by Thomas Lim | Dec 5, 2025
This article is originally published on Forbes on 3 Dec 2025 [Link to original article]
In my experience, transformation does not fail because leaders lack ambition. It fails because organisational energy collapses long before results materialise. I’ve seen many mid-sized companies enter change with a bold vision and compelling technology story, only to find that adoption stalls, fatigue rises and progress becomes uneven.
The challenge is not strategy. It is sequencing. And more specifically, sequencing human energy and organisational scaffolding so that change becomes sustainable rather than suffocating.
A new kind of leadership discipline is required—one that blends the practical architecture of change execution with a deep understanding of how people build capability, resilience and belief during discomfort.
The Tension Between Urgency And Capacity
Mid-sized enterprises today often operate in compressed timelines. New technologies arrive faster than capability systems can form. Internal talent pipelines must adapt while existing revenue engines continue to run.
When leaders pursue speed without designing energy systems, burnout becomes structural. Psychological safety is essential in driving learning, innovation and performance. Without it, employees retreat from challenge, creativity shrinks and change becomes compliance rather than commitment.
Three Places Change Breaks Down
From what I’ve seen, many transformation programmes collapse under three predictable missteps.
First, a change vision is launched without a clear leadership spine. No formal sponsor cadence, no named champions, no empowered change agents. Decisions slow. Alignment frays. People guess priorities instead of executing them.
Second, stress is treated as a threat to be minimised rather than a learning stimulus to be channeled. The most adaptive organisations are not stress-free. They are stress-intelligent. They know how to create challenge without crushing capacity.
Third, capability building comes too late. Leaders install new platforms, tools and workflows, then scramble to train teams once cracks appear. This backward sequencing drives resistance. People need skill, confidence and psychological readiness before the sprint begins.
These missteps are not signs of poor intention. They are signs of an outdated change script. The environment has evolved. Our operating assumptions must evolve with it.
A Better Path: Sequence, Do Not Surge
There is a more sustainable and effective way to transform. It rests on three interdependent movements: Build a minimal change spine, prime the culture and capability before scaling and run short learning cycles that accelerate ownership.
1. Build the change spine.
Every change requires a spine. This includes:
• A visible sponsor who protects priority and unblocks constraints,
• A respected champion who translates vision into clear execution signals and
• Named change agents who mobilize teams and feedback real-time insights.
Alongside these roles sits a simple cadence. Weekly 30-minute sponsor reviews. Daily short agent check-ins. Monthly open forums for employees to raise questions and surface risks.
This spine does not add bureaucracy; it reduces friction. It replaces ambiguity with clarity. It anchors the change so that no one wonders who is accountable or how decisions move. Sustained stakeholder management, clear governance and role clarity are among the strongest correlates of transformation success. A well-defined spine is therefore not administrative. It is strategic.
2. Prime energy and capability.
Before acceleration, leaders must prepare the ground. That means shaping the psychological and behavioural conditions that allow stress to become fuel rather than fatigue.
This is where the PEARLS principles come alive in practice: anchoring purpose, connecting past experience to new demands, clarifying values and beliefs, reinforcing resilience and flexibility, nurturing learning mindsets and encouraging small acts of courage. These are not slogans but rather operational behaviors that determine whether teams lean forward into change or brace against it.
This capability-priming phase should not be an afterthought; it should be the first milestone. People need the mental models and practical routines to process ambiguity, test ideas and correct course. Without this foundation, organisations overheat. With it, they adapt faster than the pace of change itself.
3. Run short cycles and stabilise.
Once the spine is active and the energy system is primed, execution begins through short cycles: pilot, learn, lift. Then scale only what works.
This rhythm builds evidence, confidence and momentum. It also protects against initiative overload, one of the most common causes of fatigue in mid-sized firms. Using an innovation change model can transfer systemic improvement insights into the broader organisation. Those that iterate and learn rapidly during transformation outperform those that wait for perfection.
The lesson is simple: Change accelerates when leaders treat execution as a sequence of learning steps, not a straight line.
How Leaders Hold The Center
Leaders carry the emotional gravity of change. Their language, presence and discipline shape how others interpret the journey. Three behaviours matter:
First, protect time for learning. Create a fixed reflective space every week where teams share insights and celebrate adaptability. This reinforces resilience as a normal part of work.
Second, reduce noise. When change begins, other demands must pause or narrow. This signals respect for the effort and creates psychological permission to focus.
Third, demonstrate vulnerability without surrendering direction. Leaders who admit uncertainty while reinforcing purpose build trust and collective strength. These relational capacities distinguish high-performing change leaders from average ones.
From Fragile Momentum To Regenerative Strength
When organisations learn to build their change spine early, prime capability before acceleration and execute through cycles of learning, they cross an inflection point. Change stops feeling like disruption and begins to feel like evolution.
The real power lies not only in achieving new outcomes but also in what the organisation becomes in the process: Adaptive. Energised. Accountable. Capable of converting challenge into competence.
Sustained transformation is never the product of pressure alone. It is the product of purposeful pressure, sequenced energy and leadership that sees people not as the recipients of change but as its engine. The most successful transformations are those where leaders shape clear roles, behaviours and rhythms that support adoption.
In other words, focus not just on the Quality of the technical solution. But equally, pursue the Acceptance of the people. That’s how Effective results are derived (Q x A = E). This is the shift from managing disruption to mastering growth.
by SIM Academy | Dec 3, 2025
In an increasingly complex and uncertain world, leaders need new frameworks and tools to make sense of and engage successfully with the challenges they face. We sat down with Dr. Michael C. Jackson, a leading expert in systems thinking, to discuss the EPIC Framework and how it can help leaders navigate complexity and drive meaningful improvements.
UNDERSTANDING THE EPIC FRAMEWORK
Q: Can you briefly explain the EPIC Framework and how it helps leaders reframe and navigate complex challenges?
Dr. Jackson: Before diving into the EPIC Framework, let me take a step back and talk about Critical Systems Thinking (CSP). CSP is a pragmatist approach, acknowledging that there is no ‘God’s eye view’ that can provide complete understanding of complex issues. It therefore facilitates a multi-perspectival approach to sense-making with a view to choosing the most appropriate systems approaches for ensuring multidimensional improvement in a situation of interest.
The EPIC Framework puts CST into practice. Think of EPIC as a method for making sense of deeply complex problem situations and choosing the best approaches that systems thinking has to offer to actively bring about improvement in those situations. Essentially, it helps you gain a much fuller picture of how complex the problem really is and the best way to tackle it. EPIC stands for Explore (the problem situation), Produce (a systemic intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly), and Check (the results of the intervention).
CST recognises that no single systems approach is universally best. It values diverse systems approaches, understanding their strengths and limitations. By combining these approaches as appropriate to the context, EPIC supports ’complex thought’ – a necessary mindset for thriving in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) or BANI (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible) world.
Q: Can you elaborate on “Complex Thought”?
Dr. Jackson: Certainly. Some systems thinkers cling to the idea that they can precisely model a system of interest and use their preferred approach to predict and control what is going to happen. This is what Edgar Morin calls ‘simple thought’. CST recognizes that this is impossible and accepts that no one approach can solve every problem. It argues that getting a complete understanding of reality is unrealistic and that we must rely on useful partial truths. When we look closely, we can see that each systems approach is based on a partial view of reality and offers only a limited form of intervention. It follows that while a particular approach may be most useful in a specific situation, it might not be elsewhere. Relying on a single systems approach oversimplifies the complexity of the VUCA/BANI world, often with disastrous consequences. Developing ‘complex thought’ means learning to inhabit different perspectives and to use a variety of systems approaches to navigate complexity effectively.
Q: How can leaders effectively “Explore” the systemic context before acting? What are some common pitfalls to avoid?
Dr. Jackson: Exploration involves examining the problem through various systemic lenses to uncover primary and secondary issues. These perspectives can help enhance the experience and knowledge of context that good leaders already possess. A key pitfall is the belief that some have that they need to demonstrate certainty in the face of complexity and rush to get things done. This frequently leads to them addressing the wrong problem. Multidimensional complexity demands that issues are explored through multiple perspectives to ensure the right problem is addressed in the right way.
Five systemic lenses—mechanical, interrelationships, organismic, purposeful, and societal/environmental—have shown that they can provide deep insights into complex problems. Using them helps identify failings and opportunities for improvement. I recommend leaders start by methodically exploring with these lenses to develop a deeper, more rounded, and useful appreciation of the problem situation that confronts them.
Q: Can you provide an example of how complex thought can be applied using the five systemic lenses?
Dr. Jackson: Certainly. Let’s consider a healthcare crisis, such as the Covid 19 pandemic, to demonstrate how the five systemic perspectives can foster complex thought, using the UK as an example.
Mechanical Perspective: Think of this as applying an engineering mindset. From this lens, we examine tangible infrastructure issues like staff shortages, lack of hospital beds, PPE, and ventilators, supply chain disruptions, no adequate ‘track and trace’ mechanisms, and insufficient microbiology and virology labs. These are concrete operational problems that require practical solutions.
Interrelationships Perspective: This perspective involves recognizing how different components of the system interact with one another. For example, the relationship between the NHS and care homes is crucial; the degree of coordination between these sectors can hugely impact the overall effectiveness of crisis response. In the UK this relationship had been neglected with significant consequences for the spread of the disease.
Organismic Perspective: Viewing the system as a living organism emphasises learning, adaptability and local autonomy. Unlike machines, biological systems learn from their environment and evolve. Applying this lens, we see that the health system had not sufficiently learned from past epidemics like SARS or Ebola. Further, an overly centralised response failed to adequately support local initiative and learning. Greater decentralisation would have improved the agility of the response.
Purposeful Perspective: This perspective considers the beliefs, mental models, and intentions of the actors within the system. Factors such as trust, groupthink around ‘the science,’ political opportunism, and the cultural view of the NHS as ‘sacred’ influenced decision-making and public compliance. Understanding these cultural and political motivations is crucial for effective leadership.
Societal/Environmental Perspective: Finally, this lens addresses broader social and environmental factors. During a pandemic, vulnerable groups—such as BAME populations and individuals with disabilities—are disproportionately impacted. Systematic ageism and social inequalities further shaped the outcomes, highlighting the importance of equity-focused preparation and response.
By undertaking Explore, viewing the situation of interest through all five perspectives simultaneously, leaders and stakeholders develop a more nuanced understanding of all the different factors at work, encompassing matters of efficiency, interrelationships, organisational agility, mutual understanding, groupthink, and inequality. This multiperspectival approach enables them to Produce an intervention strategy using the most appropriate systems approach or approaches available for dealing with the most pressing problems they face. Leaders can then move on to Intervene flexibly, aware that the situation will be constantly changing and they may need to revisit Explore to determine whether the intervention strategy needs adjusting. Periodically, a Check is done to ensure that multidimensional improvement is indeed occurring. It is not sufficient just to improve efficiency if, in the process, agility and trust are compromised. See diagram of the EPIC cycle.
BUILDING SYSTEMS LEADERSHIP CAPABILITIES
Q: What advice would you give to leaders just beginning to explore systemic approaches like EPIC?
Dr. Jackson: The most important step is fostering a mindset shift. Leaders must accept that no single approach can fully address a complex ‘mess’. Instead, they need to use multiple perspectives to explore the situation fully, identify the most appropriate issues that need addressing, and understand the variety of systems approaches available to tackle those issues and their various strengths and weaknesses. The key is knowing when and how to deploy them. In this way, leaders can avoid simplistic solutions and more effectively navigate complexity.
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Q: Are there emerging trends or challenges that the EPIC Framework is particularly well-suited to address?
Dr. Jackson: EPIC was designed for and is especially useful when confronting complex issues – when trying to solve truly complex, multi-layered problems. However, many problems that may initially appear simple can turn out to be highly complex when you engage with them. It is, therefore, always sensible to go through the Explore stage to expose hidden difficulties. This can save time and money in the long run. It is always better to embrace complexity rather than ignore it.
Q: In your view, how will frameworks like EPIC shape the future of strategic management and leadership?
Dr. Jackson: Frameworks like EPIC will be instrumental in shifting leadership practices in a more holistic, adaptive, participative, and inclusive direction. They encourage leaders to operate using diverse perspectives, think and act systemically, consider multiple stakeholders, and remain flexible in the face of uncertainty. These qualities are all essential for thriving in the current BANI environment.
Q: In your experience, how likely is it for any organisation or government to embrace complex thought using critical systems thinking and EPIC. Can you provide examples?
Dr Jackson: Governments and all organisational types are having to face up to increased complexity and are coming to recognise systems thinking as the means to navigate complexity. There are different systems approaches available which address different aspects of complexity. Critical Systems Thinking identifies what they are each good at and EPIC shows you how to use them in tandem to navigate multidimensional complexity. EPIC has only recently been developed (M.C. Jackson, ‘Critical Systems Thinking: A Practitioner’s Guide’, Wiley, 2024). But is already being applied to problems of strategy, organisational design, project management, supply chain management, risk, and evaluation in government departments, local authorities, health policy and administration, education, business, the third sector, and community work.
For more information on Systems Leadership Programmes for your organisation, please contact us at simacademy@sim.edu.sg.
by Thomas Lim | Nov 7, 2025
This article is originally published on Forbes on 5 Nov 2025 [Link to original article]
Innovation does not begin with invention; it begins with intention. The most transformative organizations do not innovate by accident; they design for it. They translate guiding ideas into living systems of learning, adaptation and change. We can think of this as a two-part systemic machinery (architecture and essence) where the process first starts with architecting, which is about taking a “guiding idea” through the visible structures, tools and systems for iterative experimentation.
When the change mechanisms have kicked in and the innovation becomes a reality for the organisation, the second part is about internalising the minted innovative idea and reflecting on the experience to build new sensibilities and awareness (i.e., the essence of the innovation) so that this becomes a repeatable success formula, rather than being a one-off lucky creative manifestation.
For systemic innovation to become embedded as an organisational culture, leaders need to view innovation as a regenerative system that scales meaningfully across individuals and teams and that can be codified for success. One can envisage this as a three-phase flow:
Phase 1: Initiating Change: Clarifying Purpose And Framing Approach
Every transformation starts with an initial spark, a guiding idea that aligns vision with meaning. It is not a slogan but a shared conviction about what the organization seeks to create in the world. Take DBS Bank in Singapore, for instance—its reinvention included a reframing of banking itself, anchored on its purpose: “a purpose beyond banking” and “reimagining banking through digital to serve people better.” That purpose did more than inspire; it structured how the bank viewed customers, data and innovation.
In this phase, therefore, the vision provides the impetus to build the “container” for change. Two foundational acts occur here:
1. Clarify Purpose (Guiding Ideas): Define why innovation matters. DBS turned its corporate purpose into a moral compass, linking innovation to human progress rather than efficiency.
2. Frame Approach (Methods And Tools): Define how innovation occurs. The use of human-centered design, agile squads and journey-mapping tools helps reframe problems from “product” to “experience.”
With this in mind, DBS Bank can use various tools to activate the innovation agenda (e.g., conducting internal “makethons”) using the guiding idea to serve people better. Through empathy, collaboration and experimentation, the bank can learn to diagnose workplace friction and reimagine it through systemic design. The process was not construed as an event; it was the organisation learning how to think differently within a bounded system.
In this initiating phase, organisations must reaffirm their values as stabilising anchors while cultivating curiosity as a disruptive force. The purpose defines the direction; the framework defines the rhythm.
Phase 2: Creating Change: Enabling Systems And Building Capability
Once a guiding idea is clear, the next challenge is translating belief into a system. In the creating change phase, organisations move from aspiration to activation, where architecture is put into motion. It is the space where purpose is no longer what the company says but what its systems make possible.
The company Grab offers a powerful example. What began as a ride-hailing service was never just about moving people; it was about enabling mobility in the broadest sense: mobility of opportunity, of livelihoods, of daily life. Guided by this purpose, the company architected an ecosystem that integrates transport, payments, food and financial services into a single super app. This shift did not happen by chasing new verticals but by designing the systems that allow innovation to scale. In this phase, we see the following at work:
Enabling Systems (Infrastructure)
The rideshare company built an adaptive architecture that could evolve with user needs—first connecting drivers and passengers, then merchants, couriers and consumers. Each new service—GrabPay, GrabFood, GrabMart—was not a separate product but a node in a shared infrastructure. The system became the incubator for new ideas, not just their container.
Building Capability (Skills)
With the infrastructure in place, Grab focused on developing the who. It cultivated a culture of autonomy and accountability; teams were empowered to ideate, prototype and test without waiting for hierarchical approval. The company understands that innovation often comes from those closest to the customer. In essence, the company built a workforce fluent in experimentation.
In this phase, the organisation learns to convert curiosity into capability. It builds not just better products but better learners, capable of shaping the next iteration of change.
Phase 3: Integrating Change: Deepening Insight And Shifting Mindsets
At this stage, innovation ceases to be a program and becomes a way of being. In the integrating change phase, organisations internalize what they have learned through experimentation and distill the essence—how transforming practices are codified into structured guidance as a shared belief. The essence of innovation begins to take root when people no longer see it as something they do but as something that defines who they are becoming. The company’s journey aptly illustrates this subtle yet powerful transition.
Deepening Insight (Awareness)
Innovation creates new awareness about how systems behave and interact. The company’s teams learned that enabling convenience for consumers required deep empathy for multiple stakeholders within an enlarged ecosystem. By continuously observing feedback loops across the ecosystem, the company refined its understanding of the human and operational dynamics that underpin sustainable innovation.
Shifting Mindset (Beliefs)
Over time, awareness transforms into belief. At Grab, autonomy and accountability evolved from management rhetoric into lived values. Teams no longer waited for approval to act; they assumed ownership as a cultural norm. Leaders internalised humility not as a slogan but as an operational truth: Innovation thrives when decision-making is distributed and learning is shared.
In the end, architecting impactful innovation is less about chasing down change and more about cultivating coherence between purpose, structure and mindset. When guiding ideas are translated through enabling systems and then internalised as shared beliefs, organisations unlock a regenerative capacity.
Sustainable innovation emerges not from isolated breakthroughs but from systemic alignment where architecture supports essence and essence redefines architecture. This is the real artistry of innovation: designing organisations that learn, adapt and evolve as one living system, where every change strengthens not only what they do but who they become.
by Thomas Lim | Nov 5, 2025
Q&A with Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Dementia Singapore and Singapore Cancer Society
Leaders from across Singapore’s healthcare ecosystem came together for a generative conversation at the CEO Roundtable on Systems Leadership in Healthcare on 15 October 2025, co-organised by SIM Academy’s Centre for Systems Leadership (CSL) and NHG College.
Over the two-hour session, participants exchanged candid insights on capacity and capability building, new operating models, and the shift from organisation-centric perspectives to ecosystem-wide systemic challenges.
Moderated by Dr Ng Yeuk Fan, Director, Corporate Development at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, the discussion was enriched by Professor Michael C. Jackson, Emeritus Professor at the University of Hull, who shared his pioneering work in Critical Systems Thinking and real-world experience in the UK.
Following the event, we spoke with several participants to capture their key insights and aspirations for the future of Singapore’s healthcare and social sectors.
A/PROF NG YEUK FAN, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT AT KHOO TECK PUAT HOSPITAL
Q: You mentioned that most systems are assumed in healthcare. Can you elaborate on this, and how can we better approach healthcare challenges systemically?
A: When I remarked that “most systems are assumed,” I meant that in the real world — especially in health and social care — systems are perspectives we take to make sense of complexity. Yet, because these perspectives differ depending on our roles, lived experiences, and the phase of change we are in, we often hold unspoken or misaligned assumptions about what the “system” is. Some see it as clinical workflows, others as organisational structures, population health arrangements, or even governance and data systems. Without explicit dialogue to surface and align these perspectives, our collective efforts at improvement risk working at cross-purposes. We must therefore invest more in conversations that make systems visible, so that we can redesign them together toward shared outcomes.
Q: What are your main insights from the CEO Roundtable, and how do you see the healthcare ecosystem collaborating more effectively?
A: From the CEO Roundtable, several insights stood out. First, misalignment often hides in information flow, not intent — system stewards must learn to manage the “seeing before the solving”. Second, building systems capability is a long-term effort. Many organisations try to “simplify” systems thinking by assuming that if work processes are designed well enough, people will act systemically without needing to learn systems thinking itself. But CEOs agreed that this is a shortcut — while it may produce short-term coherence, it leaves staff and emerging leaders unprepared for complex situations. There is ultimately no substitute for developing the ability to think systemically, both individually and collectively as leadership teams.
Q: What are your aspirations for how the healthcare ecosystem can collaborate more effectively to improve patient outcomes?
A: My aspiration is that more people in our health and social care ecosystem come to see that systemic work is possible. Once we understand that a deeper level of sophistication in seeing and shaping systems can be learned, we lay the foundation for far more effective and adaptive forms of leadership. But this requires first the awareness and belief that such sophistication is possible — that we can, together, become more capable stewards of our complex systems for better outcomes.
MR PAUL HENG, BOARD MEMBER, DEMENTIA SINGAPORE
Q: Dementia care spans across families, healthcare institutions, and communities. What are the systemic gaps you see in ensuring continuity of care across these touchpoints?
A: The need for professional dementia care continues to rise here in Singapore. The number of persons with dementia is steadily increasing, and this trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Historically, dementia has been associated with old age. However, this is no longer the case, as persons with what we term Young Onset Dementia (YOD)—those diagnosed before the age of 65—are becoming more prevalent.
Although DSG is a 35-year-old organisation (we were previously known as the Alzheimer’s Disease Association), our learning journey continues. The two most recent gaps we’ve identified are the need for specialised care for YODs and palliative care.
We don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, our learning journey persists. There is no established playbook for us. I am confident that as we forge ahead, we will uncover even more gaps along the way.
Q: What does a “systems-thinking culture” look like in an organisation like Dementia Singapore?
A: DSG is not unlike any other organisation. One of the key difference is perhaps, the existence of a board of directors whose main role is to work with the senior management team to set the vision and mission for DSG on a 3-year basis. Given the speed and regularity of changes, it would be wise of us to shorten the 3 to, perhaps 2 year visions.
For 35 years, we have operated in a manner that we have been accustomed to. Again, this is not unlike many other organisations. However, the necessary changes, perhaps primarily in how we think and lead DSG, must start from the top. For every decision, change, or initiative we plan to undertake, we must adopt a holistic (versus siloed) perspective, considering all the various stakeholders within our ecosystem.
This transformation will not happen overnight, of course. The key driver is the first step, and that must come from the board. The senior management team has completed two rounds of two-day systems leadership training, but little has changed since then. In my opinion, we need to get the board similarly trained and have one or two champions to push the envelope from there.
Q: From the discussions at the Healthcare CEO Roundtable, what are the main key takeaways and insights you would like to share with the healthcare and social service ecosystem? Additionally, what are your aspirations for how the healthcare ecosystem can collaborate more effectively to improve patient outcomes?
A: We need to retire the saying: “If it ain’t broken, why fix it” with “We need to make a systemic shift if we want to continue being an effective organisation.” What has worked for the past 35 years may continue to work for the years to come, but should we be satisfied with that? Or do we aspire to be better? Like any other social service agencies, my hope for DSG is that our continued evolution will eventually make our current role redundant.
MR DENNIS CHIA, GROUP DIRECTOR, SINGAPORE CANCER SOCIETY
Q: What do you see as the biggest challenges currently facing the social service sector? Could you share your approach to addressing these challenges as a leader?
A: One of the most pressing challenges is capacity building. In the charity and social service sectors, there is a strong emphasis on addressing immediate needs, particularly in patient care. However, this often comes at the expense of long-term investment in developing people and systems. We need to dedicate time to develop our people for the future, training them to think systemically and approach problems from a broader perspective. I believe it’s essential to balance urgent service delivery with strategic workforce development. This includes fostering a culture of continuous learning, investing in leadership development, and aligning team capabilities with long-term organisational goals.
Q: What mindset shifts do you believe are most essential for social service organisations to think and act more systemically?
A: To think and act more systemically, social service organisations must shift from siloed, function-specific KPIs to a shared accountability model, if they have not already done so. The “silo mentality” can hinder a holistic understanding of the service user’s journey. Encouraging cross-functional collaboration and aligning incentives around system-wide outcomes—rather than isolated departmental metrics—are critical steps toward systemic thinking. System enablers would need to be in place to support shared accountability and care, including ability and willingness to share data.
Q: For emerging social service leaders navigating today’s BANI environment—bold, adaptive, non-linear, and inclusive—what would be your top advice for leading effectively and staying flexible in such a complex landscape?
A: We need to train leaders to think systematically and create structures that support holistic problem-solving. This is especially important to guide emerging leaders through complexity. I encourage us to think about these beyond “departments” and “organisations” because our service users navigate the entire ecosystem.
Q: From the discussions at the Healthcare CEO Roundtable, what are the main key takeaways and insights you would like to share with the healthcare and social service ecosystem? Additionally, what are your aspirations for how the healthcare ecosystem can collaborate more effectively to improve patient outcomes?
A: There is a need to strengthen system resilience in Singapore’s healthcare landscape. Frameworks like E.P.I.C. (shared by Prof. Michael C. Jackson) are useful for guiding systemic reflection, especially in a complex industry such as healthcare.
It is important for us to collaborate across the entire healthcare ecosystem, in support of national initiatives like HealthierSG, so that we can collectively serve our population in the best possible way.
Leadership Must Evolve from Managing Institutions to Stewarding Ecosystems
Thomas Lim, dean of the SIM Academy’s Centre for Systems Leadership, remarked that the CEO Roundtable reaffirmed Singapore’s healthcare and social service sectors are at a critical juncture, where leadership must shift from managing individual institutions to stewarding entire ecosystems.
“The conversations revealed that systemic thinking is not merely an abstract philosophy, but a practical discipline of seeing connections, aligning collective intent, and cultivating shared stewardship across boundaries,” he said. “As participants reflected, the ability to ‘see before solving’ is foundational for progress. It enables leaders to surface assumptions, coordinate meaningfully, and design solutions that endure beyond individual programs or funding cycles.”
At the Centre for Systems Leadership, we see this as an inflection point. Developing systemic capability in healthcare and social services means cultivating leaders who can balance complexity with compassion, structure with learning, and urgency with reflection. The Roundtable emphasised that this journey must be collective, linking boards, management teams, and frontline practitioners in a unified learning ecosystem. Moving forward, the focus is not about adding new frameworks, but about deepening shared understanding so that systemic thinking becomes a common language, guiding Singapore’s care systems towards becoming more connected, adaptive, and humane.
by Thomas Lim | Oct 13, 2025
This article is originally published on Forbes on 10 Oct 2025 [Link to original article]
Leadership today is not about holding all the answers; it is about cultivating the capacity to learn, adapt and lead through uncertainty. The true differentiator is not access to new tools or structures; it demands a mindset shift through continuous mental model reframes and realignment.
A fixed mindset traps leaders in past formulas, rewarding predictability over progress. A growth mindset, by contrast, redefines setbacks as signals, reframes resistance as opportunity and fuels cultures of innovation and resilience. When embraced with consistency, it becomes the invisible architecture of high-performing, adaptive enterprises.
Consider a client of mine—a European company in the logistics sector. This firm has been pioneering automation, championing transport innovation and enabling digitalised operations. Their journey offers powerful lessons in how a growth mindset transforms ambition into results.
Experimentation With Purpose And Communication Of Learning
When leaders frame innovation as a series of experiments rather than all-or-nothing bets, teams feel freer to try new ideas and learn quickly. Purposeful experiments are small, testable and measurable. They reduce fear of failure and accelerate insight. Just as importantly, lessons from each trial, successful or not, are shared openly so that the entire organisation benefits.
My client adopted this approach when piloting autonomous guided vehicles in its terminals. Rather than tout the pilot as a flawless technological rollout, leaders explicitly positioned it as a learning exercise: a way to test safety, workflows and staff adaptability. Some tests worked; others revealed design gaps. Each outcome was treated as data. Similarly, in trialing “supertruck” concepts to connect hubs, the emphasis was less on instant efficiency gains and more on exploring regulatory hurdles, driver safety and environmental impact. By embedding communication loops at each stage, the company converted setbacks into institutional knowledge.
Takeaway
Start by defining initiatives as experiments with clear hypotheses and specific criteria for success. Then build deliberate routines for sharing what is learned—both wins and stumbles, so that lessons do not stay siloed within one project team.
Coaching For Ownership And Visible Commitments
Growth mindset thrives when leaders stop prescribing solutions and start coaching people to find their own. Using a coaching framework such as PEARLS, which stands for purpose, experience, attitude, resilience, learning and stepping out, leaders—starting in this case with the CEO, who was the first to be coached—can create space for others to step into ownership. Instead of solving problems on behalf of teams, they ask questions that help uncover possibilities and strengths and utilise systems thinking to have a holistic perspective on current reality.
In one logistics automation project, rather than assigning responsibilities top-down, leadership brought together cross-functional teams from engineering, operations and safety. Employees were invited to voice concerns, suggest workflow redesigns and trial small changes. People felt their input mattered, and they began to own the processes leading to the desired future reality. In parallel, commitments were made, creating accountability that was collective rather than imposed. This visible ownership shifted the culture from compliance to contribution.
Takeaway
Practice coaching through open-ended, reflective questions that encourage others to explore solutions rather than wait for instructions. Then ensure commitments are visible to peers through shared boards or digital trackers, so that accountability is woven into the fabric of teamwork.
Language, Safety And Celebration Of Learning
The way leaders use language sets the tone for culture. Fixed mindset language, such as “this won’t work” or “we tried that before,” closes doors. Growth mindset language keeps them open in that it allows room for curiosity. For example: “We haven’t solved this systemically yet,” or “What might be a different intervention that we can quickly experiment with?” When leaders consistently choose the latter, they create psychological safety; people feel safe to speak up, experiment and admit mistakes.
This was seen in some of this firm’s pilots and trials. Early runs encountered technical glitches and regulatory delays. Instead of covering them up or assigning blame, leaders shared the setbacks openly, asking teams, “What knowledge do we need now? What skills must we build?” This reframing turned obstacles into prompts for collective problem-solving.
Leaders also celebrated “learning wins,” whether it was a technician who identified a calibration issue or a team that discovered a faster way to test safety sensors. These small recognitions reinforced that progress includes lessons, not just results.
Takeaway
Pay close attention to your language: Use words that convey possibility and progress rather than judgment. In the PEARLS Coaching Framework, the voice of judgement is represented by a fiend called the Hydra. Do not attempt to chop off the hydra’s heads (dealing with symptoms) as they regenerate. Instead, go to the heart of the matter (root cause). Then make the celebration of learning a habit; highlight not only outcomes but also the insights and courage behind them.
Making Growth Mindset A Leadership Routine
Sustaining a growth mindset requires rhythm, not random inspiration. When people see their leaders embrace experimentation, coach for ownership and celebrate learning, they mirror those behaviours. Psychological safety deepens, innovation accelerates and adaptability becomes instinctive.
The “how” is straightforward but profound: Frame initiatives as experiments, and share the learning; coach for ownership, and make commitments visible; use language that fosters safety, and celebrate learning wins. Practiced consistently, these behaviours create cultures where people do more than adapt; they begin to thrive and become antifragile.
Growth mindset is not about being optimistic; it is about being disciplined enough to activate eustress anchored in curiosity toward a shared vision. Leaders who embody it are not only solving today’s problems; they are cultivating organisations ready for tomorrow’s possibilities.
