Newtonian System Thinking

The purpose of this review is to analyze the salient components of systems thinking, especially as they relate to work and school settings. Systems thinking depends on the ability to see the whole, to appreciate that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts ( Ackoff, 2004, B; Bussolari & Goodell, 2000, p. 9; Florida, 2007; Wheatley, 2006, p 35). Systems thinking requires a deliberate move away from mechanistic Newtonian thought which focuses on the importance of individual parts and a move towards quantum thought which focuses on the whole system and celebrates the crucial function of relationships (Capra, 1991; Wheatley, 2006, p. 11). Many businesses and schools are currently driven by Newtonian thinking: eager to replace parts in

For centuries Newtonian theory has dominated both scientific and social thought. Newtonian theory is mechanistic: parts are easily replaceable to keep the machine, the whole, running. This theory, in fact, works well when applied to machines. If one part of a clock is broken, it can be replaced so that the clock will continue to perform (Capra, 1991). This theory, does not, however, work well when applied to people. Wheatley (2007) was clear on this: people do not behave like machines (New story, p. 19). People, instead, depend on relationships (Wheatley, 2006, pp. 34-35). For example, replacing a retiring teacher with a new teacher will not necessarily net the same result. The retiring teacher has formed relationships (good and bad) that contribute to performance. The new teacher has no relationships but does have unknown potential. The same is true in business. While it seems logical that one licensed real estate agent could replace another with the same qualifications, the outcome might be quite different. Pink (2005) offered the following example: a real estate agent used narrative to sell a house while the other realtors used traditional methods. Her house sold (pp. 109-110). This realtor might look the same on paper as any of the others, but she is the creative thinker, the top performer. People are not interchangeable. Anything can happen; change is certain. People behave more similarly to quantum law than to Newtonian

Basista (2009) clarified that in quantum theory there is only probability, not certainty. Wheatley (2006) explained that when examining atomic structure, “Physicists can plot the probability and results of these [atomic] interactions, but no particle can be drawn independent from the others” (p. 34). Bellinger (2004-2005) echoed this idea, concluding that if A affects B, B also affects A (par. 6). Voter A, for example, affects politician B by voting for him. He (politician B) then affects Voter A by enacting laws and policies. What happens in the atomic world, however, cannot necessarily be visualized. In fact, the film MindWalk contended that there is no metaphor for solid matter (Capra 1991). This sometimes makes Newtonian thought more appealing. People are more comfortable with what is known; that is why people seek out those who share the same thoughts and beliefs (Wheatley, 2007, Paradox, p. 45). The behavior is self-preservationist, but the outcome is destructive because it undermines evolution and growth. When people only look at the parts, they fail to see the relationships that make the whole. This misperception can lead to misunderstanding and failure. As Rosling (2008) concluded when “Debunking the myths about Africa,” treating every part of Africa as if it is the same is erroneous. Some countries in Africa have made huge strides in health and wealth, while others remain in decline. Similarly, several