Q&A Series: Systems Work Only When We Work Together

by SIM Academy | Feb 12, 2026

Q&A with Clarence Yeo, Senior Adviser, SIM Centre for Systems Leadership

Last year Singapore saw troubling viral incidents of “zombified” teenagers, from a 17-year-old falling while alighting an MRT to another acting aggressively on an overhead bridge, signals of a deeper public‑health threat as Kpod use spilled into public spaces.

The government mounted a whole-of-government response: the Police and Central Narcotics Bureau coordinated operations with the Health Sciences Authority, ICA tightened border checks to curb smuggling, and NParks and NEA increased patrols in public areas. These enforcement measures were paired with public‑education campaigns led by the Health Promotion Board, which partnered with the Ministry of Education to push anti‑vaping messaging in schools and provide resources for parents.

This was systems leadership in action. Rather than simply reacting to individual incidents, the government targeted the underlying systems and conditions that enabled them through sustained collaboration.

Such an approach is becoming increasingly necessary because the context in which leaders operate has fundamentally changed. For years, people spoke of a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world, where things were unstable but generally still knowable and manageable to some extent. Now, however, it is more apt to look at the world through the lens of BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear and incomprehensible), where small disruptions can lead to sudden, outsized consequences.

Clarence Yeo, Senior Adviser at SIM Academy’s Centre for Systems Leadership, shares his thoughts on why, under such conditions, wicked problems like ageing, healthcare and social welfare cannot be solved through linear solutions or traditional top-down, siloed approaches. Just as these problems are interconnected and constantly evolving, so must the way we lead and work together. Prior to his retirement from the public sector in 2024, Clarence held various senior leadership appointments including Commissioner of ICA, Chief Executive of Home Team Academy and Senior Advisor (Special Duties) at the Ministry of Home Affairs. Now serving on multiple boards and advisory councils, he believes that systems leadership demands cross-agency collaboration driven by a shared vision to create lasting, collective impact.

Q: Can you share your definition of systems leadership and why it’s critical in the public sector?

To me, systems leadership is the ability to see the big picture, recognise how different parts of a system interact, and work across boundaries to tackle root causes rather than symptoms. It drives change by addressing the interconnected factors that shape outcomes in complex environments, seeking long‑term, collaborative and sustainable solutions. Rather than fixing isolated problems, systems leadership transforms underlying structures, encourages reflective, generative conversations, and shifts teams from reactive problem‑solving toward co‑creating a better future.

The shift from traditional to systems leadership is driven by both internal and external forces. Globalization and technology have made the world more interconnected, while the global landscape has evolved from a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world to a BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible) world.

Against this backdrop, doing more of the same will not be good enough. We must learn from the past, transform the present in order to secure our future so as to achieve organisational excellence, operational preparedness and future-readiness.

By aligning stakeholders and coordinating policies, systems leadership enables governments to tackle these cross-agency problems and deliver coherent, integrated solutions that reduce fragmentation, enhance citizen experiences, and create lasting positive impacts.

Q: What are some of the biggest challenges faced in implementing systems leadership principles, and how can they be addressed?

Fragmentation is a persistent challenge in government because agencies operate with their own mandates, systems and priorities. While this ensures discipline, it also creates inefficiencies and misaligned efforts that citizens experience as gaps in service — they see “one government”, not individual agencies.

Different stakeholders see different parts of the problem, but everyone is under pressure to deliver quick wins, so you rarely start with a shared understanding or shared goals.

Change needs to start internally. Leaders often seek clarity and control, but systems leadership requires making space for ambiguity and exerting influence rather than authority. You can’t control a cross-agency system, but you can shape how well it coordinates, learns and moves together. This means strengthening trust and collaboration, sharing accountability, and being willing to act for the system even when it requires letting go of something at the agency level.

The biggest obstacle is almost always culture, not strategy, so invest time in building trust and a shared language before rolling out anything big.

Q: Can you share an example of effective systems leadership from your past roles?

During my time as ICA Commissioner from 2010 to 2018, the Integrated Checkpoints Command (ICC) was launched to strengthen coordination among the Home Team agencies. Spanning land, sea and air, it was driven by the recognition that safety and security are wicked problems that are impossible for any agency to address alone.

The ICC integrated the efforts of multiple agencies — law enforcement, immigration, customs and transport — under a cohesive, unified operational framework to manage checkpoints efficiently. They shared ownership of outcomes, namely improving checkpoint efficiency and maintaining security, and decisions were made with an understanding of how checkpoint performance impacted areas like public satisfaction, trade flows and national security.

Feedback loops were also established to ensure continuous improvement and adaptability, including real-time monitoring tools that captured data on passenger flows, wait times and security threats, which teams used to adjust staffing and streamline processes.

As a result, we saw tangible outcomes: improved efficiency and reduced delays due to coordinated operations at checkpoints; enhanced security with quicker threat detection and response; and greater customer satisfaction arising from a more seamless travelling experience.

The ICC was a prime example of systems leadership in advancing the One Home Team approach by embodying interconnectedness, feedback loops, and systemic alignment. As a result of breaking down silos and emphasizing shared goals, the ICC not only improved checkpoint operations but also reinforced the larger vision of seamless collaboration across the Home Team ecosystem.

Q: What strategies can be implemented to foster collaboration between different teams towards a common goal?

Systems leadership shifts away from hierarchical decision-making towards collaborative efforts involving multiple stakeholders. Here are five key strategies to promote collaboration across the wider ecosystem:

• Build trust and relationships by enabling voluntary, cross-boundary teams where people contribute complementary skills and shared interests. Strong relationships foster reciprocity, reduce resistance and sustain collaboration over time.
• Create a shared vision and outcomes by aligning stakeholders around common goals, such as citizen needs or national priorities, rather than individual organisational agendas. This is often achieved through dialogue and co-creation.
• Enable clear communication and ways of working by establishing agreed processes for information sharing, decision making and conflict resolution.
• Mobilise resources and empower teams by allowing expertise, data and funding to flow across boundaries, and giving frontline teams the authority to act without unnecessary escalation.
• Embed feedback and learning through iterative approaches, prototyping and continuous stakeholder input, allowing initiatives to adapt to changing system dynamics.

Q: What advice would you give to emerging leaders in the public sector who want to foster a more collaborative and integrated environment?

American systems scientist Peter M. Senge wrote in his book The Fifth Discipline, “You cannot have a learning organisation without shared vision. Without a pull toward some goal which people truly want to achieve, the forces in support of the status quo can be overwhelming.”

I fully agree. A shared vision is the north star that guides decisions, coordinates actions and sustains momentum through complexity and change.

Articulating this shared vision starts with building quality relationships, which drive quality thinking, actions and ultimately, results. Promoting open, two-way communication is key to developing such relationships. Success then strengthens relationships in a self-reinforcing loop.

Finally, perspective is important. Focus on higher-impact, long-term actions rather than reacting at the event level.

For more information on Systems Leadership Programmes for your organisation, please contact us at simacademy@sim.edu.sg.

How Leaders Turn Creative Tension Into Conviction, Without Burning Out Their Teams

by Thomas Lim | Jan 27, 2026

This article is originally published on Forbes on 21 Jan 2025 [Link to original article]

Leaders today are not short on reasons to change. Markets shift, technologies accelerate, workforce expectations evolve and institutional trust remains fragile. What leaders struggle with is not the why of change but the how narrative, which is about how to hold urgency without panic, ambition without exhaustion and alignment without compliance. In many organisations, the moment pressure rises, leaders collapse into firefighting, over-control or performative optimism. The result is familiar: initiatives stall, people disengage and conviction quietly evaporates.

At a recent international leadership roundtable, which I hosted for coaches and leaders, a recurring insight surfaced across sectors: Change does not fail because leaders lack intent or intelligence but because they lack the capability to hold creative tension over time. When tension is mismanaged, it mutates into anxiety, cynicism or fear. When held well, it becomes the engine of learning, innovation and conviction.

Why Creative Tension Is Misunderstood

Creative tension, a concept popularised by Peter Senge and further developed in systems leadership practice by Dr. Daniel Kim, refers to the productive gap between current reality and a compelling future. In theory, leaders know this. In practice, many confuse creative tension with pressure.

Pressure relies on external force: deadlines, targets, consequences. Creative tension relies on clarity: a shared picture of reality, a shared aspiration and the discipline to stay present in the gap between them. Pressure narrows attention; creative tension expands it. Pressure demands compliance; creative tension invites ownership.

The problem is that pressure delivers short-term movement, while creative tension demands patience, emotional steadiness and design discipline. Under scrutiny, leaders often default to pressure because it feels decisive. Over time, however, pressure erodes trust and drains energy, while creative tension, when held skillfully, builds conviction. Conviction is not motivation. It is design.

One of the most persistent myths in change leadership is that conviction is something leaders must inspire through charisma or messaging. In reality, conviction is not manufactured through speeches; it is designed into the system.

Conviction emerges when people experience three things consistently: clarity of direction, coherence of action and credibility of leadership behaviour. When these align, people commit not because they are told to but because the system makes sense to them. It goes beyond belief. It is the bridge between believing and actually translating these beliefs into action through an act of the will. Leaders lose conviction when their systems contradict their words. They announce bold visions while rewarding short-term fixes. They call for innovation while punishing failure.

The ‘How’ Of Holding Creative Tension

Holding creative tension is not a mindset alone; it is a set of observable practices. Leaders who do this well behave differently in four critical ways.

1. Slow down sensemaking before speeding up execution.

In complex environments, acting quickly without shared understanding creates motion, not progress. Effective leaders invest time upfront to clarify what problem they are solving, what assumptions are in play and where constraints truly lie. This is not analysis paralysis; it is disciplined seeing. By naming reality honestly—including uncomfortable trade-offs—leaders prevent false urgency from hijacking the system.

2. Distinguish between performance gaps and capability gaps.

When results fall short, many leaders push harder on targets. Systems leaders ask a different question: “What capability is missing that makes this result hard to sustain?” This reframing shifts the response from pressure to learning. Instead of extracting effort, leaders design opportunities for people to build skill, judgment and confidence. Over time, performance improves because capability compounds.

3. Regulate emotional tone, not just task progress.

Change is emotional before it is technical. Leaders who ignore this pay a hidden price. Cynicism, fear and disengagement are not signs of weak character; they are signals of an overwhelmed system. Leaders who can notice emotional undercurrents—without being consumed by them—create psychological space for learning. This steadiness allows teams to stay in creative tension without tipping into distress.

4. Create visible learning loops.

Conviction grows when people see that effort leads to insight and insight leads to improvement. Leaders who operationalise reflection—through short reviews, after-action conversations and real-time feedback—turn work into learning. This makes progress tangible and reinforces the belief that the organisation is capable of adapting, not just reacting. Change leaders align decisions with declared intent, distribute authority thoughtfully and accept short-term discomfort in service of long-term capability.

When Creative Tension Turns Toxic

Creative tension becomes destructive when leaders lack the skill or support to hold it. Three warning signs are common.

The first is perpetual urgency, where everything is framed as critical. This exhausts attention and erodes judgment. The second is false harmony, where disagreement is avoided to preserve surface calm. This suppresses learning and breeds quiet resistance. The third is heroic leadership, where a few individuals repeatedly step in to save the system, unintentionally weakening everyone else.

In each case, tension is present but unmanaged. The system oscillates between anxiety and relief, never building the muscle required for sustainable change.

The organisations that navigate change well do not eliminate tension; they contain it. They invest in leadership capability at multiple levels, not just at the top. This is where conviction becomes collective. People stop asking, “Will this change last?” and start asking, “How can we make it better?” That shift does not happen through persuasion; it happens through experience.

The Leadership Challenge Ahead

In an era of constant disruption, leaders will be tempted to simplify complexity into slogans or push through resistance with force. Neither approach builds conviction. The harder, more consequential work is learning how to hold creative tension—to stay present in reality without being trapped by it and committed to the future without being detached from the present.

Leaders who master this do not just deliver change; they build systems that can change themselves. In doing so, they replace burnout with belief, compliance with commitment and pressure with progress.

The question for today’s leaders is not whether tension exists. It always does. The real question is whether they know how to hold it long enough and well enough for conviction to take root toward vision.

Why Teams Stay Stuck And How Systemic Leaders Can Cut Through Friction

by Thomas Lim | Dec 18, 2025

This article is originally published on Forbes on 18 Dec 2025 [Link to original article]

Recently, I ran a poll with a client to understand what was getting their teams stuck. The responses were sobering. The most common words that surfaced were “waiting,” “lack of information,” “unclear instructions,” “overload,” “random tasks” and “delays.” This is not the vocabulary of a disengaged workforce. These words are the signals of a team experiencing friction, whether emotional tension, structural inefficiencies or behavioural abrasion. And when friction accumulates faster than clarity, teams freeze.

In my work with leaders across public and private sector clients, the pattern is unmistakable: Teams rarely get stuck because they lack intelligence, motivation or skill. They get stuck because the system they operate in makes movement difficult. In complex environments, “stuck-ness” is not a performance problem; rather, this sense of not being able to manoeuvre out of a chasm is a signal.

Stuckness And Systemic Friction

When leaders describe their teams as slow or unfocused, they often assume resistance or lack of clarity at the individual level, when the real issue is usually systemic. Stuckness emerges when structures create more confusion than clarity, more doubt than confidence and more noise than signal. Most teams are not disengaged; they are cautious, overloaded or emotionally exhausted, often trying not to make the wrong move because the system has not made the right one evident.

This is why teams hesitate when priorities shift weekly, roles overlap or decisions bottleneck at a single point. Complexity amplifies hesitation, and unaddressed hesitation becomes organisational inertia as the Theory of Success disappears from view. In this vacuum, negative reinforcing loops accelerate, dragging performance down even when the people themselves have not changed.

The Three Forms Of Invisible Friction Leaders Miss

Understanding friction is the first step in removing it. The types of friction slowing teams down are often invisible, especially to leaders operating at speed.

1. Emotional Friction

This is the friction created by fear, overwhelm or doubt. When people worry about judgment, mistakes or losing face, they hold back ideas and avoid taking initiative. Emotional friction is subtle, and it shows up as silence in meetings, careful phrasing or a tendency to wait for direction instead of acting. In the paradigm of Theory U, these can emerge from the Voice of Judgment, Voice of Concern and Voice of Fear.

2. Structural Friction

This emerges from the design of the organisation itself. Slow approval processes, unclear ownership, missing information and irregular cascades create drag. When employees say they are “waiting,” “pending a solution” or “unclear about next steps,” they are pointing at structural friction that the system has normalised. Structures drive behavior. Unless prevailing mental models are aligned, such friction will continuously show up time and again.

3. Behavioural Friction

When Vision Meets Reality: Scaling Change Without Burning Out

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.

Q&A Series: Navigating Complexity with the EPIC Framework with Dr. Michael C. Jackson OBE, Emeritus Professor, University of Hull

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.