#21: The different strengths of systems thinkers
Building a well-rounded systemic design team.
I’m Luke Craven; this is another of my weekly explorations of how systems thinking and complexity can be used to drive real, transformative change in the public sector and beyond. The first issue explains what the newsletter is about; you can see all the issues here.
Hello, dear reader,
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be a systems thinker or systems-led designer. Both of these terms tend to be used as giant catch-alls, which leads us to gloss over the richness and diversity in how they are practiced.
A recent conversation with my colleagues Louise Long and Susan Cullen is largely to blame for this particular fascination. In that conversation, Louise spoke about design practitioners having different cognitive strengths: some are divergent thinkers, some are convergent thinkers, and a rare few exhibit strengths in both styles of thought. This reflection highlights the importance of building well-rounded design teams. Too many divergent thinkers and you’ll never get anything done. Too many convergent thinkers and you risk landing a solution that does not address the underlying need.
Obviously I’m painting in broad strokes here and there a number of other considerations that go into building a design team, but in my experience this heuristic rings true. The cognitive preferences and strengths of a group of designers matter for how problems get framed and for the types of solutions that get built.
The different strengths of systems thinkers
So how does this logic apply to the practices of systems thinking and systemic design? What are the different cognitive strengths and preferences needed in a well-rounded systemic design team?
The Design Council, in their recently released systemic design framework propose one answer. They suggest that systemic design works best when the four core roles outlined in the figure below are fulfilled. They note that some projects may include people who can span different roles, while others may need experts to focus on a single area.
There is a lot to like about this framework and I don’t disagree that a good systemic design team needs people who can span these different roles. But it does not go deep enough to explore the different types of systems thinkers, their different cognitive strengths and preferences. Based on my own experience and that of my colleagues at the Australian Taxation Office, I am beginning to build my own typology to explore the next layer down underneath “systems thinker”. I have framed these different strengths as four roles each well-rounded systemic design team needs:
Sensemaker. Someone who has the ability to work with and through others to make sense of the complexity of a particular problem space. The sensemaker is often skilled in visualising or telling stories about complexity that can be used as part of a design process to build a shared understanding of the key forces and patterns at play.
Pathfinder (alternative title: truffle hog). Someone who has the capability to “sniff out” the most appropriate places to intervene in a system or problem space. The pathfinder is often skilled in understanding the behaviours and preferences that contribute to different patterns in a system, as well as other “leverage points” that might be generative opportunities for change.
Creator. Someone that has the technical and creative skills to design the means of realising these changes (“levers”). The creator is particularly proficient in understanding how a particular change connects to other forces and patterns at play and can manipulate these connections to their advantage.
Catalyst. Someone who understands how best to “pull” a particular lever, can build a coalition for change, and who can steward the change into the system and reshape it in response to changing conditions and circumstances. The catalyst is often a pragmatist who can manoeuvre through the different behavioural and structural barriers to change.
Leveraging diversity in design teams
What I have realised, since that conversation with Susan and Louise a few months ago, is that we too often talk about systems thinking capability in vague and non-specific terms. The term “systems thinker” is often directed at a family of strengths, competencies and cognitive preferences so broad that the we risk the term becoming functionally meaningless.
My experience building and leading systems-led design teams is that people’s cognitive strengths and practical expertise typically see them able to fulfil one or two of these roles, but very seldom three or four. An awareness of these different roles and competencies is crucial to assembling a kick-ass systemic design team that can deliver results. It’s unlikely that any team will be fully balanced across these competencies, but things work best when all four roles are present throughout a design process.
Recently, when I asked my team to self-identify their own strengths and preferences against this typology, they struggled. I struggle too. If I don’t think about it too much, I see myself most as a sensemaker and pathfinder, but self-assessment is always limited. Perhaps there’s a fun project here for someone to build a more formal assessment tool. If that someone is you, let me know. I’d be keen to collaborate!
By the way: This newsletter is hard to categorise and probably not for everyone—but if you know unconventional thinkers who might enjoy it, please share it with them.
Find me elsewhere on the web at www.lukecraven.com, on Twitter @LukeCraven, on LinkedIn here, or by email at <luke.k.craven@gmail.com>.
Fascinating read! I wonder if we risk reducing systems thinking into types rather than seeing it as a skill on a spectrum... i see a two additional variables which come into play in defining the kind of systems thinker a person might be, with the caveat that anyone can change where they sit on these spectrum and thus evolve in type... they are the "philosopher - engineer" spectrum which goes from thinking-heavy to doing-heavy and emotional/social intelligence spectrum which goes from low to high. My summary would be that Sensemakers are highly philosophical, high social intelligence, Pathfinders are also highly philosophical but lower on the social intelligence. Creators high engineering but low social intelligence and Catalysts are high engineering and high social intelligence. What do you think?