Dave Snowden’s views differ from the majority of the other authors primarily in his assertion that complexity science represents a radical break from systems thinking, rather than an evolution or subset of it.
While authors like Michael Jackson, Peter Checkland, and John Warfield view complexity as a specific “strand” or tool within the broader systems tradition, Snowden posits that the two belong to fundamentally different ontological domains requiring opposing methods.
The specific divergences can be categorized as follows:
1. The “Radical Break” vs. The “Umbrella”
The most contentious difference is the relationship between the two fields.
• Snowden (Separate Domains): Snowden argues for a sharp distinction between “ordered” systems (the domain of systems thinking) and “complex” systems (the domain of complexity science)[1]. He asserts that systems thinking relies on linear or discoverable causality, making it suitable only for the “complicated” domain where experts can determine cause and effect[2]. He critiques the idea that complexity is just a “new wave” of systems thinking, viewing them instead as distinct paradigms[3].
• Other Authors (Continuity): Conversely, authors like Michael Jackson and John Warfield view “Systems Thinking” or “Systems Science” as the overarching “umbrella” or “neutral science”[4],[5]. Jackson explicitly calls the idea of a “radical break” to be “nonsense,” arguing that complexity theory simply enriches the functionalist/biological strand of the existing systems tradition[5],[6]. Robert Flood similarly views complexity as a “maturation” of systems thinking rather than a replacement[7].
2. Definition of Systems Thinking: “Engineering” vs. “Inquiry”
Snowden defines systems thinking much more narrowly than the other authors, leading to significant friction.
• Snowden (Engineering Metaphor): Snowden characterizes systems thinking as an “engineering” discipline focused on defining an ideal future state and closing the gap between the present and that future[8]. He associates it with “first-order cybernetics” and “fail-safe design,” arguing that it treats organizations like machines or distinguishable parts[8],[2].
• Other Authors (Process of Inquiry): Authors like Peter Checkland, Russ Ackoff, and C. West Churchman reject this “engineering” characterization. They define systems thinking (specifically Soft Systems Methodology) not as the manipulation of parts, but as a process of inquiry[9],[10]. Checkland argues that complexity theorists (including Snowden) misunderstand systems thinking by equating it solely with the “hard” systems tradition of the 1950s, ignoring the “soft” traditions that already address ambiguity and human perspective[11].
3. Ontology (Reality) vs. Epistemology (Perception)
A deep philosophical divide exists regarding where “complexity” resides.
• Snowden (Ontological): Snowden adopts a “naturalizing” approach, arguing that complexity is an objective feature of reality (an ontological state)[12],[3]. In his view, a system is complex or is ordered; the “Cynefin” framework helps leaders determine which ontological domain they are in so they can act accordingly[1].
• Other Authors (Epistemological): Authors like Ackoff, Checkland, and the “Other Group” (TOG) argue that complexity is often subjective or epistemological[13],[14]. For Ackoff, a system appears complex only because of the observer’s lack of understanding; as understanding increases, complexity decreases[13]. For Checkland, “system” is a mental model used to organize our thinking about the world, not a label for the world itself[9].
4. Management Strategy: Design vs. Evolution
Because of the differences above, the authors advocate for opposite management strategies.
• Snowden (Manage the Present): Because Snowden believes complex systems have no predictable causality (only “retrospective coherence”), he argues that one cannot design a future state[8]. Instead of “idealized design,” he advocates for managing “starting conditions” and the “evolutionary potential of the present” through “safe-to-fail” experiments[8].
• Ackoff & Churchman (Design the Future): In direct contrast, Russ Ackoff and C. West Churchman are explicitly teleological (purpose-driven). They advocate for “Idealized Design,” arguing that managers should define the “systematically desirable” future and work backward to achieve it[15],[16].
Summary Critique
The sources explicitly note that this divergence has led to a “battle” between the camps. The consensus among the non-Snowden sources (represented in the “MOM” and “TOG” texts) is that Snowden constructs a “straw man” of systems thinking—reducing it to old-school mechanical engineering—to differentiate and market his own complexity-based consulting products[17],[3]. Snowden, in turn, maintains that traditional systems methods (like the Viable System Model) are outdated and fundamentally incapable of handling the “anthro-complexity” of human systems[2],[18].
References
[1] Dave Snowden.md [2] MOM.md [3] MOM.md [4] John Warfield.md [5] MC Jackson.md [6] MC Jackson.md [7] Robert Flood.md [8] Dave Snowden.md [9] Peter Checkland.md [10] Russ Ackoff.md [11] Peter Checkland.md [12] Dave Snowden.md [13] Russ Ackoff.md [14] TOG.md [15] C. West Churchman.md [16] Russ Ackoff.md [17] MOM.md [18] Dave Snowden.md