“We can’t impose our will on a system.  We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.”

Donella Meadows, “Dancing with System”

At the end of 2020 in an attempt to listen to the systems in which we were living, the Waters Center team sought new ways to achieve its mission of building systems thinking capacity across generations and geographies.  Our team determined it was time to launch a credential program for people passionate about furthering their own systems thinking learning and also nurturing their ability to build the capacity of others to navigate complexity.  

On June 17, 2021, we launched our first cohort of the Advanced Facilitator Program,  committed to delivering benefit to each person who chose to become a co-learner with us. From the first cohort meeting we began to experience the power of bringing people together from multiple sectors, countries and career paths, who were committed to using systems thinking tools, Habits and concepts in their life and work.  The AFC Community of Practice quickly became a key strategy in our mission to make the world a better place  

A community of practice (CoP) is defined as a group of people who share a passion for learning and engage in regular interaction to deepen their expertise in that area. They learn from each other, share experiences, and develop a shared repertoire of resources and practices.  

As of May 2025, that initial cohort of 26 people grew to a community of practice of 150 people representing 15 countries.  The contexts in which they seek to apply systems thinking are diverse.  There are educators, executives, lawyers, physicians, and entrepreneurs, representing public, private, for-profit, non-profit sectors.  Together they embody the definition of a community of practice:

Virtual learning made this exquisite diversity of background and experience possible among the cohort.  Nevertheless, the desire for in person connection led to the first AFC reunion.  So on June 23, 2025, 50 members representing all nine cohorts of learners came together in person to learn from each other, share experiences and deepen their expertise.  The three days were filled with conversation, learning and laughter.  We were able to engage in kinesthetic learning experiences  not possible online.  People met in groups to discuss points of commonality and stretched themselves to learn about how this work can be applied in different fields. This is a passionate group with deep expertise, a true community of practice.

One participant described the experience like this. “The depth of expertise in the group was amazing.  To witness all the people applying Systems Thinking in so many different, complex ways. Each person I connected with now feels like a treasure to me!”

The level of conversation and learning was incredible. The days we spent together were filled with synergistic conversation, deep learning and thoughtful reflection.  New ideas were born, concepts clarified and personal relationships, many of which will be lifelong friendships, were strengthened. 

So what is the role of a community of practice in learning about systems thinking?  There are plenty of great resources in print and online that capture the basic principles of systems thinking and even the deep wisdom that a system thinking lens brings to the world.  Many of us have taken courses, attended lectures, read journal articles and even conducted research into the theories, practices and applications of systems thinking.  Yet it seems there is something different about creating a community that commits to engaging regularly for an extended period of time and learning from one another.

There is support that comes from regular engagement with other people.  CoPs create an exchange of ideas that reinforce the understanding that there are multiple ways to see the exact same thing.  

Systems thinking is more than a trendy idea, a set of charts and graphs, or a series of steps that can be utilized to produce a desired outcome.  It isn’t a program.  It isn’t a formula.  It is a nuanced practice that helps us deal with complexity. 

In describing the reunion another participant described the role of the CoP this way.  “Systems thinkers have ‘capacity for complexity.’ Each person who shared out, expressed complex intricacies that were not simple insights, but rich and multifaceted. As I listened to ‘advanced’ systems thinkers in a world of ‘simple’ answers to complex problems, I was struck with how the group shared very deep and complex answers. I think it is interesting as you listen to folks who are on the more experienced end of the ST scale, you hear more and more complexity.”

The capacity for dealing with complexity is more than knowing.  It includes tolerating uncertainty, seeing contradictions and sometimes admitting that your original assumptions were wrong.  Capacity for complexity grows with practice.  Like a muscle it is strengthened through practice, discomfort and the art of listening deeply.  Dealing with complexity shuns reductionism.  Where some leaders may want a checklist, a systems thinker might want a map or a story.

When was the last time you and your community sat with a question long enough to let the complexity grow?  How willing are you to not know the answers?  Learning to be a systems thinker requires letting go of the knowns.  Accepting that there is more to learn and being willing to connect with a trusted community that can help navigate the new learning is essential for going beyond a knowledge about systems thinking  and instead engaging in the practice of systems thinking.

Our AFC community of practice is about developing a shared repertoire of resources and practices that will inform a growing body of work about systems thinking.  These credentialed facilitators serve as a model for the importance of community in learning. They will continue  to practice systems thinking; surfaces and tests their mental models; consider issues fully; iterate ideas;  seek a more nuanced view of the system; focus on systems structure;  use feedback to tell the story of the system.  They will intentionally spend  time together and support one another in learning.   They are a community of practice that shares a deep purpose–to make the world a better place.  This community of practice is inclusive of individuals who were not able to be part of this in person gathering, but participate in this cohort program and share in a commitment to continue to passionately engage in learning.  

We are filled with gratitude for those 50 individuals who were able to join in person, some traveling thousands of miles, to build the body of systems thinking knowledge and to model what it means to be a community of learners.  Together we will work to bring forth a vision of our systems much deeper than could ever be produced alone.

Periods of uncertainty test the resolve, adaptability, and creativity of leaders across every sector. While it's natural for organizations to focus on stability and continuity during turbulent times, systems thinking offers a valuable perspective that can help leaders not only survive uncertainty but use it as an opportunity to evolve. Systems thinking is a way of understanding complex problems by looking at the whole system rather than isolated parts. It involves identifying patterns, recognizing relationships and interdependencies, and being attentive to feedback loops that influence behavior over time. For example, rather than simply cutting a program that appears underperforming, systems thinking would ask how that program connects with other parts of the organization and whether its challenges stem from issues elsewhere in the system. Additionally, a systems thinker might ask what will happen to the other elements of the system if one is downsized or removed.

In moments of uncertainty, when it feels safer to narrow our focus and conserve resources, the impulse is often to shelter and hunker down. This is a natural extension of the survival strategies organizations employ. Yet, as we've seen, systems thinking challenges this instinct. It asks us not only to respond to the present but to actively engage with the system as a whole—to understand its dynamics, tensions, and leverage points. Rather than pulling inward, systems thinking encourages us to lean into complexity with curiosity and intentionality. It enables us to:

• Understand the current state of our systems more fully
• Clarify the future we desire to create
• Think holistically and relationally about how to navigate toward that future

In short, we can approach our challenges and opportunities in a more reliable and productive manner, even when the environment feels anything but stable.

The Pull of Reductionism

Grounded in our reflex for fight-or-flight, when stress levels rise and the hormones that correspond with stress increase in our bodily systems, we tend to explain that we feel threatened. This physiological and psychological state often drives us to reduce complexity wherever we can. It encourages us to make quick judgments, focus narrowly, and seek control over what feels unpredictable or overwhelming. When we feel threatened, it's natural to seek out what feels discrete and manageable. This tendency is rooted in reductionism—a way of thinking that breaks down complex issues into smaller, individual parts in an attempt to simplify and control them. While reductionism can provide clarity and immediate focus, it often comes at the expense of understanding the system as a whole.

In operational terms, this mindset often shows up in specific organizational responses:

• Cutting budgets
• Pausing investments
• Doubling down on outputs and efficiencies

These responses are not inherently wrong. They are rational and often effective short-term strategies. After all, the goal of any organization in crisis is survival. These moves align with that goal, especially when quick stabilization is needed to avoid collapse. However, relying solely on these actions can inadvertently suppress innovation, learning, and proactive exploration. Without a complementary approach that accounts for long-term impact and interconnected consequences, these responses can entrench reactive cycles and limit an organization’s ability to adapt once the crisis has passed.

The trouble with this course of action is that it anchors us to the past and the immediate present, making it difficult to envision or prepare for what's ahead. Typically, the strategic plan is put on hold, and the energy once directed toward innovation and growth is diverted to maintaining operations at a minimal level. Aspirational goals that once motivated teams are replaced by metrics aimed at sustaining only what is deemed essential. This shift often limits creativity, reduces morale, and narrows the organization’s capacity to adapt. The future becomes an afterthought—a luxury that will be addressed only when resources feel more certain and the environment more predictable. 

Leadership for Survival

When reductionist responses dominate, leadership often takes on a survival-oriented posture. Leadership in survival mode is about managing risk, reducing exposure, and making sure the organization lives to fight another day. This type of leadership often requires tough calls, clear communication, and the shelving of long-term goals in favor of near-term viability.

It is difficult. It is often necessary. And it is not inherently flawed.

Yet it can create a pattern where learning halts, vision narrows, and the organization loses touch with its future orientation. When leaders are focused solely on navigating immediate threats, they may deprioritize experimentation, reflection, and strategic foresight. Over time, this can lead to organizational rigidity, where the ability to anticipate or respond to emerging trends is diminished. Without an intentional effort to reconnect with the future, the organization risks becoming trapped in a cycle of reacting rather than evolving.

Leadership for Tomorrow

If we accept that survival leadership can be a default in times of uncertainty, we must also ask: How do we escape a focus on survival in favor of leadership for tomorrow? 

While volatility may persist, leaders must find ways to move from merely surviving to evolving, even amid ongoing uncertainty. This requires more than returning to business as usual. In fact, 'business as usual' during times of volatility often reinforces a survival mindset—focused on maintaining the status quo, minimizing risk, and preserving limited resources. The unusual leader is the one who can hold the tension between survival and growth, balancing stability with learning, innovation, adaptability, and a forward-looking perspective. It demands a deliberate shift toward curiosity, reflection, and long-term vision—qualities that help organizations not just withstand uncertainty, but grow through it.

Here is where systems thinking proves invaluable. Leadership for tomorrow requires a mindset that looks beyond the present moment into the emerging future. It demands that leaders understand the complex relationships and interdependencies that have created current conditions and anticipate how those relationships might evolve. Crucially, it also requires recognizing that organizational learning is not a solitary activity—it is collective and systemic. When one person learns, that insight can ripple through the system, strengthening the whole. This shared learning becomes the propellant for resilience and relevance in the future. Moreover, while goals focused on survival may generate short-term commitment and compliance, the work of growth, innovation, and transformation is a lifelong endeavor—one that calls for courage, collaboration, and vision.

Systems thinking does not replace other leadership theories or frameworks; it enhances them. It provides a way of thinking that:

• Recognizes patterns and interdependencies

• Encourages feedback and reflection

• Bridges current realities with future aspirations

These systems thinking principles can be further understood through key Habits of a Systems Thinker developed by The Waters Center for Systems Thinking:

• Systems thinking helps leaders see beyond isolated events to the broader patterns and connections that shape organizational behavior over time. For example, a drop in employee engagement might not stem from a single event but from ongoing misalignment between workload and recognition. This perspective aligns with the habit to Make Meaningful Connections Within and Between Systems, which emphasizes seeing how things influence one another within a whole.
• Instead of assuming linear cause-and-effect solutions, systems thinkers pay attention to feedback loops that reinforce or balance behaviors within the system. For instance, a policy change intended to boost productivity may unintentionally lead to burnout, which in turn reduces productivity—a reinforcing feedback loop. This reflects the habit Identify the Circular Nature of Complex Cause and Effect Relationships, which encourages leaders to consider how actions create ripple effects across time.
• Systems thinkers also understand that the structures within a system often determine the behaviors and outcomes it produces. A leader committed to long-term innovation must consider whether current policies, resources, and norms support or inhibit creative problem-solving. This links to the habit Consider How Mental Models and Structures Generate Behavior, which calls for reflection on the deeper forces that shape what people do.

Together, these ways of thinking help leaders create organizations that adapt, learn, and thrive—no matter the circumstances.

In doing so, systems thinking provides leaders with a dependable lens to navigate ambiguity and unpredictability. It supports leadership that is not only resilient in moments of crisis, but also capable of guiding organizations through periods of recovery, adaptation, and reinvention. Importantly, engaging with systems thinking as a core aspect of leadership development is not a critique of a leader's intellect or capability. Rather, it is an invitation to expand one’s thinking—to reframe challenges, surface new possibilities, and ask different questions. Systems thinking enriches the decision-making process by fostering a deeper awareness of relationships, structures, and dynamics that shape outcomes. This mindset cultivates a future-oriented leadership capacity that is essential for sustained growth and transformation. 

In uncertain times, we don’t need to choose between managing today and envisioning tomorrow. Systems thinking shows us how to do both—how to see the whole, move with purpose, and lead with a mindset of evolution rather than mere preservation.

Why use systems thinking?  Oh how I wish I had the proverbial nickel for every time I have been asked that question over the last twenty years.  It is a good question and there are many great answers:  It is a proven, researched method for helping individuals and organizations achieve their desired results.  It helps surface multiple points of view to determine how those mental models will impact the outcome of decisions. Fundamentally systems thinking offers a lens to see how a system behaves so that we can begin to identify ways to make changes and achieve something new.

Recently I was at a convening where the speaker asked a different question.  She said, “why don’t we use systems thinking?  What are the barriers that keep us from applying these proven methods consistently?  As is the barrier with so many things we want to do,  almost all of the responses had some connection to a lack of time:  Systems thinking takes a lot of time to learn.  It takes more time to assemble people to consider their varying perspectives. We know what needs to be done, so why not just do it.  The clear consensus as to why not systems thinking:  a lack of time.

All of these references to time made me think about the Habit, a systems thinker considers an issue fully and resists the urge to come to a quick conclusion.  Teaching that Habit is filled with discussion about those times when a quick decision is necessary and appropriate.  Clearly there is no consideration needed when preventing a toddler from wandering into traffic or evacuating a burning building. Further exploration of this Habit reveals that too often we take our most important decisions and prioritize efficiency over thoughtfulness. As I walked about that meeting room and read the reasons why we don’t use systems thinking, I was struck by the idea that we are being duped by the “myth of efficiency.”

Myth is defined as “a widely held, but false belief or idea.”  Efficiency is “the ability to achieve an end goal with little or no waste, effort, or energy.”  Perhaps we are sacrificing our opportunities to create those desired results based upon the false belief that we can do so with little to no waste, effort or energy.  I am not suggesting that we intentionally make poor decisions because we don't want to put forth effort, but rather that we are caught up in a time where the value of efficiency takes precedence over the need for thoughtful consideration, aided by the proven tools and Habits of systems thinking.

To varying degrees in varying cultures we like fast:  fast food, fast tech, fast cars.  Drive throughs and microwaves serve up meals in minutes.  Faster computers mean more information at our fingertips without the need to head out to the library for a few hours of research. Fast cars, while fun, represent a mechanization that has moved us from a three mile an hour walking pace to a  go-anywhere-at-any-time pace. Mechanization has changed food production from small farms to large-scale, fully automated production operations.  None of these things are inherently bad or evil, but they each fuel our myth of efficiency.  They reinforce the belief that faster is better. 

Thinking about food and specifically bread, I think there are some lessons we can learn about why efficiency really is a myth.  Take a minute to conjure in your mind the image of a freshly baked loaf of sourdough bread, the taste, the smell, the texture with a nice golden crust on the outside and a soft chewy inside.  Solidify that image.  Having recently begun my own personal experiment with sourdough starter, I can assure you that a perfect loaf of bread is not produced quickly nor efficiently. One of my first realizations was that part of the process of achieving a really healthy sourdough starter is that you have to discard part of the starter daily.  Having been taught, “waste not want not” I tried several ways to skip that step, which one morning resulted in a kitchen counter covered with mounds of sticky, smelly starter.  Enough about my bread making learning curve, the point is that working toward a desired result can be worth the extra time.  Sometimes we have to let go of ideas, just like I need to put some starter in the trash.  One of my favorite quotes from our founder Jim Waters is “never fall in love with your first best idea.” I must confess I am often enamored with a new idea that comes to me early in the morning or perhaps in the shower.  I can get a little giddy when I think of an ideal solution, a new way to approach a conflict  or decide it is time to try something new (yes like baking my own bread.)  Sometimes those ideas work out great, but often when I venture off into that new idea without due consideration, I end up causing undesirable, unintended consequences.  Or sometimes I am unsuccessful at something that I could have done well because I didn’t take the time necessary to consider the bigger picture.

Another axiom I have heard often during my work in systems thinking is “slower is faster.” It is definitely true in learning.  When we take time to go a bit more deeply, to establish a foundation, we can then become increasingly proficient.  When young children have a well developed sense of story, they can master the intricacies of written language.  As I learn to “read” my sourdough starter, I am confident I will someday achieve that perfect loaf of bread.  As we seek to develop our systems thinking expertise, the more thoroughly we understand the basic tools, Habits and principles, the more readily we are able to  apply systems thinking in multiple contexts and for multiple purposes. An initial investment of time and effort up front, can lead to greater efficiency down the road.

Applying a systems thinking approach to complex problems will require some time, energy and effort.  Yet a strong case can be made that that is not a waste, but rather a means to get to a better outcome.  And perhaps with practice that better outcome will eventually come more quickly, with greater efficiency.  Madeline Hunter, educational theorist, said, “practice doesn’t make perfect, practice makes permanent.  Systems are complex and solving problems in a complex world is difficult, but with appropriate time, energy and effort, or practice, systems thinking can become part of the way we approach those problems.  We will more often consider multiple perspectives, recognize conflicting beliefs and arrive at high leverage solutions.  System thinking is an investment which nets a big return.  It can indeed make the world a better place, but it will require us not to fall in love with our first best idea, but rather to consider issues fully.

When we talk about complexity, whether in our lives or the world at large, there is a temptation to tell a simple story--a linear, cause-and-effect narrative. We want to grab people’s attention and bring them into something that matters to us. And sometimes in our pursuit of understanding and connection, we risk oversimplifying reality and missing an opportunity to gain a more complete picture of a system.

As a lifelong student of systems thinking—and someone who helps others integrate it into their lives—I’ve been excited by the growing recognition of the need for a systems thinking lens. But the value of a systems thinking lens extends beyond planning and implementing work—it is essential in how we tell the story of impact. It is moving from a simple story to a systems story.

The way we communicate about challenges and the people involved can either reinforce a simplistic narrative or honor the complexity of the systems at play. A systems story shifts our focus: from singular causes to interconnected factors and from conclusions to ongoing learning. When we tell a systems story, we resist the urge to reduce complexity into a neatly packaged explanation. Instead, we practice the Habits of a Systems Thinker, creating space for multiple perspectives, acknowledging both intended and unintended consequences, and allowing our understanding to evolve over time.

The Stories We Tell About Change

After a decade in international development, I’ve come to see that the stories we tell—whether in reports, social media, or everyday conversations—shape how people perceive communities, places, and even the field itself. One of the first stories I heard in international development was that when a community gains access to clean water, children can go to school, education improves, and quality of life increases. On the surface, this narrative is compelling and hopeful. It speaks to positive ripple effects and highlights the connections between systems.

When I left for my first trip to Guatemala’s Ixil Triangle to work on a water system project with Engineers Without Borders (EWB), I believed this story to be true. As I fundraised for the project I told it often, presenting the case that by investing in water infrastructure, you contribute to improving health, economic, and education outcomes. This narrative helped cast a wide net, engaging people with varied interests and passions.

My role on the team was community engagement, and over two weeks, I did this formally, through door-to-door surveys, women’s meetings, and community meetings, and informally, during soccer games, sharing atole (a hot corn drink), and hair-braiding circles. In addition to asking each household questions about water, I also asked “Do your children go to school?” Answers varied and did not deviate too far from the data I had reviewed before the trip. Some parents said no and some said yes, but only until primary school. One family told me they planned to send their son to high school when he was older. We would not know the impact of the water system until the following year when we collected post-implementation data, but I was eager. In one of our braiding circles, I asked a group of women if their children would go to school or go on to high school after the water system was built.

No one’s answer changed.

The community had a primary school, but the high school was in Nebaj (the nearest large town). In Guatemala, the first six years of public education are free [i], but for high school, families must cover the cost of tuition, school supplies, and uniforms. Since the high school was nearly two hours by bus, sometimes longer, some families have children stay in Nebaj during the week and return on the weekends. But they would need a relative their child could stay with or the money for room and board. Even within the village’s primary school, a teacher wasn’t always guaranteed.

And while school-aged children would no longer need to help gather water, the milpas (small family farms) still needed tending, firewood needed to be gathered, chores needed to be done, younger siblings needed looking after, in addition to many other livelihood tasks that needed completing. Access to water was just one piece of a much larger system, a series of interconnected systems, influencing education.

From Simple Stories to Systems Stories

In the five subsequent trips I made to the Ixil Triangle with EWB, I saw more evidence that the story of improved access to water means more children go to school was incomplete.  Improved access to water has many positive impacts on human development and quality of life in Ixil communities and communities around the world[ii]. And while some communities saw more children going to school after a water system was built, that was not the case for many.

When sharing impact with simple, incomplete stories, we increase the likelihood of unintended consequences. In this case, other significant barriers to education were not acknowledged, which could create false expectations among project stakeholders, lead to prioritization of interventions that fall short of addressing key needs, and overlook the knowledge and priorities of local families. But when we use the Habits of a Systems Thinker to tell a systems story - recognizing the connections within and between systems, considering an issue fully, and surfacing and testing our assumptions – we can open the door to new possibilities. Telling systems stories provides a more complete framing of impact, which can set the stage for collaboration. For example, while education policies or economic security were not in our circle of control, telling a systems story could help other education or economic organizations increase their understanding and leverage their circles of control.

A systems story also helps us be better stewards of the stories shared with us through practicing Habits like changing perspectives to increase understanding and considering how mental models affect current reality and the future. When we simplify complex realities, we make a judgment call on what is important. But that decision is not always ours to make, and we risk erasing the very voices and perspectives that should guide our understanding. Through telling a systems story, a greater breadth of complexity remains intact creating space for multiple perspectives to be included.

The stories we tell of impact and the communities we work alongside can also shape mental models. My relationships and experiences in the Ixil Triangle inspired my research on the connection between trust in government, reconciliation, and health outcomes in the region. As I combed through existing data, I saw a troubling pattern. There was ample information on poverty and discussion on the impact of La Violencia, the 30-year-long civil war that included acts of genocide against the Ixil people[iii]. But it seemed like everything else was missing. I did not see the people I knew fully reflected, but a single narrative of the pain and suffering in the region.

While the stories I read were true and important to tell, they were also incomplete. It made me wonder what the mental model of someone who had never been to the region would be of the Ixil people if they read the same stories. Telling systems stories is not only a matter of creating a more complete picture but is a way we honor the trust bestowed on us when someone tells us their story or lets us into their lives.

I still think about that moment in the braiding circle, when I asked if more children would go to school or high school after the water system was built. I had expected a different answer—one that fit the story I had told so many times before. But in reconciling with the dissolution of the simple story, I was able to learn the value of a systems story. Stories that are ever-evolving, sometimes generate more questions than answers, and help us better understand the fullness of the systems we are a part of.

What are the systems stories you want to tell?

Works Cited

[i]  American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. (n.d.). Guatemala. AACRAO EDGE. Retrieved February 21, 2025, from https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/guatemala

[ii]  Amorocho‐Daza, H., Van Der Zaag, P., & Sušnik, J. (2023). Access to Water‐Related Services Strongly Modulates Human Development. Earth's Future, 11(4), e2022EF003364.

[iii]  Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico (CEH). (1999). Guatemala: Memory of silence (Tz’inil na’tab’al). United Nations, Office for Project Services. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/mos_en.pdf

Recognize This Pattern?

About a year ago, we identified a challenge facing our organization—a challenge not unlike others we have encountered. It was familiar because it was rooted in the mechanics of our everyday work and required us to collaborate cross-functionally with stakeholder groups we believed we understood well. Although this challenge wasn’t a matter of life or death, overcoming it successfully would have been highly beneficial. We strategically scheduled meetings with our internal experts and leaders who produced numerous posters, used post-it notes, and devised an action plan to address the issue. The solution required some parts of our organization to change how they worked, while others remained unaffected. Ultimately, a slide deck communicated the challenge, the analytical process, our plan—and it all ended with the question, “Any Questions?” Yet, no one asked any questions.

Looking back, the challenge still persists. The units responsible for implementing change appear remarkably similar to before, and we continue to record what we call successes. Just last week, another set of meetings was scheduled to tackle a new problem, likely to end with a slide that asks, “Any Questions?” Does this sound familiar to you?

High-Engagement, Low Benefit

Consider the immense workload involved in gathering input, analyzing data, and formulating elaborate plans in conference rooms. We invest countless hours producing slide decks filled with our best-laid intentions, culminating in the familiar “Any Questions?” slide at the end of every presentation. Despite this high level of engagement with the problem and the process of designing solutions, the tangible benefit to the organization is often minimal. In other words, even though we follow an accepted and outwardly legitimate process, the outcome tends to be haphazard implementation rather than sustainable change.

How might this look in real life? 

• Imagine a scenario where management recognizes that departments are isolated and not working in concert. In response, they reorganize into cross-functional, project-focused teams. Yet, due to the inability to adapt physical spaces effectively and overcome deeply entrenched communication methods, staff members end up spending more time within their familiar departmental teams than in the new cross-functional groups.

• Consider another example: Changes to grant-funded programs necessitate the collection of new types of data across the organization. A dedicated team meets with relevant stakeholders and decides to create a new database that runs parallel to the legacy system. When it comes time to generate reports, however, leaders find that most teams have continued to work within the legacy system, sharing the required information through emails and post-its rather than using the new tool.

• A recent analysis of newly hired employees further highlights the issue. In response to identified needs, a cross-departmental team develops a plan to move existing training and resources to a Learning Management System (LMS), aiming to provide greater flexibility and accountability. Yet, even with high levels of compliance with the LMS, the behaviors and outcomes of new staff continue to decline.

• A regular cadence of meetings was established six years ago to ensure that team members from across the organization had time together to coordinate efforts and collaborate. Initially conceived as a method to build relationships, these bi-monthly meetings have since become a source of frustration. Rather than fostering collaboration, the meetings are now dominated by reporting data and project benchmarks. As a result, most team members have shifted to holding ad hoc gatherings and using asynchronous tools to achieve the intended goals of the original bi-monthly sessions.

Myths and Rituals

All too often, organizations engage in rituals that enact the myths of “effective leadership.” Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that these rituals are not primarily designed to enhance operational performance but instead serve to signal legitimacy and conformity to established norms. In this view, the formal ceremonies and symbols associated with effective leadership function as a socially accepted script—a myth—that organizations follow to gain the trust and approval of external stakeholders, even if these practices do not directly translate into improved internal processes.

In many cases, our myths compel us to adopt a problem-solving pattern brimming with rituals that feel productive at the time yet fail to deliver the desired outcomes. The challenge is that while these myths and rituals may have once conferred legitimacy, they no longer guarantee effectiveness.

Enacting myths and rituals is not necessarily a failure of leadership or creativity. Meyer and Rowan (1977) suggest that organizations often decouple functions—so that while legitimacy-seeking behaviors continue, other elements adapt to perform the real work needed to manage complexity. This might look like executive leadership crafting an action plan (shared via a slide deck) while individual departments and employees take the necessary steps to address actual organizational demands. It could also involve a reorganization where departments are restructured into cross-functional teams, even though employees continue to work in the same locations or communicate as they did before. The key point is that the script often does not match the movie.

Margaret Wheatley wrote, “The lists and charts we make do not capture experience. They only tell of our desire to control a reality that is slippery and evasive and perplexing beyond comprehension. Like bewildered shamans, we perform rituals passed down to us, hoping they will perform miracles” (2006). It isn’t the posters with lists and charts, or the slide decks filled with flowcharts, frameworks, and methodologies, that are the problem. Instead, systems thinking challenges us to consider that the way we conceptualize our work—and the way we ask others to think—might be the true barrier to adaptation and change. Let’s keep the post-its, posters, and meetings, but shift our focus from linear, mechanistic models of change to a perspective that values interconnections, relationships, and feedback.

Systems Thinking: Moving Past the Rituals

Systems thinking offers a transformative framework for breaking free from the cycle of ritualized problem-solving and the static myths of effective leadership. Unlike traditional approaches that isolate individual elements, systems thinking views the organization as an interconnected whole, where every decision and action contributes to a larger ecosystem. By prioritizing interconnections and cause-and-effect relationships, systems thinkers engage a variety of viewpoints, share the burden and benefit of thinking with others, and generate commitment for change and adaptation. Again, the posters and post-it notes are not the problem - we need to consider whose perspectives are “in the room” and how we find leverage to manage our complex organizational contexts.  

Embracing Complexity and Interconnectedness

Systems thinking invites us to acknowledge and embrace the inherent complexity of our organizations. Rather than clinging to predefined scripts, this approach encourages us to explore the relationships and feedback loops that exist among departments, processes, and stakeholder groups. When we appreciate these interconnections, we begin to understand how seemingly minor changes in one area can ripple throughout the organization, sometimes with unexpected consequences.

Uncovering Underlying Causes  and Adopting Adaptive Strategies

A key advantage of systems thinking is its focus on identifying the underlying causes of persistent challenges. Instead of repeatedly resorting to the same ritualistic approaches, we are prompted to ask critical questions: Why do we fall into these familiar patterns? How might our established rituals be inadvertently hindering true progress? This deeper inquiry enables us to shift from superficial fixes to adaptive strategies that respond to the evolving dynamics of our organization—strategies that are tailored to the real challenges at hand, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Enhancing Collaboration and Breaking Down Silos

Traditional myths and rituals often contribute to organizational silos, where teams and departments operate in isolation. Systems thinking, however, promotes cross-functional collaboration by revealing how each part of the organization influences the whole. When team members understand their role within a larger, interdependent system, they are more inclined to work together towards common goals. This collaborative spirit can spark innovative solutions that transcend the limitations of isolated, ritualistic practices.

Cultivating a Culture of Continuous Learning

In today’s rapidly changing environment, clinging to static rituals can hinder innovation and adaptation. Systems thinking champions a culture of continuous learning and iterative improvement. By emphasizing ongoing feedback and real-world experimentation, this approach shifts the focus from merely performing ceremonies to actively learning from our successes—and our failures. Such a mindset not only drives innovation but also builds the resilience necessary for navigating complex challenges.

Aligning Strategy with Operational Reality

Finally, systems thinking helps bridge the gap between the symbolic actions we use to gain legitimacy and the operational realities of our work. By aligning strategic intentions with the actual work processes, organizations ensure that the rituals we perform are not just for show—they become integral parts of a coherent, responsive system. This alignment is essential for creating change that is both effective and sustainable.

The Waters Center Approach

The Habits of Systems Thinking are an essential tool to promote a transition from myth and ritual to real, generative, and adaptive thinking. When practiced, these habits support the important mental shifts necessary for prioritizing patterns, valuing relationships, and challenging the mental models that often keep us tethered to outdated ways of working.

The Waters Center Approach builds on these habits by providing a structured framework that guides individuals and organizations in recognizing and acting on the complexities inherent in their work. Rather than discarding our familiar tools—like post-its, posters, and slide decks—this approach encourages us to rethink how we use them. It shifts the focus from simply following a predetermined script to engaging deeply with the interconnected nature of our challenges. This means questioning our assumptions, examining feedback loops, and exploring the often-overlooked relationships between various elements of our organizational systems.

At its core, The Waters Center Approach is about moving beyond superficial fixes and ritualistic problem-solving. It teaches us to:

• Identify Leverage Points: By mapping out the complex interdependencies within our organization, we can pinpoint where small, targeted changes may lead to significant improvements.

• Embrace Continuous Learning: It champions a mindset that values ongoing feedback and adaptation over static, one-size-fits-all solutions.

• Facilitate Cross-Functional Collaboration: Recognizing that real progress requires diverse perspectives, this approach fosters environments where all voices contribute to the solution.

• Align Strategy with Reality: By linking symbolic actions to the real work being done, it ensures that our strategies are not just for show but are integral parts of a coherent, responsive system.

In practice, The Waters Center Approach empowers teams to see beyond the rituals that have become routine. It transforms the way we conceptualize our challenges—encouraging us to look at the whole system rather than isolated parts. This, in turn, creates an organizational culture that is not only more resilient in the face of change but also more innovative in crafting solutions that are deeply rooted in the reality of our work.

In Summary

Our tendency to fall into familiar patterns of rituals and myths—like those described by Meyer and Rowan (1977)—serves as a reminder of how we often default to established processes, even when they no longer yield the desired results. Systems thinking challenges us to look beyond these familiar scripts. By embracing complexity, uncovering root causes, fostering collaboration, and aligning our strategies with operational realities, we can move past the ceremonial aspects of leadership and effect meaningful, adaptive change in our organizations.

Adopting a systems perspective doesn’t mean discarding all traditional tools; rather, it means using them within a broader, more dynamic framework—one that values interconnections and continuous learning over rigid, mechanistic approaches. This shift can transform our organizations into agile, resilient systems capable of navigating today’s complexities and tomorrow’s uncertainties.

References

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.