There is a famous quotation attributed to Albert Einstein that goes, “We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”<\/p>\n
While that makes sense when you think about it, if you think a little longer, that becomes a very frightening thought.<\/p>\n
Usually, to solve a problem, we try to “do” something that’s different – either trying a new product or service – or “do” something we’ve always been doing a little differently.<\/p>\n
“Do” is where our mind goes – rather than go to what’s really being asked – to “think” differently.<\/p>\n
And it’s difficult to “think” differently.<\/p>\n
If you’re familiar with my Website articles or books, you’ve probably read that I believe one of the reasons we experience the problems we do is based on how we were taught<\/em> to think.\u00a0 Research shows that even though teachers are trained in pedagogy, learning styles, and educational strategies, most teachers adopt the teaching style of their favorite teacher when they were in school.<\/p>\n The Scientific Method is the basis of any research project.\u00a0 There is always a “process” to follow – formulate a hypothesis, then research and test until the hypothesis is either proven or disproven.\u00a0 Conclusions are then used to formulate a more refined hypothesis, and the process continues until a method is determined to solve the problem.<\/p>\n And that’s what we “do” because of the way we were taught to think.<\/p>\n We are taught to think “linearly” – where every answer builds upon the last.\u00a0 Linear thinking leads to processes, which has created “process thinking.”<\/p>\n It’s not that linear thinking is bad.\u00a0 The problem with a problem (the “metaproblem,” if you will) is that if a problem created by linear thinking can’t be solved with linear thinking, then what kind of thinking is necessary.<\/p>\n Process thinking?\u00a0 That’s what was behind the industrial revolution and the development of the assembly line.<\/p>\n But now, process thinking doesn’t solve problems either, since most of our processes are now being handled by technology.\u00a0 Further, process thinking can only improve on current practices already in place.\u00a0 That’s the underpinnings of AI – it gathers as much information from existing resources as it can to provide some type of foundational response, but then it must be corrected or refined to get to the point that we’re trying to make or process that we’re trying to plan.<\/p>\n This is where systems thinking<\/strong> is essential for solving today’s problems.<\/p>\n What’s interesting to note is that we’ve been aware of systems thinking; we’ve just never identified and articulated it.<\/p>\n One of the realizations of systems thinking is that all components in a system have to be present for the system to work.\u00a0 If there is a missing or non-functioning component, then the system doesn’t function properly.\u00a0 We’ve come to know this phenomenon as “dysfunctional.”<\/p>\n Notice that there is no dysfunction in a linear process.\u00a0 If there’s an impediment to the process, the process stops…or slows to a crawl…until the impediment is removed.\u00a0 With process thinking, the impediment is improved, or a new linear path (a detour) is created.<\/p>\n Think of your computer’s connection to the Internet.\u00a0 It may be connected, but no data is being exchanged because there’s something that’s prohibiting the flow of data across your broadband connection.\u00a0 With process thinking, you may be able to connect wirelessly through WiFi.\u00a0 But with systems thinking, that is, by being aware of all the elements of a system, you may be able to connect through your mobile phone, using it as a hotspot, or through a different port on your router.\u00a0 Thinking about all parts of the system helps to solve a linear and process problem.<\/p>\n I get excited by writers like Daniel Pink that challenge conventional thought, and a number of sales texts which encourage “cognitive dissonance” to get people out of their “status quo” rut because they don’t like or fear change.<\/p>\n The fact of the matter is that if you don’t like the results you’re getting, some kind of change is necessary. It’s why I created a presentation called “Shift,” since a shift is indeed a change, yet it doesn’t sound as threatening as change, and because change is always thought of in the “macro” sense.<\/p>\n As was previously mentioned, one of the main flaws with any type of change is that we want to “do” things.\u00a0 From the time we’re young, we hear, “Don’t just sit there…DO something” when it’s perceived that we’re “wasting time” by not “doing” anything, when, in reality, we may have been thinking about a way to solve a persistent problem.<\/p>\n Not only are we compelled to “do” things, but our training pushes us to do them “one step at a time.”<\/p>\n With any new tool, product or service, there is an “Implementation Process” that must take place when a change happens. \u00a0Educators are well aware of this fact since everything requires some type of training, and more and more, training in multiple sessions – just like the student’s classroom experience!\u00a0 It’s the place where corporate trainers got the idea of scaffolding, spaced repetition and independent reinforcement (aka, “homework”).<\/p>\n The problem with any type of teaching or training is that it’s linear (step by step) AND a process (the steps must be followed in a particular order).\u00a0 This is great for left-brained people, while right-brained folks might want to try it first, then go to the training manual, start in the middle, or use the index to find what they need to get to, rather than following the chapter-at-a-time three-volume manual that has been prepared to master the new product or service.<\/p>\n Want proof?\u00a0\u00a0 If you own a car, when was the last time you read your car’s owner’s manual cover to cover before driving it?<\/p>\n If you haven’t read it, it’s not that it’s difficult reading.\u00a0 It’s written at a 4th grade reading level. \u00a0If you have viewed it, you’ve probably searched the index to find out why the car door never seems to lock, or what the strange red light that looks like Aladdin’s Lamp on your dashboard means. It’s hardly ever read as a textbook or an instruction manual.<\/p>\n Speaking of cars, they provide a great example of systems in action. If you have ever had a bad spark plug, your car will get there, but the drive won’t be a pleasant one.\u00a0 Or, if your car’s serpentine belt breaks, you may get to where you’re going, but it will be difficult to steer, brake, and the car may overheat before you get to where you’re going.\u00a0 All of a sudden, the $50 part is the cause of all these issues.<\/p>\n Speaking of systemically, it’s not enough to recommend just moving<\/em> to a systems thinking model.\u00a0 Just as process thinking builds on linear thinking, systems thinking also needs process thinking as its foundation.\u00a0 It’s not just one thing that’s necessary, but an additional<\/em> level of architecture, if you will.\u00a0 This provides a third level of complexity, but all three levels work together to create its own system.<\/p>\n As for process thinking, here’s a “metaprocess” (the process of a process) for process improvement in 5 easy-to-remember steps. Remembering is the first step to understanding, as we’ll never understand something if we don’t remember key foundational components (the essence of scaffolding). Rather than an acronym as a mnemonic device, just remember they all start with each of the 5 vowels:<\/p>\n 1. Openness \u2013 to a new way of thinking<\/p>\n 2. Acceptance \u2013 of a proposed solution<\/p>\n 3. Understanding \u2013 everyone involved must buy in to the proposed solution<\/p>\n 4. Implementation \u2013 of the proposed solution with as little deviation as possible<\/p>\n 5. Evaluation \u2013 of the solution\u2019s effectiveness and propose adjustments<\/p>\n Usually, the first step is the hardest one. How do you get people to be “open” to something new? If you’re a teacher, you must<\/em> be adept at it, because it’s your task to do that with every student every day. Challenging someone’s way of thinking, or causing “cognitive dissonance,” is one way it can happen.<\/p>\n But an even more effective way is to also cause “affective dissonance,” or “kinesthetic dissonance.” Dissonance is the realization that one’s currently formed mindset is being challenged by new information.<\/p>\n “Affective dissonance” can be described as “mixed emotions.”<\/p>\n “Kinesthetic dissonance” happens when one’s job responsibilities are adjusted, the physical demands of a job change, or even when one is employed in an occupation that relies on “shifts,” working daylight for a few days, then having to switch to overnight, or working one day for 12 hours and the next for 8, or worse, combining the two because, as some supervisors and scheduler would say, “That way, the schedule is fair to everyone.”<\/p>\n It also happens when rules change, new laws or restrictions are imposed, or favorite technology solutions are sunsetted.\u00a0 Work must continue, but “that’s the way we’ve always done it” suddenly no longer exists.\u00a0 We’ve all experienced this as a result of the pandemic.\u00a0 The problem is that we’re now “trying to go back” rather than “moving forward.”\u00a0 Moving forward into something new is called “advancement;” trying to go back is called “regression.”\u00a0 And even though it’s often longed for, going back will more than likely have disastrous results.<\/p>\n Here’s an example.<\/p>\n A school board hires a new head of school, and one of his first duties is to go about collecting the unpaid tuition that has occurred in the recent past.\u00a0 Since he came from a school that used FACTS for their tuition management through customizable and school-controlled payment plans and billing for incidental fees, he recommends using it at this school.\u00a0 The board concurs, since after seeing presentations from other companies and discerning which was the right choice, the board saw that it was the best solution for the school.<\/p>\n What happened?\u00a0 Parents got upset that they had to pay for a payment plan – even though the school’s successful tuition collection percentage topped 99%.\u00a0 Previously, the school sent invoices and hoped parents would pay on time – and many did not.\u00a0 Some didn’t pay at all under this previous process.<\/p>\n A few of those unhappy parents contacted former school board members, and one of them was so upset that he tossed his hat into the ring to be appointed to the board again.<\/p>\n He was elected.<\/p>\n What happened?<\/p>\n The current board chair was ousted, and the head of school was terminated.\u00a0 The school returned its billing practices to “the way it used to be.”\u00a0 Parents were happy – but the process of school office personnel doing all the billing, accounting and depositing of tuition payments manually returned…along with a significant amount of uncollected tuition.\u00a0 Cuts were made to balance the budget for the following year – cuts that weren’t popular – and parents disenrolled their children.\u00a0 And a drop in enrollment, especially from parents who fulfilled their tuition obligations, caused tuition to increase significantly, which made more parents have second thoughts about re-enrolling their children.<\/p>\n The school reengaged FACTS because they could no longer handle the workload that had resulted from regression.\u00a0 While there were still some parents who were unhappy about the decision, the school’s ability to operate was restored.<\/p>\n An event must significantly touch someone deeply and personally for one to be open to the potential that something new is better than what’s currently in place.\u00a0 Then and only then can a process continue onward through “transition” to a successful “transformation,” which can only happen when systems thinking is put into practice.<\/p>\n \u00a9 Michael V. Ziemski, SchoolAdvancement, 2012-2025<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There is a famous quotation attributed to Albert Einstein that goes, “We cannot solve problems by using the same kind […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2309,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tetrahedronics"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Tetrahedronics.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ggCS-Iv","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2759","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2759"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7974,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2759\/revisions\/7974"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2309"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schooladvancement.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}