Conclusion: Systemic Leadership as Design for Adaptive Social Learning

  • Catherine HobbsEmail author


Familial identity. The previously identified facets of systemic leadership are summarised, which could create the foundation for an expansive, adaptive approach. To do justice to human resource, an approach is needed which is creative and exploratory, not only mechanistic. This need not be invented, being synergistically drawn from past human endeavour which already recognises the limitations of more usual modes of thinking. A concluding discussion is based on phronesis and pragmatism as the leadership of inter-disciplinary social learning. Systems Science could ‘unlock doors’ to thinking differently, in which theory and practice are one dynamic strand. Developing a familial identity for a range of facilitative complexity, systems thinking and Operational Research approaches as systemic design for adaptive social learning may help to define a way of building the capacity to lead systemically in local governance, thus helping with the seismic shift from a service-led model of local government to a systemic-deliberative model of local governance, with the role of service design for the public good following on from that form of deliberation.


Systemic leadership Creative Exploratory Phronesis Pragmatism Systems Science Facilitative Complexity Systems thinking Operational Research Local governance Systemic-deliberative 


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (2006). Why Few Organizations Adopt Systems Thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 705–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansell, C. (2011). Pragmatist Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. (Eds.). (2010). Public Value: Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bichard, M. (2013). Editorial: The Need for a Public Service Strategy. Public Money & Management, 33(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, L. (Ed.). (2009). Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Busch, T. W. (Ed.). (1987). The Participant Perspective (1st ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  9. Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. London: Flamingo, HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Checkland, P., & Scholes, P. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations Research as a Profession. Management Science, 17(2), B-37–B-53.Google Scholar
  12. Dunn, E. S. (1971). Economic and Social Development: A Process of Social Learning. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eikeland, O. (2007). From Epistemology to Gnoseology—Understanding the Knowledge Claims of Action Research. Management Research News, 30(5), 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1999). Learning by Expanding: Ten Years After (F. Seeger, Trans.). Lernen Durch Expansion. Marburg, Germany: BdWi-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Festenstein, M. (2014). Dewey’s Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 14, 2015, from
  16. Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What Is Phronetic Planning Research? What Is Phronetic Social Science? Retrieved September 2014, from
  17. Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hookway, C. (2015). Pragmatism. The Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 7, 2015, from
  22. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Lawlor, L. (2014). Jacques Derrida. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from
  24. MacIntyre, A. (2013). After Virtue. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  25. McChrystal, S., Collins, T., Silverman, D., & Fussell, C. (2015). Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. New York, UK: Portfolio Penguin, Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, D., & Shapiro, I. (Eds.). (1993). John Dewey: The Political Writings (1st ed.). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (2017). Working with Change: Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the Policy Process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
  29. Stacey, R. D., & Mowles, C. (2015). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity to Ways of Thinking About Organisations (7th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Williams, P. (2012). Collaboration in Public Policy and Practice: Perspectives on Boundary Spanners. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Systems StudiesHull University Business SchoolCumbriaUK

Personalised recommendations