When we are least paying attention—just as a candid camera might reveal—systemic structures (or archetypes) quietly take control, shaping our realities. Like a frog slowly boiled in water, we are drawn into these patterns without realizing how they are changing us.
These structures reinforce themselves over time, steering us further from our intended goals. In fact, they have a way of shaping realities to serve their own “goals”—manifesting as economic recessions, labor disputes, declining education standards, environmental degradation, droughts, agricultural and manufacturing declines, rising poverty, unemployment, budget deficits, and other persistent challenges. These are not just problems; they are the outcomes that systemic structures naturally produce.
The challenge is that these shifts occur gradually, making it difficult to recognize their full impact. We become desensitized to change, noticing it only when we deliberately track trends over time. When we do, the patterns—what we call dynamic complexity—become strikingly clear.
However, these structures remain hidden until a crisis erupts. And when crises arise, our focus shifts to firefighting—managing the immediate emergency rather than identifying and dismantling the underlying structures that caused it. Once the crisis subsides, we return to business as usual rather than addressing the systemic roots of recurring problems.
This reactive cycle leaves us ill-equipped to detect, understand, and address dynamic complexities. Over time, we develop misguided assumptions about how to manage them. Here are a few of the most common myths I encounter in my work.
Myth #1: System Archetypes Stop Us from Thinking Independently
We believe we are thinking for ourselves—but in reality, we are not. When we engage deeply with this work, we begin to see that systemic structures subtly guide our thinking in specific ways, often without us realizing it.
The more time I spend with this work, the clearer it becomes: system archetypes do not serve as tools to aid thinking; rather, they reveal what is influencing our thoughts and why we keep falling into the same mental traps. They offer a way to step outside ourselves—to observe how we are repeatedly ensnared by these patterns.
Archetypes help us:
- Recognize the paradigms and assumptions that shape our perception of reality.
- See how we unconsciously recreate the very problems we aim to solve—problems that persist for decades in national and corporate development plans while leadership cycles come and go.
So, as you approach your next corporate planning session, take a moment to ask yourself: Are you truly thinking for yourself, or are unseen structures shaping your thoughts and leading you toward predetermined solutions? If so, the thinking has already been done for you—without you even realizing it.
Myth #2: System Archetypes Reveal Solutions
A common misunderstanding is that system archetypes or causal structures are tools for testing and presenting solutions. This approach misuses these frameworks, turning them into mechanisms for “balancing” or correcting problems rather than uncovering what is reinforcing them.
Archetypes—and causal diagrams more broadly—were never designed to validate predetermined solutions. Their primary purpose is to help us step back from individual symptoms (the trees) so that we can see the entire system (the forest) and recognize the structures that sustain persistent challenges. These hidden dynamics are what keep problems recurring, and without addressing them, any intervention is merely a temporary fix.
Take healthcare as an example. A conversation about hospital capacity cannot be separated from the underlying causes of illness. Many of these drivers—such as environmental conditions, lifestyle factors, or economic pressures—may lie beyond the hospital’s immediate control, but they cannot be ignored. A systemic approach requires us to chart the trends over time, revealing not just who is sick but how many are falling ill and why. The nation at large is often unaware of such patterns, perceiving illness only on an individual level—“I am sick”—rather than recognizing the scale—“We are sick.” It is the role of public services to illuminate these realities and help society understand the forces shaping them.
If the conversation remains fixated on infrastructure—expanding hospital capacity or improving patient turnover—it is akin to focusing on individual trees rather than the forest. It is like prioritizing the capture of criminals rather than addressing the root causes of crime. A criminal is not born; they are shaped by systemic conditions. Similarly, persistent societal challenges are not random; they are the result of deeply embedded structures that must be brought to light before real change can occur.
Myth #3: System Archetypes Are Too Generic to Address Real-Life Issues—They Aren’t Practical!
The truth is, until we fully grasp the realities of a problem, we cannot expect to solve it. The power of systems thinking lies in its ability to reveal these realities—showing us the hidden structures that drive persistent challenges. Once people truly understand the interconnected consequences of their actions, they often take responsibility on their own. For instance, when citizens recognize how personal health choices impact hospital congestion, they are more likely to adopt preventive care behaviors.
For governments, this understanding must be reinforced consistently—until the shift becomes second nature, much like the metaphorical “boiling frog” effect. Change happens gradually but deliberately. Simply visualizing these dynamics over time—often through something as simple as a graph—can be a revelation, helping people recognize the gaps in their understanding. The role of a systems thinker in public service is precisely this: to uncover and communicate these insights. And the best part? Systemic solutions, once seen in their entirety, are often the most cost-effective and sustainable path forward.
Systems Thinking Research & Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi) 