Site Logo

STPrism

People and Perspectives

7 min read

Can you analyse ands structure this document as a discussion between different people and identify the main protagonists and their point of view?

This document is a transcript of a massive, multi-month discussion on the “Systems Thinking World” LinkedIn group, initiated in July 2011. The discussion is structured as a dialectic inquiry into why Systems Thinking (ST) has not been widely adopted despite its apparent necessity.

Here is an analysis of the document structured by the main protagonists, their specific points of view, and the thematic conflicts that emerged.

The Instigator and The Host

Henry Kwok (The Facilitator)

• Role: He initiates the discussion with the core query: “The take up rate is painfully slow. So is this a fad? If not, where do you see the resistance or difficulties coming from?”[1][2].

• Point of View: He acts as a moderator, constantly summarizing the thread and pushing for practical application over academic theory. He suggests looking at the problem on three levels: Philosophical, Conceptual, and Experiential[3]. He believes ST is about how to think, not what to think, and seeks to move beyond “closed loop” (reductionist) logic[6][7].

Gene Bellinger (The Connector)

• Role: A central figure who facilitates resources (SystemsWiki) and challenges participants to clarify their definitions.

• Point of View: He argues that ST is a worldview rather than a specific method[8]. He emphasizes that the core of ST is understanding relationships and feedback loops (“And?“)[9]. He is skeptical of the “wisdom of the crowd” regarding ST, noting that crowds often act like lemmings[10]. He posits that models are merely simplifications of reality intended to promote understanding, not reality itself[11].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Academic vs. Practitioner Debate

Geoff Elliott (The Categorizer)

• Point of View: He argues that ST is not a singular “thing” but a collection of ~20 different approaches (Hard vs. Soft, Cybernetics, System Dynamics, etc.)[12][13].

• The Conflict: He believes the “problem” is the “contamination” of ST by “instant gurus” selling reductionist methods like Six Sigma or Lean as Systems Thinking[14][15]. He asserts that ST relies on three pillars: multiple perspectives, relationships, and boundary critiques[16].

Gerrit Van Wyk (The Disillusioned Practitioner)

• Point of View: A physician with a postgraduate degree in ST who finds zero uptake in the real world (healthcare)[17]. He distinguishes between Systems Thinking (philosophy), Systems Practice (pragmatism), and Systems Methodologies (tools)[18].

• Critique: He argues that systems thinking cannot be made “easy” for mass production because humans are cognitively unable to concentrate on complexity for extended periods[19]. He believes cultural and political realities (power dynamics) crush systems thinking in practice[20].

Barry Clemson (The Academic)

• Point of View: He asserts that ST requires thinking, which the US educational system discourages in favor of rote memorization[21]. He shares experiences teaching ST to different groups, noting that nurses and elementary teachers grasp it naturally (due to managing complex environments), while business executives often “can’t or won’t” get it[22].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The “Definition of a System” Debate

Darius Lecointe (The Purist)

• Point of View: He holds a rigid, specific view based on Von Bertalanffy, arguing that the universe is the only true system and that all systems are “closed” (or sequences of closed systems)[23][24]. He insists that natural systems are “optimized” and that human (synthetic) systems fail because they violate natural system laws[25][26].

• The Conflict: He engages in prolonged debates (specifically with Gene Bellinger and Henry Kwok) about whether a “pile of bricks” is a system (he argues yes, Gene argues no) and whether systems must have a purpose[27][28].

William E. Smith (The Wholist)

• Point of View: He proposes a definition centered on “Purpose.” He argues that systems are defined by the relationships between what can be Controlled, Influenced, and Appreciated (AIC)[29][30]. He pushes for a more “holistic” view that integrates quantum science and spirituality/meaning, which he feels traditional ST ignores[31][32].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Communication and Culture Faction

Barry Landis (The Pragmatist)

• Point of View: He argues that the language of ST is the barrier. Terms like “Systems Thinking” sound like computer programming or political manipulation to the average person (especially conservatives)[33][34].

• Proposal: He suggests dropping the jargon. Instead of “exponential growth,” use “snowballing.” Instead of “models,” use “conversation pieces” to bridge divides[35][36]. He warns that “cooperation” is not always good (e.g., empires cooperate to destroy)[37].

David Hawk (The Cultural Critic)

• Point of View: He provides a historical perspective, referencing Eric Trist and Russell Ackoff. He critiques the “Western/US” reliance on analysis and control, contrasting it with Eastern or Nordic approaches that tolerate ambiguity[38][39].

• Proposal: He suggests that to achieve real change, one must “eliminate what is most important” to the current system (e.g., a construction company eliminating paper)[40].

Peter Bednar (The Philosopher)

• Point of View: He focuses on epistemology—how we know what we know. He argues that “nothing is good or bad” in itself, but only through the judgment of an observer[41][42]. He warns against confusing the “map with the territory” and argues that the Anglo-Saxon school of thought (Logical Empiricism) often ignores the subjective role of the observer[43][44].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the “Problems” Identified

Through these protagonists, the document identifies several distinct problems with Systems Thinking:

1. Fragmentation: There are too many “schools” (VSM, SD, SSM), leading to confusion and turf wars (Geoff Elliott)[45].

2. Language/Branding: The terminology is alienating, academic, or politically charged (Barry Landis)[33].

3. Education: The educational system trains for reductionism (parts/memorization) rather than holistic thinking (Barry Clemson, Larry Paul)[22][46].

4. Human Nature: Humans crave certainty and control, whereas ST deals in uncertainty and ambiguity (Gerrit Van Wyk, Peter Bednar)[47][48].

5. Lack of Consensus: The experts cannot even agree on the definition of a “system” (Darius Lecointe vs. Gene Bellinger)[49].

6. Commercialization: “Snake oil” consultants repackage reductionist tools (like Six Sigma) as Systems Thinking, diluting the discipline (Geoff Elliott)[14].

Graph View