Thinking Differently Matters

  • Catherine HobbsEmail author


Why adapt? Moving on from the ‘empty quarter’ conclusion of the first chapter, the essential motivation or change which needs to be accepted is pinpointed before even embarking on a journey into such unexplored territory. Hobbs gives a brief outline of a research project undertaken as a mediative inquiry between supply/demand experts. It then moves into the first of five stages of the Adaptive Learning Pathway for Systemic Leadership, all stages of which go back to the basics of ‘what matters?’ There is a single resource of Jake Chapman’s ‘System Failure’ signposted for this initial stage which is necessary before change is likely to be embarked upon. The operational principle for thinking differently is collaborative learning: the chapter concludes with the associated key facet of systemic leadership for this principle.

System Failure Thinking differently Collaborative learning 


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1960). Systems, Organizations and Interdisciplinary Research. General Systems, 5(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University E Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, J. (2004). System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently (2nd ed.). London: Demos.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2013). What Is Mixed Methods Research? Retrieved November 2, 2015, from
  6. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friend, J. K. (2004). Perspectives of Engagement in Community Operational Research. In G. Midgley & A. E. Ochoa-Arias (Eds.), Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Hobbs, C. (2016). Tapping the Resource Within? Exploring a Learning Pathway for Systemic Leadership Within Local Governance Networks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Ph.D. Systems Science). University of Hull, Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the Conceptual Leap in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pettigrew, A. M. (2001). Management Research After Modernism. British Journal of Management, 12(S1), S61–S70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simons, H. (1996). The Paradox of Case Study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(2), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Strijbos, S. (1995). How Can Systems Thinking Help Us in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Wisdom? Systems Practice, 8(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Systems StudiesHull University Business SchoolCumbriaUK

Personalised recommendations