Inquiry

Inquiry skills are crucial to developing a systems thinking mindset. The ability to interrogate a complex issue or item, and remain mindful of what we see enables real systems learning.

Critical Inquiry involves several types of actions and skills to be effective. The first crucial Inquiry skill is to be able to ask purposeful and constructive questions. This skill involves both an element of content and delivery. It is important to pursue questioning in a constructive manner as it could be perceived in a bad light.

Secondly, it is critical to gather and analyze information that is germane to the system. Developing the ability to sort key information and objectively is invaluable in systems analysis. The primary importance of inquiry in a systems thinking context, is the ability to interrogate and understand our own individual (or group) mental models and how they affect how we guide our thoughts and actions. An imperfect understanding of our own mental models will us to continue to take actions within a narrow channel, even when those actions are inadequate, inappropriate or do not yield the results we wish to obtain. In a previous post, we explored the difficulties associated with a Rational Model, or reductionist approach.

Another ability it is important to master is to balance our tendency to advocate our own perceptions and ideas, instead of inquiring to understand other perspectives and new or different information. Balancing inquiry and advocacy is a critical step in learning and understanding systemic issues. If we truly endeavor to obtain a systems perspective, it will very quickly become too complex and diverse than our own personal experience can adequately comprehend. Therefore, exercising our inquiry skills to comprehend new ideas and perspectives will be crucial in diagnosing what needs to be done, and in enlisting support to make it happen.

Simplicity vs Complexity

Simplicity versus complexity is one of the great paradoxes of modern life. Many of us are confronted with greater and greater levels of complexity as our horizons and access to knowledge expand. We are faced with questions of how we can embrace challenges without being simplistic. As we strive for more and better options, we produce proliferation and incrementalism instead of focus and wholeness. We capture more “benefits” but we don’t adequately account for the hidden costs that go undetected and unmanaged.

As we discussed in our last post about the Problems with the Rational Model , a reductionist approach will inevitably lead to more complexity, not simplicity. In many cases, complexity will lead to a loss of reliability or robustness. True systems thinking will seek to reverse this complexity by focusing an integrated whole and an umabiguous understanding of needs (priorities) and functions (outcomes). With adequate focus in these areas, we can gain much robustness in our approach to life and work. Robustness is a measure being strong and healthy in condition. When it is viewed in a system context, it refers to the ability of tolerating perturbations that might affect the system’s functional integrity.

Take a real world example from the airline industry. After deregulation of the US airlines in the late-1970’s and early-1980’s, the domestic carriers all analyzed and decided that a hub-and-spoke network would become the most efficient operating model. This was done primarily from a cost/revenue perspective, although other factors like customer access and reliability were probably analyzed, but likely not weighted heavily. This resulted in larger hubs developing around large cities. In addition several waves of domestic airline mergers have ensued in the intervening 40 years, resulting in yet fewer and larger hubs. These hubs have become extremely complex operations that are extremely sensitive to upsets that threaten a particular lines entire system (with ripple effects across the whole air travel system). Many of these hubs like Dallas-Ft. Worth, Chicago and Atlanta are subject to severe weather impacts which further reduces reliability and robustness. So now to travel from Huntsville, Alabama to Salt Lake City, one may need to be aware of the weather in Dallas or Chicago. It has also resulted in capacity issues in most major cities, and in many, single airline hegemony that is not the most effective to the traveler.

So do we just give in to complexity, or do we allow it to sneak up on us? In Overcomplicated complexity theorist Sam Arbesman gives two primary reasons of how complexity can be sneaky. “The first is accretion. We build systems, like the U.S. Constitution or the Internet, to perform a limited number of tasks. Yet to get those systems to scale, we need to build on top of them to expand their initial capabilities. As the system gets larger, it gets more complex. The second factor is interaction. We may love the simplicity of our iPhones, but we don't want to be restricted to its capabilities alone. So we increase its functionality by connecting it to millions of apps. Those apps, in turn, connect to each other as well as to other systems.” Boom! Complexity reigns and in many cases, the original purpose of these instruments is lost on the user.


So we need to find a way to reign in complexity, while focusing on what really matters. Unity in purpose has to carry more value than more and/or better. We need to shift our thinking to connecting to what really matters and managing the real “costs” of too much.

Decision Making Models

In our previous posts covering Mental Models I introduced the concept of two categories of mental models that are defaults in most people. The first was the Rational model. The rational model thinker is driven by a need to gather as much information as possible to understand their world and to make a decision. Rational thinkers are driven to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation BEFORE acting. In the most recent post I outlined some of the significant problems we can encounter in a system that is too rooted in the Rational Model. 

The second was what has been called Mixed-scanning. Those who ascribe to a mixed scanning approach willobtain enough information that they think allows them to make a good decision for the next step. They will then move forward and try to gain as much information, data, insight and understanding of a situation AS and AFTER acting. Subsequent decisions will then get made in light of these new conditions. 

In the Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz introduces the concept of two types of decision makers: maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers are rational model types who will agonize over every detail in fear that they will miss some ideal choice. Satisficers will figure out the minimum they feel they need to make a decision. Interestingly Schwartz’s research shows that satisfiers tend to be happier. I will note that there has been some backlash among the intellectual community to some of Schwartz’s findings. Some saying less is more, some saying more is more, some saying it depends. I think the key is in the level of uncertainty that one feels around the choices. If uncertainty of options is very low (e.g. if rational info gathering is “complete”), then the number of options is immaterial. However, if large uncertainty exists around choices, and sufficient information gathering is time consuming, impractical or impossible (or all three!) then the number of choices needs to be small. I contend that this how mixed-scanning works best. Understand enough to move forward with a critical next step (Observe and Orient from our OODA-loop example in Post Number 1), take that step (Decide and Act from OODA-loop) and then check, and redo it moving forward.

So to understand how we make crucial decisions to integrate our life and work, we need to get clear on our comfort zone for making those decisions. Then we need to be clear on the context of the decision, and realize we may need to act in the one that is outside our “normal” comfort zone. Ultimately if we’re going to focus and integrate the “system” of our lives, decision making will need to occur all the time, and at every level. The challenge is on us to decide and move forward. In fact, we may need to only decide on a few key critical next actions and then have the discipline to stop and think about where we go next.