If I could give a thumbnail sketch/elevator explanation of System Dynamics, it's the thought that everything is connected, and those connections are nowhere near as simple as our intuition tells us.
People like Jay Forrester or Norbert Weiner, who originated System Dynamics theories, had backgrounds in control theory. They use feedback loop models to describe human and natural systems in an effort to allow us to better understand why things are the way they are and hopefully be able to effect them for the better.
Forrester uses the example of a simple first order feedback loop where you move your hand closer or further from a stove to control the heat reaching your hand. Our minds tend to tell us this is the way the world works - causes and effects are closely related in time and space.
Unfortunately for us as problem solvers, that isn't the way the systems we are interested in generally work.
The world, society, groups, cities, governments, schools, businesses all have feedback loops/control systems that are non-linear and complex with cause and effects not closely correlated in time or space.
The net result is that well meaning people muck up the works. They tinker with complex systems without having good models to help them understand the impact of their actions, often making the problem they are trying to solve worse.
I'm sure you can think of examples from your home, work or in government where this starts to make sense.
Maybe you want a really green lawn on your lakefront home. If you put phosphate rich fertilizer on the lawn it will turn green, but maybe the lake turns green too, which eventually kills off the fish and other wildlife and defeats the purpose for you living on the lake to begin with.
If you start to factor in the non-linear nature of complex system and the lag built in (which sometimes results in over correcting thinking there is no effect or no correcting thinking there is no problem) this gets really complicated and interesting quick.
Aviation control systems use the term "pilot induced oscillation", where a pilot "chases" a control input. Think of what it would be like, if when you steered your car, put on the brakes or the accelerator, there was a varying amount of time between your input and the desired response. This gives you an idea of how confusing complex systems can get to the person trying to understand cause and effect to effect some desired change.
This is just a little tiny piece of System Dynamics. Thoughtful people promote the introduction of the concepts of System Dynamics into primary, elementary and secondary schools with the hope that we can do better in the future than in our best layed plans of today.
One other thing on Jay Forrester's work that interested me currently is his discussion of "authoritarian cultures" as described in his paper "Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21st Century" and says this -
I believe that babies are born as innovative personalities. They want to explore, to understand, and to see how things work and how to master their environments. But our social processes work to stamp out exploration and questioning. The child is continually confronted with, “Do as you are told,” or Stop asking questions and just mind me,” or “Study this because it is good for you.” Repeated restraint of innovative inclinations gradually forces personalities into the authoritarian mold.
A system dynamics modeling curriculum, by letting students formulate the structure and policies causing behavior under study, will help preserve and rebuild the innovative outlook. Simulation emphasizes reasons for consequences. To be innovative, one must be willing to make mistakes while searching for reasons and improvement. Computer simulation modeling is a repeating process of trial and error. One learns that progress is made through exploration and by learning from mistakes. An authoritarian personality fears mistakes and does not try the unknown. An innovative personality knows that mistakes are stepping stones to better understanding.
Businesses are built on an authoritarian model to some degree or another, for better or worse someone is in charge. The problem as he points out is when that authority impedes innovation and creativity. There are still, and probably always will be, a number of middle or lower managers in corporate environments whose goal is not to foster or personally innovate or create (except possibly in closely defined bounds) but rather to do what someone tells them. To each their own.
"Do what I say and don't ask questions" is appropriate in some emergency situations of course. Having someone tell you what to do is also reassuring for people raised in a patriarchal society, since they are conditioned to having an all knowing father figure (boss, manager, minister, teacher) giving orders. I don't think it's good...just reassuring.
It's interesting to observe the willingness, or desire, to follow the leader between people who left an authoritian regime (be it a country, school, home, school) and someone who was happily raised and probably raises their family in the father (government, teacher, boss, manager) knows best mode.
Not that we don't need leaders who can be followers and vice versa. A true leader has to be able to think for themselves. Most of the leaders we have are taking, and regurgitating, direction rather than providing it. Their ability to lead depends on where they get their direction, what the motive, intelligence, foresight, of their personal brain trust is.
A good home lets kids think for themselves, question authority.
Father doesn't always know best for himself let alone you...think for yourself, do what you think is right. Speak up and act according to what you believe to be true/right/just.
Postscript: Urban Dynamics is another shorter paper that explains some of Jay Forrester's concepts.
