the system which must then adapt to those
changes. In this way, the system can be continuously evolving to meet
the changes within its environment; creating novel behavior and
dynamics.

The analytical approach, in contrast, is focused on closed systems

with limited regard for the system within its environment. A closed
linear system can only change by generating different configurations
of its internal parts. With a limited amount of interacting parts, there
is a finite number of possible future states, limited possibility for
emergence and thus the future resembles the past. With a limited
number of interacting elements in a closed system, the future can be
modeled and understood as some permutation of the past.
 Becoming
Emergence is a process of becoming, as such the emphasis within the
systems paradigm is on the process through which new entities
become formed, rather than analysis of the structure to what already
exists. Linear systems, such as a pendulum, are not in a state of
becoming, they have a finite amount of interacting components that
cycle through a predetermined set of states. Thus by understanding
the structure, we can understand the states the system will exhibit.

More complex nonlinear systems, such as a bird, go through a

constant process of becoming whose endpoint is not determined yet,
but which sets the context for current events. The analytical paradigm
is based on a substance metaphysics, which goes back to the pre-
Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides. Substance metaphysicians
claim that the primary units of reality - called “substances” - must be
static—they must be what they are at any instant in time. In contrast
process philosophy sees becoming, as well as ways of occurring, as
central to any inquiry.
 Qualitative Change
Emergent processes of change create qualitatively new systems.
Regime shifts change the structure and functioning of the whole
which results in qualitatively new behavior and features. This can be
contrasted with linear processes of development where the change is
within the properties of the parts; which is quantifiable.

For example, we can notice this in the process of learning some new
practical skill. When one starts learning or practicing something new
one accumulates isolated rules: “do it like this”, “if that happens, do
this”, “don’t forget to”, etc. These are incremental quantitative
changes to behavior as one is essentially just gathering a list of
instructions and working through them in an iterative fashion. At
some point, if successful, these isolated rules will start to become
coherent as they coalesce into a new way of acting. This is a
qualitative change as it induces new emergent, macro-level behavior
and functionality.
 Integration & Differentiation
Integration and differentiation represent two different stages
during the evolution of a system. Differentiation is the process
whereby an integrated system becomes divided up into more
specialized, well-defined parts. Integration is the process
whereby diverse elements become combined or synthesized into
a whole system.

The process of evolution involves a dynamic interplay between

systems differentiation and integration. With differentiation new
different elements are created, while with systems integration
those elements that are best suited to the whole system are
selected for by the environment as the system becomes
reintegrated.
 Differentiation
Differentiation means the process of becoming or making something
different. Differentiation involves a process of disintegration, the
dividing up of an integrated system into more specialized
subsystems. Through the process of differentiation what was
originally a homogenous system becomes heterogeneous.
Constituent subsystems come to form their own identity and
structural features that are distinct from each other.

Differentiation enables specialization; the formation of separate

individual subsystems enables those components to focus more
intensely on a particular function or activity. Thus allowing them to
become more efficient at this activity than if they had to perform a
large number of diverse activities. System differentiation is likewise a
structural technique for solving the temporal problems of a system
situated in a complex environment as it allows for more variation
within the system to respond to the variation in its environment.
 Integration
Systems integration involves the interrelating and recombining of differentiated parts. Systems integration
is the composition of a whole functioning system by assembling elements in a way that allows them to
work together to achieve an intended purpose. In engineering, for example, system integration is defined
as the process of bringing together the component subsystems into one system and ensuring that the
subsystems function together as a whole system.

Integration requires the development of new layers of abstraction that can accommodate the diversity of
the differentiated components that are being interrelated; this however also works to reduce their
autonomy, in order to align them with the functioning of the whole system. For example, the formation of
the political entity of the European Union enables interoperability between the differentiated countries
but likewise constrains their national governments.
 Dialectic Development
Differentiation and integration enable and create each other; they
form a dialectic. Integration can only take place when there are
different parts, likewise, differentiation can only occur through
integration into a larger organization - because elements that
remain autonomous are required to perform multiple functions to
maintain themselves within their environment. Differentiation thus
actually becomes the basis for any form of unity.

A central part of an evolutionary process of development is a

dialectic interplay between a system’s macro level – integration
into the whole – and micro level – differentiation of the parts. This
process of development can be understood as a form of dialectic
development. It is the dynamic interaction between the process of
integration and differentiation that drives the evolutionary process
of development within the system in a dialectic form. Homogenous
systems divide, define their difference, compete and then
reintegrate into a more complex whole.
Conclusion
 Takeaways
The main takeaway from this guide should be a greater awareness of what linear analytical thinking and
what holistic synthetic thinking are; the kinds of assumptions that go into each; when and where it is
relevant to use them. We should, of course, remember that both are equally important and the world is
not black and white but will invariably involve aspects of both.

Most importantly learning systems theory helps to recognize and make explicit our assumptions around
complexity. To be a systems thinker is to recognize and be able to deal with complexity. The most
important aspect here is being able to recognize complex environments vs simpler ones. The aim is to
have the conceptual capacity to match our assumptions and ways of reasoning to the complexity of the
environment; as simple thinking in complex environments will not lead to success, and vice versa,
complexity thinking in simple environments is equally not appropriate.

Finally, a key thing to remember when working with theories and models is that they are not real, they
simply help us to better clarify and structure our thinking; to become aware of our assumptions and
point of view, which itself is of huge value.
 Version 1.0
A Systems Innovation Publication
[Link]
info@[Link]