Site Logo

STPrism

Systems Thinking and_or Complexity Science

3 min read

Does the discussion make a distinction between systems thinking and complexity science?

Yes, the discussion explicitly distinguishes between systems thinking and complexity science, though the participants hold conflicting views on the nature of that relationship. Some view complexity as a subset of systems thinking, while others see it as a distinct, and perhaps superior, evolution of the discipline that addresses the limitations of traditional systems models.

Complexity as a Subset or “School” of Systems ThinkingGeoff Elliott argues that “complexity thinking is just a sub set of ST”[1]. In his categorization of the discipline, he lists the “complexity and chaos school” alongside other approaches like System Dynamics and Organizational Cybernetics[2]. From this perspective, systems thinking is the overarching worldview, and complexity science is one of many approaches used to explore emergent properties[2].

Complexity as Distinct from (and Superior to) Systems ThinkingOther participants argue that systems thinking—often associated with causal loop diagrams and modeling—is too mechanistic or static compared to complexity science.

• Object vs. Subject: Josie McLean notes a shift in her teaching from Systems Thinking to “raising awareness of complexity” and Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). She argues that ST tends to treat a system as an “object” on a whiteboard, whereas complexity deals with the subjective experience of living within unpredictable systems[3][4].

• Predictability vs. Unpredictability: McLean further distinguishes the two by noting that the mechanistic metaphor often found in management (and some ST) promises control, whereas complexity relies on non-linear cause and effect and unpredictability[5].

• The “End” of Systems Thinking: Patrick Beautement suggests that “Complexity Thinking” might be “the end of Systems Thinking.” He argues that ST tries to “systematise” open and ambiguous contexts, whereas a complexity approach involves judging appropriateness “on-the-fly” without trying to define the problem in fixed terms first[6][7].

Structural and Causal DistinctionsJim Scully offers a specific breakdown of the logic structures between the disciplines:

• Reductionism: cause-and-effect.

• Systems Thinking: causes-and-effects.

• Complexity: effects-and-effects[8].

Scully refers to complexity as ST’s “weird cousin” and argues that systems thinking is actually closer to reductionism (“reductionism on steroids”) than it is to complexity. He posits that while ST attempts to diagram interrelationships, complexity science accepts that it is theoretically impossible to diagram the infinite interdependencies of a self-organizing living system[9].

Complexity vs. Complicated SystemsAngus Jenkinson draws a distinction between “complicated” systems (mechanical systems like cars that can be analyzed by experts) and “complexity” (organic systems like the human body or organizations). He argues that many people, including some systems thinkers, treat complexity as if it were merely “complicated,” thereby trying to simplify what cannot be analyzed through reductionist parts[10][11].

Critiques of Complexity ScienceWilliam E. Smith views complexity and chaos theory as dealing with the “influence” level of systems (dynamic relationships between parts) but argues they often fail to reach the “appreciative” level—the relationship to the whole[1]. Steaphen Pirie categorizes standard complexity theories as “deterministic models” within “classical systems theory,” contrasting them with “holistic systems” that incorporate quantum mechanics, intent, and non-local influences[12][13].

Graph View