Critical systems thinking: beyond the

fragments
Mike C. Jackson

This article is con- I begin by considering progress in applied systems thinking from the Second
cerned with systems World War to the early 1980s. It was during this period that the main strands of
thinking as an
approach to the systems thinking, as we recognize them today, emerged and became estab-
management of com- lished. In an attempt to understand the progress made, I seek to relate develop-
plex problems. I ments in systems thinking to an increased sophistication in coming to terms
argue that systems with extreme complexity and an increased awareness of difficulties posed by
thinking is currently
failing to make the the divergent values and interests of stakeholders.
most of the signi- By the early 1980s a rich array of systems-based, problem-solving method-
ficant steps forward ologies had been developed. Each type of approach had different strengths
taken in the disci-
pline during the and weaknesses. The later 1980s, and certainly the 199Os, should have seen
1970s and 1980s. systems thinking taking advantage of the earlier creativity and establishing
Systems thinking itself as a discipline capable of offering a holistic response to a very wide range
should be able to
present itself as the of management problems. For the most part this hope has been unfulfilled, and
discipline capable of instead systems thinking has remained fragmented. I illustrate this, in the
offering a holistic second part of the article, with reference to developments in some of the most
response to a very important strands of the discipline in the 1980s and 1990s. These develop-
wide range of man-
agement problems. ments show only limited recognition of work taking place in other strands of
Instead, different systems thinking. It is even more unusual to find a satisfactory attempt to think
groupings of aca- through the relation between the various approaches to the discipline. I argue
demics and practi-
tioners lay claim to that these omissions are responsible for problems encountered by the recent
the systems label but developments.
share little overall One of the strands of work that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s has, how-
intellectual vision.
While the discipline ever, taken it as its main task to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the
remains fragmented, various systems approaches available and to think through the relations be-
the claim to offer a tween different systems methodologies. This strand, critical systems thinking,
holistic and compre- is the subject ofthe third and final sectionofthearticle. Critical systems thinking is
hensive response to
management prob- offered as a way for the discipline to progress beyond the fragmentation.
lems will seem hol-
low. Critical systems
thinking is suggested
as a way for the dis- Progress in systems thinking
cipline to progress
beyond the fragmen- In a recent book (Jackson 1992), I have sought to understand progress in
tation.
systems thinking, and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative method-
ologies, by asking what the different approaches assume about problem con-
Mike C. Jackson is a texts; which organizational metaphors they privilege; to which sociological
professor of manage-
ment systems, direc-
paradigm they relate; whether they serve Habermas’ technical, practical, or
tor of the Centre for emancipatory interests; and where they stand in the modernism versus post-
Systems Studies, modernism debate. I take up the same theme here, but only in relation to the
and director of re- first of these classificatory devices.
search in the School
of Management at System Dynamics Review Vol. 10, nos. 2-3 (Summer-Fall 1994):213-229 Received December 1993
the University of @ 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CCC 0883-7066/94/030213-17

213
214 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

Hull. He has written It is possible to describe progress in systems thinking up to the early 1980s by
two books, edited making use of a grid of ideal-type problem contexts devised around ten years
six others, and is the
editor of the journal ago in the Department of Management Systems and Sciences, University of
Systems Practice. Hull (Jackson and Keys 1984).In Figure 1 there are two axes that together reveal
Address: School of possible ideal-type problem contexts. The horizontal axis is concerned with
Management, Uni-
versity of Hull, Hull
increasing divergence of values among those interested in or affected by a
HU6 7RX, U.K. problem situation. The terms unitary, pluralist, and conflictual are taken from
the industrial relations literature. Thus, people can be in a unitary relationship
if they share values and interests; in a pluralist relationship if their values and
interests diverge but they have enough in common to make it worthwhile for
them to remain members of the coalition that constitutes the organization; and
in a conflictual or coercive relationship if their interests diverge irreconcilably
and power comes to bear so that one group gets its own way at the expense of
the others. The vertical axis in Figure 1 has to do with increasing complexity,
and it places problem contexts along a continuum ranging from simple to
complex according to such factors as number of elements, rate and character of
the interactions between the elements, attributes of the elements, nature of
subsystems, and the environment.
The result of combining the axes is an ideal-type grid in which problem
contexts can be seen as becoming more difficult to manage as you get increasing
divergence of values and interests and increasing complexity. I can now use
this grid to explain progress in systems thinking up to the early 1980s.
The attempt to use systems ideas to produce methodologies for solving

INCREASING DIVERGENCE OF VALUES /INTERESTS .)

Fig. 1. Progress in
systems thinking
I UNITARY PLURALIST CONFLICTUAL
N
c
R
A
E s1 /
s M i OH-SOFT
I P SYSTEMS
N L
G E

C
0
M C
P O
L M DESIGN OF
E P ADAPTIVE
X L SYSTEMS
I E
T X
Y
4
 Jackson:Critical Systems Thinking 215

complex problems was a product of the Second World War and the period
immediately following it. It was at this time that operational research (OR),
systems analysis, and systems engineering were born (Checkland 1981).Not
surprisingly, given the situation from which they emerged, when objectives
were relatively clear-we want to win the war or to reindustrialize as quickly
as possible by making our organizations more efficient and effective-they all
rested upon an assumption that I categorize (using Fig. 1) as unitary. They
relied upon a shared and therefore readily identifiable goal. Later, in the 1960s
and 1970% when these approaches were taken into the universities to be further
“refined” by academics, an original bias toward quantification became an
obsession with mathematically modeling the system of concern, which one can
do only if that system is relatively simple. So the underlying assumptions of
the textbook OR that we have today (and, to a lesser extent, this is true of
systems analysis and systems engineering) are simple-unitary; it is assumed
that a common goal is identifiable and that systems can be mathematically
modeled. Despite these limiting assumptions all three of the methodologies
mentioned had success in tackling technical problems-OR, for example, made
considerable progress with queuing, scheduling, inventory, and routing
problems.
Unfortunately, difficulties arise when one seeks to extend the range of appli-
cation of these approaches, exactly because of the assumptions embedded in
them. Methodologies of a unitary nature, which want to begin by defining an
objective, cannot get started when there are divergent values and interests
because they offer no way of bringing about any consensus or accommodation
around a particular goal to be pursued. Similarly, if the system of concern is
extremely complex, any mathematical model produced can only offer a dis-
torted view of it from a particular perspective. The effects of these limi-
tations in practical projects were documented by Hoos (1972)and had been
theoretically diagnosed by Ackoff (1979),for example, by the end of the
1970s.
Fortunately for systems thinking, others were working at leading the discipline
out of the intellectual ghetto represented by the simple-unitary portion of the
grid shown in Figure 1. One of these was J. W. Forrester, who in 1958
announced industrial dynamics, later to become system dynamics, as a major
breakthrough for decision makers. Forrester (1961;1968)sought to apply ideas
from control theory and control engineering to overcome the limitations of
management science, which was seen to treat problems in a reductionist
manner at one point in time. Clearly this was an attempt to develop an
approach suitable for extremely complex problem situations. The commitment
to mathematically modeling the system of concern and the implied reliance on
a unitary decision maker remained, however, and severely limited progress.
216 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

Real progress down the vertical axis came with the abandonment of the
attempt to mathematically model the relations between all the myriad of
interacting variables making up complex systems. In sociological terms, the
shift needed was from a positivist to a more structuralist approach. The aim
then became to uncover the deeper organizational features that have to be
present for a system to remain viable and effective over time, continually able
to self-regulate and self-organize as it adapts to its environment. Instead of
trying to optimize the system toward a fixed goal, the intention then became to
discover, and learn how to build in, design features necessary for the survival
of complex adaptive systems.
The sort of systems approaches that have succeeded in making the necessary
breakthrough, and have therefore been at the forefront of progress down the
vertical axis, are sociotechnical systems thinking, living systems theory, and
organizational cybernetics. Sociotechnical systems thinking (Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science 1986) was a product of the Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations in the United Kingdom. It has been widely used, particularly
in Scandinavia and the United States, where it became absorbed into the
quality-of-working-life movement. Although there are some conceptual simi-
larities with ideas later marketed as total quality management (TQM),
sociotechnical systems thinking is intellectually much richer. Living systems
theory has been developed and is being tested in the United States by Miller
(1978) and others. Beer’s organizational cybernetics, as encapsulated in the
viable system model (VSM) (Beer 1979), has found many applications, and
there is a burgeoning literature on its strengths and weaknesses and on how to
apply it (Espejo and Harnden, eds. 1989). Worthy of mention, among the
significant design features of complex adaptive systems that have been re-
searched, are autonomous work groups from sociotechnical theory, and appli-
cations of the cybernetic ideas of black box, feedback, and requisite variety
given managerial relevance in the VSM.
If I now turn to the horizontal axis of Figure 1, it can be argued that systems
thinking has also made great progress in the development and refinement of
methodologies that assume and work with problem contexts as if they are
pluralist in nature. Mention should be made of Ackoff s interactive planning
(1981), Checkland’s soft systems methodology (1981; Checkland and Scholes
1990), Churchman’s social systems design (1979),Mason and Mitroff’s strategic
assumption surfacing and testing (198 l), and Warfield’s interactive manage-
ment (1976).
Along this dimension, the breakthrough came when the aim of producing
one single, objective model of a problem situation was abandoned. This was
seen to be both impossible and undesirable given multiple values and interests.
The trick was to make subjectivity central in the methodological process and to
 Jackson:Critical Systems Thinking 217

work with a variety of models of the world. In Checkland’s soft systems

methodology (SSM), a highly developed approach of this kind, systems models
expressing different viewpoints and making explicit their implications are
constructed so that alternative perspectives can be compared and contrasted.
The purpose is to generate a systemic learning process in which participants
come to appreciate more fully each other’s worldviews and the possibilities of
change, and consensus or at least accommodation (however temporary) becomes
possible between those who started with, and may still hold, divergent values.
In relation to operational research, the shift achieved by these researchers is,
sociologically speaking, from a positivist to an interpretive approach. Soft
systems thinkers, in contrast to operational researchers or those concerned
with the design of complex adaptive systems, do not try to design models for
use over and over again. This is not productive because of the widely different
viewpoints that will be relevant in each problem situation. Instead, what is
usefully generalized, as Checkland (1981)argues, is the methodology em-
ployed. The same approach to bringing about consensus and accommodation is
employed continually and is gradually improved. Applications of Ackoff‘s
interactive planning and Checkland’s SSM are now in the many hundreds. The
result is that we know much better than before the process that needs to be gone
through to bring about an accommodation between different value positions
and to generate commitment to agreed changes.
The attempt to move further along the horizontal axis, to develop method-
ologies capable of operating when problem contexts are perceived to be con-
flictual and coercive, has proved more difficult. Beer (1989)summed up the
helplessness of traditional systems thinking when he considered how operational
research might react to the one coherent order ever issued by Ferdinand I of
Austria: “I am the Emperor-and I want dumplings.” OR would have to
conclude, “Bring the old devil lots of dumplings, p.d.q.” The matter of coercive
contexts was taken up by emancipatory systems thinking in the 1980s.
I hope I have demonstrated that one useful way of looking at progress in
systems thinking is to see it as a response to extreme complexity on the one
hand and divergence of values and interests among stakeholders on the other.
Those interested in other accounts should consult my 1992 book.

Recent developments

I have taken one story of the development of applied systems thinking up to the
early 1980s.It is apparent that by that time significant steps forward had been
made and systems thinking was on the verge of being able to present itself as
offering a holistic response to a very wide range of management problems. The
218 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

major obstacle was fragmentation and the failure of the academic and practi-
tioner groupings working on the different strands of systems thinking to
acknowledge the shortcomings, as well as the strengths, of their own
approaches and the validity of other kinds of systems research. Indeed, in the
1980s, the systems movement seemed to be splintering into warring factions-
soft systems thinking against hard systems thinking, cybernetics against soft
systems thinking, and so forth-as the discipline succumbed to the paradigm
disputes common in social sciences such as sociology (Dando and Bennett
1981). What was needed, of course, was a thorough understanding of the
capabilities of each systems approach, a framework that demonstrated their
various strengths and weaknesses, and a meta-methodology showing how they
could be used in partnership. Eventually, critical systems thinking was to seek
to provide all these things. For the moment, though, I concentrate on recent
developments in each of the main strands of systems thinking. Each of these
shows some unease with the limitations imposed by its strand. The failure to
think through this unease fully, I argue, points exactly to the need for critical
systems thinking. I consider in turn soft OR, qualitative system dynamics, soft
cybernetics, Mode 2 SSM, and emancipatory systems thinking. I can only
present here the beginnings of an argument in each case.

Soft OR
Practitioners using hard systems methods have long been aware of the need to
pay attention to the process of intervention as well as to the techniques. This
puts them far ahead of most academics writing textbooks on, for example, OR.
Recently, this interest in process has given rise, in the United Kingdom, to
academic reflection and to the development of what has become known as soft
OR. This is seen by its protagonists as complementary to hard OR. A useful
collection of papers by leading figures in soft OR has been put together and
edited by Rosenhead (1989). The methodologies discussed and illustrated in
detail are strategic options development analysis (SODA), soft systems method-
ology, strategic choice, robustness analysis, metagame analysis, and hypergame
analysis. Rosenhead argues that these approaches have in common an emphasis
on structuring decisions and problems rather than solving them. They are
decision aiding and, in support of this, are transparent to users, involve partici-
pation as a key component, and are capable of incorporating conflict between
different stakeholders.
The inclusion of Checkland’s highly subjectivist soft systems methodology
among the set of approaches examined indicates the type of shift in orientation
aimed at in soft OR. Soft OR methodologies accept the need to work with a
plurality of worldviews, to pay attention to how perceptions alter during the
 Jackson:Critical Systems Thinking 219

process of intervention, and to construct coalitions and build consensus in

favor of change through open discussion and debate. At the same time, soft OR,
apart from SODA (Eden et al. 1983), remains theoretically impoverished com-
pared to soft systems thinking. There is a vague shared commitment to respond
to the individual understandings of organizational actors, but the soft OR tradi-
tion seems unable to specify exactly what new paradigm is being opened up by
its endeavors.
Further, while soft OR compensates for one of the major flaws in hard systems
thinking by accepting subjectivity, it does not address the others. The insights
that cybernetics, for example, can bring to the understanding and management
of complexity are ignored, and Rosenhead has to admit to his own embarrass-
ment at the “manipulative-reformist” stance of his contributors. Soft OR is des-
perately in need of a critical appreciation of its own theoretical underpinnings
and of its relation to the broader management science and systems community.

Qualitative system dynamics

Qualitative system dynamics (QSD), as described by Wolstenholme (1990;
1993), is an attempt to retain the value and power of influence/causal-loop
diagrams while accepting that the original formulation of the system dynamics
approach paid too little attention to multiple perspectives and the problem of
implementation. Participants in the problem situation are now to be involved
in building the models so that they come to own them and as a result are more
willing to implement the recommendations that emerge. Models are to be made
as transparent as possible in order to facilitate user involvement. It is not easy
to see, however, how multiple perspectives can be fully respected while the
notion is retained, as it seems to be, that system dynamics models can capture
something important about the real world. QSD has not worked out whether it
is simply softening positivism or embracing the interpretive stance-a funda-
mental weakness also recognized by Lane (1993).
Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline (1990) is the most popular account of the
QSD approach. Senge seeks to combine insights from the fifth discipline (sys-
tem dynamics)l with what can be learned from four other approaches (personal
mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning) in order to
create learning organizations. System dynamics can help decision makers to
recognize systems archetypes-structures that can come to govern the behavior
of systems; and the other four approaches can help decision makers do some-
thing about the archetypes-stopping the systemic processes if they are not
favorable to the organization or enhancing them if they are.
Senge’s vision sounds nice but is in danger of being self-contradictory.
Systems that we can predict using a few archetypes we usually cannot do very
220 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

much about; the solar system, for example. On the other hand, systems that we
can do something about using the other four approaches are usually unpredic-
table using system dynamics logic; such as what is going to happen next in
Russia. There is an apparent contradiction between deterministic ideas of sys-
tems governed in particular ways and voluntaristic ideas of our ability to do
something about systems, and this is not easy to reconcile because Senge does
not situate his work in its philosophical background.
In a 1992 paper Senge talks about the need to understand how developments
in system dynamics fit into the “broader overall pattern” of the systems think-
ing field. He will be grateful for the work already done in critical systems
thinking.

Soft cybernetics
As a result of the work of researchers such as Von Foerster and Maturana and
Varela, cybernetics has recently been undergoing its own epistemological
break. As part of their studies on autopoiesis, for example, Maturana and Varela
(1980) have concluded that cognition is an organizationally closed system and
that therefore we must give up any claim to have direct access to the phenomena
around us. Objectivity is therefore “bracketed” and attention turns to the
observing system.
Following in this tradition, Espejo and Harnden (1989; Espejo 1989; Harnden
1989) have argued for a different reading and use of Beer’s viable system model.
The VSM is no longer to be seen as “representational,” as trying to express
certain fundamental laws governing the organization of complex systems.
Rather, it is to be aligned with interpretive theory and regarded as a “herme-
neutic enabler.” Organizational models should be seen not as seeking to capture
objective reality but as aids to orienting ongoing conversations about complex
social issues. The VSM is a particularly good model because it permits an
extremely rich discourse to unfold about the emergence and evolution of
appropriate organizational forms. It provides an “umbrella of intersection” for
different perspectives, and this should help us coordinate our interactions in a
consensual manner.
Although theoretically Espejo seems willing to go all the way with Harnden
in embracing the interpretive view, when he attempts to give practical expres-
sion to cybernetic ideas in his “cybernetic methodology” (Espejo 1989; 1990),a
tension breaks out between the interpretive reading of the VSM and a more
traditional usage. The VSM analysis is embedded in a learning loop, owing an
explicit debt to Checkland’s SSM and giving expression to interpretive think-
ing, but a more traditional employment of the model keeps thrusting through,
offering a contradictory direction for analysis. Thus, the VSM is employed to
 Jackson:Critical Systems Thinking 221

reveal the cybernetics of the situation, and “diagnosing communication prob-

lems leads to a discovery of the causes of operational problems, thus making it
possible to improve the situation” (Espejo 1990). It is not clear how Espejo
would choose between what his cybernetic diagnosis tells him and what the
participants in the situation believe.
There are, it seems, two possible ways forward for organizational cyber-
netics. The first is to continue researching on the basis that laws governing the
viability of complex systems do exist and the role of cybernetics is to discover
them, so enhancing the steering capacities of organizations and societies. The
second is to throw in its hand with soft systems thinking-perhaps the VSM
has a role checking the consistency of conceptual models at stage 4 of Check-
land’s methodology. To work through the implications of these options re-
quires a critical systems perspective.

Mode 2 SSM
Mode 2 SSM, as described in Checkland and Scholes (1990), uses soft systems
methodology not to consciously structure studies in a project style but to help
participants make sense of what they are doing by mapping it onto SSM. It is
designed to be internalized by practicing managers and used in their everyday
activities as a means of making sense of a confusing world.
Apart from this basic shift in orientation, the most significant change made
from Mode 1 SSM is the promotion of the “stream of cultural inquiry” to have
equal status to the stream of logical enquiry. The two are then intended to
interact, informing one another throughout the use of the methodology. This
change is reflected particularly in the new guidance for finding out about a
problem situation. These guidelines take the form of an analysis in three stages.
Analysis 1 considers the intervention itself and the roles of client(s), problem
solver(s), and problem owners. Analysis 2 takes a cultural view of the social
system, looking at social roles, norms of behavior, and what values are used in
judging role performance. The work of Davies (e.g., 1988), who has argued that
the practice of SSM would benefit from the more explicit analysis of culture,
has contributed here. Early recognition of cultural aspects of the situation can
assist the process of arriving at recommendations that are “culturally feasible.”
Analysis 3 examines the politics of the problem situation and how power is
obtained and used. Stowell’s (e.g., 1989) thoughts on power as manifest in
various “commodities” (e.g., command of resources, personality, talent) that
are exchanged or otherwise used in organizations have had some impact on
this. Understanding how power is disposed might make it possible to assuage
some of its more baneful effects.
The attempt to strengthen SSM by taking some account of culture and power,
222 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

in analyses 2 and 3, respectively, can be seen as a belated and half-hearted

response to the criticism that the methodology is regulative and simply serves
to reinforce the status quo (e.g., Jackson 1982). So might Atkinson and Check-
land’s (1988) interest in building models of “combative,” “contradictive,”
“syndicalistic,” “host/parasite,” and other systems to map onto reality. The
fundamentally interpretive nature of the methodology is, if anything, rein-
forced in Mode 2, however, and only impoverished notions of culture and
power can survive in this climate. The methodology has a domain of appli-
cation, but that is far more circumscribed than Checkland seems willing
to admit. His dabbling with postmodernism as an underlying rationale for
Mode 2 (as against Habermas’ theory of “communicative competence” for
Mode 1)and the continuing claim that the methodology is neutral (challenged
again in Jackson 1993b and comprehensively in Romm 1994) betray a deep
confusion that can only be satisfactorily dispelled by a critical systems
awareness.

Emancipatory systems thinking

Emancipatory systems thinking was born in the 1980s of the recognition by
systems thinkers that participants in social situations can sometimes be seen as
in a coercive relationship to one another, so that the only consensus that can be
achieved is through the exercise of power and domination (overt or more or less
concealed) by one or more groups of participants over others. Often building
upon earlier soft systems work, exploding its critical kernel (Jackson 1990b),
emancipatory systems thinkers have sought to provide systems practitioners
with possible responses to this kind of situation.
Ulrich’s (1983)critical systems heuristics, making use of some of Churchman’s
thinking, tries to provide the means to reflect upon the presuppositions that
enter into any social system design and to work out whose interests the design
serves. It also helps to generate a more truly participative debate about systems
purposes. It does this by first determining what presuppositions must be
explicit in order that one can critically reflect upon a design; second by setting
out principles for a participative debate that has to take place, with all those
affected by a design, before that design can be regarded as validated and
accepted for implementation.
Jackson (1985) argues for an emancipatory practice to be fashioned for social
systems in which there are great disparities in power and resources between
participants, and that seem to escape the control and understanding of the
individuals who create and sustain them, This could be based on Habermas’
suggestions for the proper relation between theory and practice. Flood (1990),
following Foucault’s logic, has argued that the project of liberating systems
 Jackson:Critical Systems Thinking 223

theory must include additionally the emancipation of suppressed knowledges

in systems theory itself.
Emancipatory systems thinking cannot, of course, provide the sole method of
systems practitioners. Its relevance is to coercive systems, and it cannot replace
the guidance provided by hard, sociotechnical, cybernetic approaches, and so
on, with regard to the efficient and effective design of technical systems and
organizational structures. Emancipatory systems thinking has to be recognized
as one component within the critical systems armory.

Critical systems thinking

I have argued that, up to the early 1980s, considerable progress was being made
in systems thinking as approaches were developed that took seriously the
problems of extreme complexity and the divergence in values and interests
among participants in problem situations. In some ways, the very successes
being achieved contributed to the problem of fragmentation as researchers
focused attention on the specific developments occurring in their systems
specialities.
During the 1980s it was not exactly that things went backward-important
work continued in each of the specialities, and emancipatory systems thinking
established itself as a strand in its own right. Rather it seemed that a sense of
unease developed in each strand of systems thinking based upon some recog-
nition of its own particular limitations. And the failure to think through the
relation between the various approaches in the discipline prevented the
alleviation of this unease. Fragmentation was now the main barrier to further
progress. In these circumstances it is perhaps not so surprising, but neverthe-
less very fortunate, that another strand of systems thinking, developed in the
1980s, took it as its main task to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the
various systems approaches available and to think through the relations be-
tween different systems methodologies. That strand-critical systems
thinking-is discussed now. It offers itself to the systems movement as a way of
moving beyond the fragmentation.
My discussion of critical systems thinking must be extremely brief. I have
dealt in more depth with its origins and nature elsewhere (Jackson 1991;
1990a), and there is a book of readings that includes many of the significant
early papers (Flood and Jackson, eds. 1991). What is reasonably clear is that, by
about 1990, it had come to embrace five major commitments (Jackson 1991;
Schecter 1991). I discuss each of these in turn, providing sufficient references
for readers interested in further research.
The first is critical awareness, which concerns, for one thing, understanding
224 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

the strengths and weaknesses and the theoretical underpinnings of available

systems methods, techniques, and methodologies. At a general level are Jack-
son’s (1988b)review of systems methods for organizational analysis and
design, and systems methodologies in the management sciences (1992);Oliga’s
(1988) look at the methodological foundations of systems methodologies:
Ulrich’s (1988)agenda for systems research; and Flood and Ulrich’s (1990)
examination of the epistemological bases of different systems approaches.
Related to specific methodologies are Jackson (1982)and Mingers (1984)on soft
systems thinking: Ulrich (1981)and Jackson (1988a)on cybernetics; and Jack-
son (1989)on strategic assumption surfacing and testing. Another element of
critical awareness involves closely examining the assumptions and values
entering into actually existing systems designs or any proposals for a systems
design, as in Ulrich’s (1983)critical systems heuristics.
The second commitment is social awareness, which, as one of its aspects,
considers the organizational and societal climate that determines the popularity
or otherwise of particular systems approaches at particular times. Rosenhead
and Thunhurst (1982)have analyzed the evolution of management science in
terms of the historical and material development of the capitalist mode of
production. Flood and Gregory (1989)have called for a genealogical account of
how power at the microlevel has affected the way systems thinking has un-
folded. Brocklesby (1994),in a recent contribution, discusses the constraints
imposed by organizational cultures on the use of Flood and Jackson’s “total
systems intervention” meta-methodology. The other side of social awareness is
giving full consideration to the social consequences of use of different systems
methodologies. This lay behind Jackson’s (1985)demand for a critical systems
approach suitable for coercive situations; led Oliga (1989)to seek to unmask
the ideological foundations of the different systems approaches; provides the
rationale for Ulrich’s (1983)demand that the systems rationality of planners
always be exposed to the social rationality of the affected; and has provoked
Romm’s (1994)in-depth reflections on the application of systems ideas.
With critical awareness and social awareness in place, it becomes possible to
view the different systems approaches as complementary at the level of meth-
odology. This third commitment originates from Jackson and Keys’ (1984)system
of systems methodologies constructed on the basis of the grid of problem con-
texts used, in Figure 1, as one way of tracing the development of systems
thinking as a discipline. It was made explicit in Jackson’s (1987)argument for
pluralism in management science-pluralism rather than isolationism (each
strand of the discipline developing alone): imperialism (each strand seeking to
incorporate the others); and pragmatism (mixing approaches without reference
to their theoretical underpinnings). Complementarism at the level of method-
ology requires a meta-methodology that respects all the other features of critical
 Jackson: Critical Systems Thinking 225

systems thinking and employs these, together with a full understanding of each
individual systems approach, to describe procedures for operationalizing a
pluralistic employment of methodologies in practice. Flood and Jackson (1991)
call their version of such a meta-methodology “creative problem solving: total
systems intervention.”
Complementarism at the theoretical level, the fourth commitment, is a
necessary accompaniment to complementarism at the level of methodology. The
argument is that different strands of the systems movement express different
rationalities stemming from alternative theoretical positions. These alternative
positions must be respected and the methodologies to which they give rise
developed in partnership. The existence of a range of systems approaches, each
driven by a different theoretical position, can be seen as a strength of the
systems movement. This argument is usually supported by showing how the
different strands offer complementary support to the three anthropologically
based cognitive interests of the human species as identified by Habermas
(Jackson 1988; 1992; Oliga 1988; Ulrich 1988).
Whatever argument is made in favor of complementarism at the level of
theory, it is bound to run up against objections from those who believe in
“paradigm incommensurability.” Critical systems thinkers relish theoretical
debates of this nature with social scientists and others (e.g., Jackson, Keys,
Cropper, eds. 1989). They do not see them as a distraction from the practical
orientation of systems thinking. One of the purposes of the last section was to
try to demonstrate that the dilemmas recent developments in systems thinking
have encountered can, in part, be explained by a lack of the necessary theoreti-
cal sophistication.
The four commitments discussed so far can assist systems thinking to pro-
gress beyond intellectual fragmentation. To move beyond another kind of
fragmentation, however-that connected with serving only powerful groupings
and not all stakeholders-requires a further strengthening of critical systems
thinking. The final commitment, which is ethical and can be political, fulfills
that need. Critical systems thinkers are quite clear that systems methodologies
cannot be neutral. Any attempt to intervene in a social system will have effects
that will likely benefit some individuals and may not benefit others. One must
therefore take an ethical stance in intervention and worry about who is bene-
fiting and who is not. For many critical systems thinkers the proper position is
to be absolutely explicit about one’s ideological commitment.

Conclusion

Critical systems thinking does not seek to overcome fragmentation through

226 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

some totalizing vision. It does not seek to recreate a unified systems theory. My
argument is that critical systems thinking can act as a support for other strands
of the systems movement, taking us beyond fragmentation by allowing us to be
critical in the use of the various systems ideas and methods at our disposal. We
must think about our assumptions in making systems judgments and using
systems methodologies, and we must think about the social consequences
when we design systems in a particular way. We must reflect critically upon
the partiality of our systems designs and methods.
john Harvey-Jones (1993), the British management guru, captures the spirit of
this well enough:
The difficulty is that there can never be any single correct solution for any
management problem, or any all-embracing system which will carry one through
a particular situation or period of time.. . . The skill of the manager consists of
knowing them all and choosing the particular ideas which are most appropriate
for the position and time in which he finds himself.
We can no longer believe in a unified systems theory. Like other Enlighten-
ment myths, that notion must be abandoned (Fuenmajor 1993; Jackson 1993a).
The period when we could share that vision and belief stands some time
behind us. Bob Dylan’s refrain, from a 1964 song, is relevant to the state of
mind of the systems movement today: “Ah, but I was so much older then, I’m
younger than that now.”
Critical systems thinking offers a way forward for our discipline in the
postmodern age. It will be easier for systems thinking to reach a new maturity
if, in the critical systems way, the academic and practitioner groupings working
on the different strands acknowledge the shortcomings as well as the strengths
of their own systems approaches and recognize the contributions that other
strands of systems thinking can make.

Note

1. Editor’s note: Senge (1990) terms the fifth discipline systems thinking, not
system dynamics. Presumably, the author avoids the term systems thinking here
because his meaning of it is different from Senge’s.

References

Ackoff, R. L. 1979. The Future of Operational Research Is Past. Journal of the

Operational Research Society 30: 93-104.
. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York: Wiley.
 Jackson: Critical Systems Thinking 227

Atkinson, C. J., and P. B. Checkland. 1988. Extending the Metaphor “System.”

Human Relations 41:709-725.
Beer, S. 1979.The Heart of Enterprise. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
. 1989. I Am the Emperor-And I Want Dumplings. Systems Practice 2:
267-285.
Brocklesby, J. 1994.Let the Jury Decide: Assessing the Cultural Feasibility of Total
Systems Intervention. Systems Practice 7: 75-86.
Checkland, P. B. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, U.K.:
Wiley.
Checkland, P. B., and J. Scholes. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action.
Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Churchman, C. W. 1979. The Systems Approach. 2d ed. New York: Dell.
Dando, M. R., and P. G. Bennett. 1981. A Kuhnian Crisis in Management Science?
Journal of the Operational Research Society 32: 91-103.
Davies, L. J. 1988.Understanding Organizational Culture: A Soft Systems Perspec-
tive. Systems Practice 1: 11-30.
Dylan, B. 1964.My Back Pages. Another Side of Bob Dylan. CBS Records.
Eden, C., S. Jones, and D. Sims. 1983.Messing About in Problems. Oxford: Perga-
mon.
Espejo, R. 1989. A Cybernetic Method to Study Organizations. In The Viable
System Model, ed. R. Espejo and R. J. Harnden, 361-382.
. 1990.Complexity and Change: Reflections upon the Cybernetic Interven-
tion in Chile, 1970-1973. Systems Practice 3: 303-313.
Espejo, R., and R. J. Harnden. 1989.The VSM: An Ongoing Conversation. In The
Viable System Model, 441-460.
Espejo, R., and R. J. Harnden, eds. 1989.The Viable System Model: Interpretations
and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Flood, R. L. 1990.Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum.
Flood, R. L., and W. Gregory. 1989.Systems: Past, Present, and Future. In Systems
Prospects, ed. R. L. Flood, M. C. Jackson, and P. Keys, 55-60. New York: Plenum.
Flood, R. L., and M. C. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems
Intervention. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Flood, R. L., and M. C. Jackson, eds. 1991. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed
Readings. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Flood, R. L., and W. Ulrich. 1990.Testament to Conversations on Critical Systems
Thinking Between Two Systems Practitioners. Systems Practice 3: 7-29.
Forrester, J. W. 1958. Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision
Makers. Harvard Business Review 36: 37-66.
. 1961.Industrial Dynamics. Portland, Ore.: Productivity Press.
. 1968.Principles of Systems. 2d ed. Portland, Ore.: Productivity Press.
Fuenmayor, R. 1993. “Systems Science: Addressing Global Issues”-the Death
Rattle of a Dying Era. Paper for the Third UKSS International Conference, Paisley,
Scotland.
Harnden, R. J. 1989.Outside and Then: An Interpretive Approach to the VSM. In
The Viable System Model, ed. R. Espejo and R. J. Harnden, 383-404.
Harvey-Jones, J. 1993.Managing to Survive. London: Heinemann.
Hoos, I. 1972.Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
228 System Dynamics Review Volume 10 Numbers 2-3 Summer-Fall 1994

Jackson, M. C. 1982. The Nature of Soft Systems Thinking: The Work of

Churchman, Ackoff, and Checkland. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 9:
17-28.
, 1985. Social Systems Theory and Practice: The Need for a Critical
Approach. International Journal of General Systems 10: 135-151.
. 1987. Present Positions and Future Prospects in Management Science.
Omega 15: 455-466.
. 1988a. An Appreciation of Stafford Beer’s “Viable System” Viewpoint on
Managerial Practice. Journal of Management Studies 25: 557-573.
. 1988b. Systems Methods for Organizational Analysis and Design. Systems
Research 5: 201-210.
. 1989. Assumptional Analysis: An Elucidation and Appraisal for Systems
Practitioners. Systems Practice 2: 11-28.
. 1990a. Beyond a System of Systems Methodologies. Journal of the Oper-
ational Research Society 41: 657-668.
. 1990b. The Critical Kernel in Modern Systems Thinking. Systems Practice
3: 357-364.
. 1991. The Origins and Nature of Critical Systems Thinking. Systems
Practice 4: 131-149.
. 1992. Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. New York:
Plenum.
. 1993a. Beyond the Fads: Systems Thinking for Managers. Centre for
Systems Studies Working Paper 3.
. 1993b. Politics or Scholarship: A Response to Checkland. Journal of the
Operational Research Society 44: 631-632.
Jackson, M. C., and P. Keys. 1984. Towards a System of Systems Methodologies.
Journal of the Operational Research Society 35: 473-486.
Jackson, M. C., P. Keys, and S. Cropper, eds. 1989. Operational Research and the
Social Sciences. New York: Plenum.
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 1986. Special issue. Sociotechnical Sys-
tems: Innovations in Designing High Performing Systems. 22 (3).
Lane, D. C. 1993. With a Little Help from Our Friends: How Third-Generation
System Dynamics and Issue-Structuring Techniques of “Soft” OR Can Learn
from Each Other. In System Dynamics 1993, ed. E. Zepeda and J.A.D. Machuca,
235-244. System Dynamics Society, 49 Bedford Rd., Lincoln, MA 01773, U.S.A.
Published in expanded form as City University Business School Discussion
Paper ITM/93/DCL2.
Mason, R. O., and I. I. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions.
New York: Wiley.
Maturana, H. R., and F. J. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht:
D.Reidel.
Miller, J. G. 1978. Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mingers, J. C. 1984. Subjectivism and Soft Systems Methodology: A Critique.
Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 11: 85-103.
Oliga, J, C. 1988. Methodological Foundations of Systems Methodologies. Systems
Practice 1: 87-112.
. 1989. Ideology and Systems Emancipation. Paper for the Thirty-Third
Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Edinburgh, Scotland.
 Jackson: Critical Systems Thinking 229

Romm, N. 1994. Knowing as Intervention: Reflections on the Application of

Systems Ideas. Systems Practice. In press.
Rosenhead, J., ed. 1989. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Chichester,
U.K.: Wiley.
Rosenhead, J., and C. Thunhurst. 1982. A Materialist Analysis of Operational
Research. Journal of the Operational Research Society 33: 111-122.
Schecter, D. 1991. Critical Systems Thinking in the 1980s: A Connective Summary.
In Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, ed. R. L. Flood and M. C.
Jackson, 213-226. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
. 1992. You Can’t Get There from Here: Why Systems Thinking Is Insepar-
able from Learning Organizations. In System Dynamics 1992,ed. J.A.M. Vennix,
J. Faber, W. J. Scheper, and C. A. Th. Takkenberg, 675-684. System Dynamics
Society, 49 Bedford Rd., Lincoln, MA 01773, U.S.A.
Stowell, F. A. 1989. Organizational Power and the Metaphor Commodity. In
Systems Practice, ed. R. L. Flood, M. C. Jackson, and P. Keys, 147-153. New
York: Plenum.
Ulrich, W. 1981. A Critique of Pure Cybernetic Reason: The Chilean Experience
with Cybernetics. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 8: 33-59.
. 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical
Philosophy. Berne: Haupt.
. 1988. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, and Practical Philosophy: A
Programme of Research. Systems Practice 1: 137-163.
Warfield, J. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. New York:
Wiley.
Wolstenholme, E. F. 1990. System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach.
Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
. 1993. A Case Study in Community Care Using Systems Thinking. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 44: 925-934.