You’ll know you are developing a methodology when you start doubting the efficacy of any particular method. Methodology is a far more interesting and useful concept when we resist the urge to convert it into a meta-method.
I had the same sensation with UX and Service Design as you’ve had with Systems Thinking.
As the methodology becomes normalised and commodified, it ceases to offer a way into the complexity of the situation you are addressing, and becomes a way of avoiding or domesticating that complexity.
But while I’ve long thought of my job in terms of metaphor making, I had never connected the critique of commodified methodology to a loss of analogical range. That is a very helpful concept, thank you!
Latour, in his studies on science, talks a lot about "allies". Each scientific breakthrough is not only scientific, but also a political success on micro- and meso-level.
Thanks for sharing this, this opened a whole can of worms for me: just took a quick dive into "The Pasteurization of France". I very much liked the idea that Latour describes the work of the *Pasteurians* as a "translation" (between science and politics) – also reminds me a lot of some of the things found in "Most Work Is Translation". [1]
It's important to separate the pitfalls of the individual from those of the approach.
The conclusion can't be "avoid systems thinking." It might even be: truly understand the nature of systems, precisely because it reveals how complex the variables actually are. This should humble you accordingly—but done well, also makes you highly perceptive.
Cantankerous indeed. 😉 Once you start seeing things in "systems", it's turtles all the way down. Far better to see entangled mangrove swamp roots or balls of yarn.
You’d probably enjoy Critical Systems Thinking. Puts the different approaches to systems thinking in their historical context and provides a nice frame for when to attempt to use them.
I think you’re describing a very real failure mode of encountering systems thinking too early—something books like Meadows really should explain. It makes sense why you see it as a massive regret in your career journey. I learned this the hard way too, years ago. I do, however, want to leave you with the reframe I’ve learned. Truly understanding systems thinking in environments like yours that reward conformity and local optimization, unfortunately, requires systems disillusionment to fully set in first. Once it has, you can see it for what it truly is: anti-universal, anti-lucidity, anti-symbolic comfort, anti-model, anti-diagram… It’s a discipline, not a destination. Properly practiced, it places the analyst inside the system, not above it, to manage uncertainty over time rather than exercising agency (aka getting comfortable at being wrong and learning how to respond instead of react so change is less disruptive). If it feels like a minigame or a silver-bullet hunt, it’s already stopped being systems thinking. It’s about restraint, not ego. I hope sometime in the future you revisit the idea, but not from a book. From people who successfully live it. Just know, your mistake wasn’t reading the book… it was not being able to see the important guardrails and costs of its use. I wish you luck and hope you land the job you deserve. And if not, maybe you create it yourself instead.
I wonder if what’s being rejected here isn’t systems thinking itself, but abstraction that arrives before contact. Models make sense to me only after constraint has already taught their limits — otherwise they feel like tools without a hand.
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this, it really resonates. Do you have any book or course recommendations that *are* useful for analysts interested in expanding their toolbox?
Is it worth trying to learn techniques like agent based modelling for understanding complex systems, for example
Thanks Hibah. Honestly, it depends a lot on your vertical. The more universal tools have to do with communication rather than analysis. Tons and tons of books and courses on that. Most of all, though, I'd pay attention to who you find to be a good communicator. Even a bit of mimicking will help you pick up some good tricks
I would guess that more technical versions of understanding complex systems are probably *better* because they fail in obvious ways. But I don't have a ton of experience with them since I'm pretty much a wordcel
The one area I might add is that you cannot merely sit back and rely on analytical assessment in a complex system. You cannot lean back and merely observe to learn.
Per Cynefin framework logic, these systems require you to engage with it via (ideally) a hypothesis-informed intervention. Your string pull (or push) is creating a disturbance to the system to observe how it evolves and responds to that intervention. The key is in identifying at least some vectors of causality that might lead to new, preferred system states ... "attractors".
Only after taking an inventory of the data points, narratives, and stories that surface or fade in response to that intervention due to start forming your next clue about the adjacent possible that might lead to your next steps. Ideally informed by a rough direction you started with and can stay with as long as it makes the most sense.
Agree that one of the biggest risks is probably overconfidence, or missing nuance in any of the “dimensions” of the system. There is no complete system model, and non-useful variables are sometimes just adding noise to the signal and blocking us from finding the answers we’re actually seeking.
I’ve taken some inspiration (and cautionary tales) from cyberneticists including Bateson. Particularly his ideas about Schismogenesis… the history of cybernetics is pretty interesting and we’ve drawn a lot from it working on Summer of Protocols
You’ll know you are developing a methodology when you start doubting the efficacy of any particular method. Methodology is a far more interesting and useful concept when we resist the urge to convert it into a meta-method.
I had the same sensation with UX and Service Design as you’ve had with Systems Thinking.
As the methodology becomes normalised and commodified, it ceases to offer a way into the complexity of the situation you are addressing, and becomes a way of avoiding or domesticating that complexity.
But while I’ve long thought of my job in terms of metaphor making, I had never connected the critique of commodified methodology to a loss of analogical range. That is a very helpful concept, thank you!
It really is a practice of restraint to not make that conversion. Starting to sound like this is a rite of passage for a lot of people!
Latour, in his studies on science, talks a lot about "allies". Each scientific breakthrough is not only scientific, but also a political success on micro- and meso-level.
Thanks for sharing this, this opened a whole can of worms for me: just took a quick dive into "The Pasteurization of France". I very much liked the idea that Latour describes the work of the *Pasteurians* as a "translation" (between science and politics) – also reminds me a lot of some of the things found in "Most Work Is Translation". [1]
[1] Chennapragada, Aparna. 2025. ‘Most Work Is Translation’. Substack Newsletter. ACD, September 12. https://aparnacd.substack.com/p/most-work-is-translation.
It's important to separate the pitfalls of the individual from those of the approach.
The conclusion can't be "avoid systems thinking." It might even be: truly understand the nature of systems, precisely because it reveals how complex the variables actually are. This should humble you accordingly—but done well, also makes you highly perceptive.
Cantankerous indeed. 😉 Once you start seeing things in "systems", it's turtles all the way down. Far better to see entangled mangrove swamp roots or balls of yarn.
You’d probably enjoy Critical Systems Thinking. Puts the different approaches to systems thinking in their historical context and provides a nice frame for when to attempt to use them.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781394203604
That’s a really useful resource at first glance. Smart approach to rounding out some of the blindspots. I’m looking forward to checking it out!
My official title was knowledge expert for the transformation practice at BCG. This article captured my 20s far too well. 😂
I was once a Business Improvement Analyst at the Business Modernization Initiative 🫡😆
I think you’re describing a very real failure mode of encountering systems thinking too early—something books like Meadows really should explain. It makes sense why you see it as a massive regret in your career journey. I learned this the hard way too, years ago. I do, however, want to leave you with the reframe I’ve learned. Truly understanding systems thinking in environments like yours that reward conformity and local optimization, unfortunately, requires systems disillusionment to fully set in first. Once it has, you can see it for what it truly is: anti-universal, anti-lucidity, anti-symbolic comfort, anti-model, anti-diagram… It’s a discipline, not a destination. Properly practiced, it places the analyst inside the system, not above it, to manage uncertainty over time rather than exercising agency (aka getting comfortable at being wrong and learning how to respond instead of react so change is less disruptive). If it feels like a minigame or a silver-bullet hunt, it’s already stopped being systems thinking. It’s about restraint, not ego. I hope sometime in the future you revisit the idea, but not from a book. From people who successfully live it. Just know, your mistake wasn’t reading the book… it was not being able to see the important guardrails and costs of its use. I wish you luck and hope you land the job you deserve. And if not, maybe you create it yourself instead.
What a great read — such a delight.
I wonder if what’s being rejected here isn’t systems thinking itself, but abstraction that arrives before contact. Models make sense to me only after constraint has already taught their limits — otherwise they feel like tools without a hand.
Fantastic article, I enjoyed it very much. And it came with a chess puzzle!
Always 😎
Here for a contrarian post
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this, it really resonates. Do you have any book or course recommendations that *are* useful for analysts interested in expanding their toolbox?
Is it worth trying to learn techniques like agent based modelling for understanding complex systems, for example
Thanks Hibah. Honestly, it depends a lot on your vertical. The more universal tools have to do with communication rather than analysis. Tons and tons of books and courses on that. Most of all, though, I'd pay attention to who you find to be a good communicator. Even a bit of mimicking will help you pick up some good tricks
I would guess that more technical versions of understanding complex systems are probably *better* because they fail in obvious ways. But I don't have a ton of experience with them since I'm pretty much a wordcel
tremendous, cheers
Brilliant assessment.
The one area I might add is that you cannot merely sit back and rely on analytical assessment in a complex system. You cannot lean back and merely observe to learn.
Per Cynefin framework logic, these systems require you to engage with it via (ideally) a hypothesis-informed intervention. Your string pull (or push) is creating a disturbance to the system to observe how it evolves and responds to that intervention. The key is in identifying at least some vectors of causality that might lead to new, preferred system states ... "attractors".
Only after taking an inventory of the data points, narratives, and stories that surface or fade in response to that intervention due to start forming your next clue about the adjacent possible that might lead to your next steps. Ideally informed by a rough direction you started with and can stay with as long as it makes the most sense.
“ability to transform analysts in to Don Quixotes, who then hurl themselves at macro-level projects with reckless abandon.”
An underrated path!
Agree that one of the biggest risks is probably overconfidence, or missing nuance in any of the “dimensions” of the system. There is no complete system model, and non-useful variables are sometimes just adding noise to the signal and blocking us from finding the answers we’re actually seeking.
Brilliant article. Tell me, if you’re done with systems thinking, have you been Bateson-pilled yet, then?
I’ve taken some inspiration (and cautionary tales) from cyberneticists including Bateson. Particularly his ideas about Schismogenesis… the history of cybernetics is pretty interesting and we’ve drawn a lot from it working on Summer of Protocols