When reading news accounts of inspiring success over adversity, there is a very common response I see regularly (and have used myself, if only internally). You might have read headlines such as "Local teacher facing crippling bills for cancer treatment flooded with donations from community" as well as "Local high school robotics teams provides young boy with robotic arm after insurance denial" . Fictional accounts that show how kind individuals are and how they strive to make the world a better place for all. Every time a story like "Local community raises $20,000 to save 200 kids from Orphan Crushing Machine" is published, the same question is never asked: "but why do we even have an orphan crushing machine to begin with? And why must we pay to avoid crushing orphans?" My area of expertise is with crisis response and crisis management. Two distinct concepts that are frequently lumped together under the same umbrella. The term "crisis response" refers to the actions taken in the face of a catastrophe in order to lessen its impact. When you spot an issue, fix it. When an issue first arises, it's natural to panic and do whatever needs to be done as quickly as possible. Sick people to hospital, dead bodies buried, children cared for. The next time that problem appears, you do what worked before - Sick people to hospital, dead bodies buried, children cared for. After a while, it stops being an issue because you've dealt with it so often that it's become routine. Hospital, buried, kids. Hospital, buried, kids. Most humans appreciate regular schedules because they are patterns, and we know how to solve patterns, so we have a positive reaction to them. There are countless examples of this - avoiding a certain road on the drive home because the bridge was washed out during a big storm. Having a tire with a slow leak, and filling it up with air before leaving in the morning. Printing out an invoice to file it in the company document library. Routines and patterns, all of which solved a problem one time well enough, so we keep using them. However, crisis management is unique. In crisis management, you don't (just) react; you prepare for what can happen next. You evaluate your efficacy and identify areas for improvement. You aim to eliminate problems, not solve them. It's repetitive and calls for constant effort to avoid routine. Take a different route home to check if the bridge was repaired. Invest in a new, leak-proof tire instead of constantly topping off an old one. Instead of soliciting funds to save orphans from being crushed, we should question why such a machine exists. Leadership should be more like crisis management though- This action solved the problem for now, but what new problem did it create? What can be done to stop the problem in the future? How can I stop solving the same problem, and start solving the cause of the problem? Crisis management is hard at first, but its also hard later - its always hard challenging yourself, and its even harder going through a process where there are lots of solutions, not just one. Its especially hard when you have to admit your darling idea, the one your felt really confident about, the one you really love, isn't the final solution, and there is something better, or new, or different and you have to let go of your darling and embrace something new and challenging. For me in this course, systems thinking was like this. I started this course very comfortable with root cause analysis, and I love pulling a root-cause rabbit out of my hat to solve an organizational or leadership conundrum, or use it to develop suggestions. Nothing could possibly ever be better than my darling root cause analysis. But then...then I had to learn about systems. At first, I thought of systems as a different way to say "root cause analysis". Then, I thought of them as a different perspective with root cause analysis. I went through a period of "Well, this is different but not as good as root cause analysis". Each time, I would try to force my learning and my solutions to the systems journal through the root cause analysis tools and perspectives, getting more and more frustrated as I had to adapt them more and more to make them work. Finally, I had to stop and ask myself "but why?" I was acting exactly like the town in the parable, just responding and doing my best to develop what tool I had to solve a problem that needed a completely different set of questions and answers. Once I realized this, I buckled down and changed my perspective. Instead of using what I already knew to try and force-fit in my understanding of systems, I learned about systems, then fit that into what I already knew. I flipped my script. And it made a huge difference. Leadership isn't about "one right answer". And its not about responding - its about being proactive. To quote Dr Carey, who used this phrase time and time again in his classes, it requires you to Look then look again. I started this class stuck in a pattern I wasn't willing to recognize, but eventually I was able to step back, look and look again, and change the narrative - "but why is this even happening?"