This is where a lot of systems thinking training falls short. It teaches the models: Cynefin, requisite variety, the archetypes. All genuinely useful, and all portable in the abstract. But the framework traveling to a new domain and the judgment traveling to a new domain are two different things.
Ashby’s Law holds everywhere, but what it demands of a IT program is not what it demands of a supply chain or a public health system. The variables that matter change. The constraints change. The people change. A pattern that’s reliable in one context does not transfer cleanly to another just because the underlying structure looks the same on paper.
After Systems Thinking, Comes Ashby’s Law
In the last piece, I mapped three frameworks that extend systems thinking into genuinely complex terrain: Cynefin, Complex Adaptive Systems theory, and Ashby’s Law. Each one takes you further from th…
That’s what nuance actually is. It isn’t a softer version of expertise, but what expertise looks like once it has been tested against enough specific, contradictory cases that you stop trusting your first read automatically. You develop a working suspicion of your own pattern recognition. That sounds like a weakness, but it’s closer to the sign that the thinking has become real.
The Mental Model Navigator: How to Pick the Right Framework for the Problem
Open LinkedIn or pick up a strategy book, and you’ll be overwhelmed with frameworks: Porter’s Five Forces, Blue Ocean, OODA Loops, Systems Thinking, Eisenhower Matrix, and on and on. Most leaders, pr…
I don’t think this comes from reading more frameworks. It comes from being wrong inside a domain enough times, in ways that cost something, until the models stop being ideas you hold and become reflexes you can’t fully explain.
That’s the gap between knowing systems thinking and having it. There’s no shortcut through it, only more contact with more domains.
Nicole