Systems Thinking places significant emphasis on developing perspective, and one of the most effective ways to do this is to situate the phenomenon of interest, whether an idea, an issue, or an event, within its historical context. Looking back on the development of Systems Thinking as a discipline allows us to see how ideas evolved, how they were applied, and why they might have fallen out of favour, offering rich insights into their relevance and potential for contemporary use. What’s particularly fascinating is how some theories, once seemingly relegated to the dustbin of history, are rediscovered and revitalised by a new generation. This cycle of intellectual rediscovery often breathes new life into ideas that had previously been overlooked or misunderstood.

Such is the case, for example, with cybernetics and the work of Stafford Beer (1979), which has experienced a resurgence in interest. Beer’s concepts, particularly those articulated in his Viable System Model (VSM), resonate strongly with the challenges of our time. As organisations grapple with complexity, uncertainty, and rapid change, Beer’s focus on adaptability, feedback loops, and the self-regulation of systems offers tools that feel both prescient and urgently relevant. Furthermore, the rise of systems thinking, sustainability movements, and digital transformations has created fertile ground for Beer’s ideas to flourish anew. His work aligns with contemporary concerns about decentralisation, resilience, and the need for structures that can respond dynamically to interconnected and unpredictable environments. In many ways, Beer’s cybernetics provides a framework for thinking about complexity that speaks directly to the zeitgeist, making it a valuable resource for navigating 21st-century challenges.

Part One of our look-back overview the development of the field of systems thinking. Part Two address the key debates in the ‘fractious’ history.

Part One: The Evolution of Systems Thinking: A Brief History

Systems thinking is a framework for understanding complex phenomena by examining the interconnections and interactions within a system. It has evolved significantly over time, influenced by diverse disciplines and thinkers, and today it plays a crucial role in addressing global challenges such as climate change, health crises, and organisational complexity. Systems thinking emphasises the development of perspective: an important way to achieve that is to put the phenomenon of interest (an idea, an issue an event) into historical perspective. First, overview the development of the field and secondly address the key debates.

Origins and Early Influences

The roots of systems thinking can be traced to biology, where Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory (GST) in the 1930s laid the groundwork for interdisciplinary approaches to studying systems. GST proposed that systems across different domains, biological, mechanical, or social, share common principles and structures.

In parallel, Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics (1948) introduced the idea of feedback loops, where outputs of a system influence its future behaviour. This concept was pivotal in understanding regulation and control in systems, from ecosystems to economies. Cybernetics had profound applications in early computing and control systems, such as the design of missile guidance systems during World War II.

Formalisation in the Mid-20th Century

In the mid-20th century, systems thinking became more formalized. Bertalanffy’s GST matured into a foundational framework for interdisciplinary research, while operations research, developed during World War II, applied systemic approaches to optimize military logistics. These tools later transitioned into business and government planning.

The Tavistock Institute in the 1950s extended systems thinking into social contexts, examining how technical and social systems interact. For example, their studies of coal mining operations in the UK highlighted the importance of aligning technological workflows with human behaviours to enhance productivity and satisfaction.

System dynamics emerged during this period, spearheaded by Jay Forrester at MIT. Using feedback loops and causal relationships, system dynamics provided tools to model and simulate complex systems. A contemporary illustration is the application of system dynamics in urban planning to model housing shortages and inform policy responses.

Stafford Beer also made significant contributions during this era through his work on management cybernetics, which applied systems thinking to organizational governance. His Viable System Model (VSM) proposed a framework for understanding and designing organizations capable of surviving in complex and changing environments. This model is still used today in fields ranging from business to public administration to evaluate organisational resilience.

Expansion in the 1970s and 1980s

Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM, 1999) expanded systems thinking to address ‘messy’ problems: those lacking clear definitions or solutions. SSM emphasized incorporating diverse human perspectives and iteratively refining problem definitions. A recent example can be seen in community engagement initiatives for urban renewal projects, where stakeholders collaborate to frame issues such as gentrification or housing equity.

Donella Meadows’ work on The Limits to Growth (1972) brought systems thinking into the environmental sphere. Using system dynamics models, the book demonstrated how unchecked industrial and population growth could lead to resource depletion. This work continues to influence sustainability efforts, such as designing circular economies to reduce waste and promote resource efficiency.

Late 20th Century to Present

Complexity science emerged as a vital branch of systems thinking in the late 20th century, emphasising how systems self-organise and adapt. Institutions like the Santa Fe Institute explored these ideas in fields ranging from economics to biology. For instance, research on financial markets applies complexity science to model the emergent behaviours of investors and institutions under conditions of uncertainty.

Critical systems thinking, championed by Michael Jackson and Robert Flood (1991), brought an ethical lens to systemic interventions. This approach emphasises inclusivity, questioning power dynamics and ensuring marginalised voices are heard in problem-solving processes. One contemporary example is the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems into environmental governance, which balances ecological and cultural needs.

Contemporary Applications

Today, systems thinking is widely applied to global challenges. In public health, it underpins efforts to manage pandemics by modelling the interplay of epidemiological, economic, and social systems. For instance, during COVID-19, systems thinking informed policies balancing lockdown measures with economic activity and mental health concerns.

In governance, systems thinking helps tackle wicked problems like climate change, where interventions must address root causes, stakeholder needs, and unintended consequences. Donella Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework, which identifies areas to enact meaningful systemic change, is often used to design adaptive climate policies.

The “fractiousness” of systems thinking refers to the diversity of approaches, perspectives, and methodologies within the field, which can sometimes lead to disagreements or tensions among its practitioners. Donella Meadows highlights this in Thinking in Systems to emphasize that systems thinking is not a unified, monolithic discipline but rather a broad and evolving field with multiple “schools of thought.” This diversity is both a strength and a source of challenges, as the differing approaches reflect varied emphases, contexts, and philosophical underpinnings.

 Part Two: Key Sources of ‘Fractiousness’ in Systems Thinking

The ‘fractiousness’ of systems thinking refers to the diversity of approaches, perspectives, and methodologies within the field, which can sometimes lead to disagreements or tensions among its practitioners. Donella Meadows highlights this in Thinking in Systems (2008) to emphasise that systems thinking is not a unified, monolithic discipline but rather a broad and evolving field with multiple “schools of thought.” This diversity is both a strength and a source of challenges, as the differing approaches reflect varied emphases, contexts, and philosophical underpinnings.

Philosophical Differences

Systems thinking spans multiple epistemologies, from positivist (seeking objective truths) to interpretivist (focused on subjective meanings). For example:

• Hard systems thinking (e.g., system dynamics, operations research) assumes problems can be clearly defined and modelled mathematically.
• Soft systems thinking (e.g., Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology, 1999) acknowledges that problems are socially constructed and require participatory exploration.

Scope and Focus

• Some schools prioritize technical and engineering systems (e.g., cybernetics, systems engineering).
• Others focus on human and organizational systems (e.g., critical systems thinking, socio-technical systems).
• The ecological and sustainability-oriented perspectives, as seen in Donella Meadows’ work, emphasize natural systems and their interactions with human systems.

Methodological Divergence

Systems thinking encompasses diverse tools and methods, from causal loop diagrams and simulation models to participatory workshops and qualitative analyses. Practitioners often debate which tools are most effective for understanding and addressing complex systems.

Levels of Abstraction

• Some approaches emphasise macro-level system dynamics, such as global ecological models.
• Others focus on micro-level interactions, such as organisational dynamics or community-level interventions.

Power and Ethics

Critical systems thinkers (e.g., Michael Jackson and Robert Flood, 1991) argue that power dynamics, inclusivity, and ethical considerations must be central to systemic interventions. This perspective sometimes clashes with more technocratic or neutral views of systems modelling.

Disciplinary Silos

Systems thinking draws from many fields; biology, sociology, engineering, management, and ecology, among others. Practitioners from different disciplines may prioritise their own methods, language, and objectives, leading to fragmentation.

Strength in Diversity

Despite its fractiousness, systems thinking’s diversity can be a strength:

• It allows for rich cross-disciplinary dialogue.
• It enables tailored approaches to complex problems, whether they are technical, social, or ecological.
• The fractious debates push the field to evolve and refine its theories and methods.

By embracing its diversity while finding common ground, systems thinking can remain a robust framework for tackling the world’s most pressing challenges.

References

1. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
2. Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester: Wiley.
3. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30-year retrospective. Wiley
4. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press
5. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. Wiley.
6. Jackson, M. C., & Flood, R. L. (1991). Critical systems thinking: Directed readings. Wiley
7. Meadows, & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Pub.
8. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books.
9. Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.
10. Santa Fe Institute. (n.d.). Complexity science research. Retrieved from https://www.santafe.edu/
11. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
12. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. (n.d.). About us. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Retrieved from https://www.tavinstitute.org/
13. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press.