Psychologist and leadership development coach, Mike Mullins, explains that a successful systems leader takes a specific approach to problem-solving. As well as identifying the type of problem they face, a leader must also understand their default response and recognise when to adapt. This is the fourth in a series of five articles.
There are several steps to becoming an exemplary system leader. The first is becoming aware of your tendency toward system blindness – that is, an inability to see how structures, patterns, and relationships influence outcomes. This is followed by understanding how you find meaning in the world – your ‘action logic’ – which is linked to the stage of your leadership journey. By developing an awareness of how you view the world, you can see how it both helps and hinders you in leading through complex situations.
The third step involves developing the ability to tackle problems in the right way.
If you are to respond to the issue appropriately, you must first correctly identify the type of problem in front of you. Before that, though, you need to understand your default approach to problems so that you recognise when you need to adapt.
There are three categories of problem – obvious, complicated and complex. Obvious problems are clear, well-defined, and have straightforward solutions – they are considered tame problems. Complicated problems may require expert analysis but remain solvable with established methods. They are also tame, though more technical. Complex problems, on the other hand, involve unpredictable elements and shifting contexts, making them wicked problems that resist definitive solutions.
All leaders have an instinctive response to the different types of problems. Understanding what yours is will enable you to develop the ability to flex your approach depending on the type of problem you’re facing.
How to recognise complexity
A variety of models offer insight into the nature of complexity. They range from Heifetz and Linsky’s distinction between technical and adaptive challenges to Rittel and Webber’s concept of tame and wicked problems. And then there is the Cynefin framework developed by Snowden and Boone.
In my view, the Cynefin model gives leaders the best framework for recognising complexity (see table).
This practical model encourages leaders to match their response to the nature of the situation – avoiding the trap of treating complex issues as if they were merely complicated or obvious. It draws out the different leadership responses needed for a predictable and an unpredictable world, emphasising the risks of trying to solve a complex problem with a response better suited to a different type of challenge.
For example, if a leader sees the health and care system as a series of tame or complicated problems, it may result in suggestions that the issues can be resolved by offering the right services or medical interventions.
| Obvious Sense, categorise, respond Use best practices Delegate if appropriate | Complicated Sense, analyse, respond Discover and apply good practice Assign experts |
| Complex Probe, sense respond Experiment, all patterns to emerge Increase interaction | Chaotic Act, sense, respond Take quick action to establish order Provide direction |
Source: The Cynefin Co.
Categorising problems
But the reality is that we’re dealing with an ageing population, growing medical capabilities, rising demand, and limited resources. This suggests that the problem is not complicated but complex.
Likewise, obesity, multimorbidity, substance abuse, frailty, and violence are not simply the products of ill health. They stem from wider social determinants that, by some estimates, account for 90% of health outcomes.
These are not problems with straightforward solutions. Instead, they demand leaders work collaboratively across the health and care system. By engaging with a range of people across disciplines and organisations, system leaders can begin to tackle these complex problems.
In the face of complexity, leaders must recognise that they can’t control or predict. In complex zones, there is no clear correlation between the size of the intervention and outcome success. This is why large-scale culture change programmes often fail to deliver real results.
Instead, leaders need to pay attention to patterns and use an emergent, experimental approach.
The goal is not to impose grand solutions, but to run safe-to-fail experiments. A safe-to-fail experiment is a small, low-risk initiative designed to explore a possible solution in a complex situation without causing significant harm if it fails. It aims to generate learning by testing ideas in real-world conditions where outcomes are uncertain. If the experiment fails, it can be quickly contained or reversed, minimising disruption while still yielding valuable insights.
A different approach
Other effective strategies for complex problems might include oblique approaches where you tackle issues in an indirect, less obvious, way. Another option is a naïve experiment in which you look at things through the eyes of a different discipline or perspective to uncover new insights.
Or a leader could take a contradictory approach. In complex systems, there is often more than one view of reality. Accepting multiple – perhaps contradictory – perspectives while embracing experimentation can lead to helpful insights. For example, a system wanting to improve the uptake of preventative services might take a two-pronged approach at the same time to see what works. One might be a structured awareness campaign using centrally approved messaging across healthcare settings while the second might involve tests informal, grassroots methods in the community, such as cafes or churches.
Complex adaptive systems behave in ways that are often counterintuitive. For example, one might think that increasing the number of hospital beds will directly reduce waiting times for patients. More beds mean more capacity so shorter waits. This seems logical from a linear systems perspective.
What actually happens is that it can increase delays and inefficiencies. Staffing shortages mean that new beds cannot be properly used, leading to underutilisation, or burnout of staff. More beds might attract more patient admissions (induced demand), especially from community and GP services that see the hospital as better equipped to handle cases. Increased hospital admissions can cause bottlenecks in downstream care, like social care or rehabilitation services, which aren’t simultaneously scaled up. This can cause bed blocking. This slows the entire patient flow, ironically increasing waiting times both for admission and discharge, despite more beds.
Effective leaders navigate this by continually developing their intellectual, emotional, and instinctive capacities. Ultimately, leaders must learn with the system as it evolves. This is the best way to nudge it in the right direction.
In the next article, we’ll explore the fourth and final step in becoming a successful ‘undefended’ system leader: self-integration.
This is the forth in a series of five articles on the subject. You can read the first one here, the second one here and the third one here.
