The Hidden Power of Redefining Problems: A Systems Thinking Approach
- Katie Shearn
- Apr 28
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 30
When it feels like there are only a few limited options on the table, it’s often a sign the problem is asking to be seen differently. Systems thinking expands the view — revealing smarter, more cost-effective, and sustainable solutions that might otherwise stay hidden. By redefining how the parts of a system connect and influence each other, we move beyond quick fixes and toward outcomes that strengthen the entire system and create results that last.
We’ve all been there:
You’re stuck between two bad options, and neither one feels right.
Do you take the risk and deal with the fallout?
Or do you hold back and suffer a different kind of loss?
When you're caught in that kind of either/or trap, it can feel like there’s no good way out — like the only thing you can do is pick the "less bad" option and hope for the best.
But often, the real opportunity isn’t about choosing harder.It’s about designing smarter.
Systems thinking helps us step outside narrow choices and reframe problems in a way that reveals better, more sustainable paths forward. Here's an example that brings that idea to life.
A Story of Narrow Options — and a Smarter Way Out
Picture this:
A company president is faced with a delicate crisis.
His wife and father-in-law (the company’s majority stockholder) are urging him to appoint his brother-in-law, Charles II, as the new head of R&D.The problem?Charles II is completely unqualified — he spent ten years failing to pass basic college algebra.
The president quickly sees two painful options:
Hire Charles II, which would likely destroy the company's research output, or
Refuse to hire him, which could cost him his job, his marriage, and the goodwill of the family.
It’s a textbook lose-lose situation.
How Systems Thinking Redefined the Problem
Instead of locking himself into the difficult choices, the president took a step back and asked a different question:
"Is there a way to change the structure so that Charles II’s appointment doesn’t damage the system?"
That shift — from choosing between two outcomes to redesigning the system itself — is the heart of systems thinking.
Rather than focusing only on Charles II’s ability (or lack thereof), the president widened his view:
He looked at how R&D outputs fed into production.
He considered where influence points existed.
He thought about how different parts of the company interacted.
With this broader perspective, he found a smarter path forward:
He appointed Charles II to the R&D role, satisfying the family pressure.
But he also restructured the process so that the outputs of R&D would be automatically routed and filtered into production, creating a feedback loop that preserved quality and performance — regardless of Charles II’s individual competence.
In short, he redesigned the system to buffer the risk rather than trying to fight the appointment directly.
The following diagram lays out the systems thinking process behind this decision.
If Charles II were appointed as research manager without any structural changes, the R&D department’s valuable output would essentially collapse — it could be represented numerically as zero — meaning the department would stop producing anything useful.
However, by redesigning the system to include a feedback loop — where production helps guide and filter R&D work — the company could maintain strong performance, even with Charles II still holding the research manager title.
Instead of relying solely on leadership from one individual, the structure itself protects quality, realigns efforts, and keeps the system resilient over time.
The solution wasn’t an all-or-nothing decision; it was about finding the most optimized path for the health of the entire system — balancing the wellbeing of the company with the president’s personal relationships and long-term stability.
Designing Smarter, Not Just Choosing Differently
This story highlights a key systems thinking principle:
The real problem isn’t always which choice you make — it’s how you define the choices in the first place.
When we stay trapped inside a narrow frame ("Do I hire or not?"), we limit ourselves to managing consequences — reacting to fallout instead of redesigning the system to create better outcomes.
By redefining the problem and seeing the system as a whole, we open new possibilities — ones that often lead to smarter, more sustainable solutions.
In this case, instead of suffering through a bad outcome, the president preserved:
The health of the company,
His leadership role, and
His relationship with his family.
All because he saw that the true leverage wasn’t in resisting — it was in redesigning.
A Deeper Look into Strengthening Feedback Loops: Building Resilience Without Strain
But even with smart system redesigns, there’s another important layer to consider: how to strengthen resilience without creating new strain inside the system.
It’s a real risk. Redefining responsibilities without care can backfire — creating resentment, burnout, and even quiet sabotage inside the system.
That’s why one of the smartest moves a leader can make is to strengthen intrinsic feedback loops.
By strengthening how information flows between R&D and production:
The company could catch mistakes early,
Adjust outputs quickly, and
Protect quality without adding new headcount or overburdening employees.
Instead of pushing extra work onto people, the president made the system itself smarter and more adaptive.
This is a deeper kind of resilience — one that builds strength into the structure without creating hidden costs elsewhere.
A Larger Lesson: Designing for Change, Not Just Managing It
Every decision introduces change into a system.
But not all changes create the same ripple effects.
Some changes (like dumping new work onto already stretched teams) might solve today’s problem but quietly break tomorrow’s system.Other changes (like reinforcing feedback loops) build durability without adding unnecessary strain.
When we take the time to understand the interconnections and the feedback paths in the systems we manage, we uncover true leverage points — small shifts that make everything work better, faster, and more sustainably.
Final Thought
The real power of systems thinking isn’t about being smarter than others.It’s about seeing differently.
It’s about recognizing that when you're stuck between bad options, you don’t always have to choose harder — sometimes, you can design smarter.
By redefining the problem, designing better structures, and strengthening feedback loops, we create organizations, teams, and relationships that can thrive under pressure, not just survive it.
And in today’s world, that kind of thinking isn’t just helpful — it's essential.
Reference: This article draws on an example originally presented in Introduction to System Science by Gary M. Sandquist (1974), used here to illustrate key principles of systems thinking and organizational design.
Comments