Why Your Solution Created 3 New Problems | Systems Thinking

 Download the Cognitive Ladder diagnostic tools: MAAponte.Substack.com

We trace how a well-meant math intervention backfired, then build a clear method to predict ripple effects, delays, and unintended outcomes before they hit. Stories from school leadership and finance ground a practical playbook for mapping systems, reading feedback loops, and choosing better levers.

 You'll learn:
• Linear fixes versus interconnected systems
• Second and third order consequences
• Delays, leading and lagging indicators
• Reinforcing and balancing feedback loops
• Mapping decisions and stakeholder incentives
• Case studies from education and wealth management
• A four-step systems playbook for leaders
• A systemic solution to improve math without harming engagement

REAL CASE STUDY: How I fixed the math problem with systems thinking: 

❌ Linear solution: Extended time → 6% improvement, teacher burnout, attendance drop 

✅ Systems solution: Partner with middle schools, summer bridge program, better instruction quality, diagnostic assessments → 12% improvement, 4% attendance increase, 94% teacher retention (up from 78%)

Please don't forget to like, share, and subscribe
If you want to get better at system thinking... I write about this and so much more in critical thinking every week in my Substack
If you sign up for the $10 a month Substack, you get a ton of tools and so much more behind the scenes and additional resources
Join the Substack... I will be creating what I like to call a thinking lab

• MAAponte.Substack.com

Linear thinking: Problem → Solution → Problem solved. Systems thinking: Problem → Solution → Creates new problems → Which create new problems → Which loop back to the original problem.

KEY INSIGHT: Most organizational problems are caused by unintentional reinforcing loops creating vicious cycles. Most solutions fail because they ignore balancing loops that counteract your change. 

KEY FRAMEWORKS: 

1. Second-order thinking: Ask "And then what?" three times 
2. Feedback loops: Reinforcing (amplifies) vs Balancing (dampens) 
3. Leading vs lagging indicators: Watch attendance/stress (leading) not just test scores (lagging) 
4. Root cause vs symptom: Solve the problem, not the signal

#SystemsThinking #SecondOrderThinking #Leadership #UnintendedConsequences #DecisionMaking #StrategicThinking #OrganizationalLeadership #FeedbackLoops #CriticalThinking #ComplexSystems 

Transcript

Introducing Systems Thinking

Finance Example: Risk And Behavior

Core Principles: Connection And Consequences

Delays And Feedback Loops Explained

A Practical Systems Playbook

Common Mistakes And Incentives

Fixing The Math Problem Systemically

Action Steps And Closing CTA

SPEAKER_00 0:02

When I was three months into running my school, I noticed something. A lot of eighth graders were struggling with math. Not just a few students, almost the entire grade. So I do what most new leaders do. Identify the problem and fix it. Better math intervention, more tutoring, extended learning time. Reimplement all of it. Budget increases ever so much, but we had to cut back in order to fulfill that. Students got polls from extra support, but they missed out on some of their electives. Three months later, I checked the data. Math scores slightly better. Good, but now we have a new problem. Attendance is dropping. Specifically, eighth graders are missing more school. I dig into why. Turns out the extended math time was in fact cutting into electives, including the budget. And the classes, uh, these are students that enjoyed them. They enjoyed those electives. So they started skipping. If school is just remediation and test prep, why come? Lower intendants, less instructional time overall, mass course plateaued again, even with intervention. I solved one problem and created two new ones. But it gets worse. I tried to fix math, and I almost broke the entire system. This is what happens when you don't understand system thinking. You see a problem in isolation, you apply a solution in isolation, and you're shocked when the solution creates unintended consequences. Everything affects everything. Change one part of the system and the ripples spread through the whole thing. Most leaders don't see the ripples until it's too late. Today I'm going to show you how to see them before you make decisions. This is Thinking to Think, the podcast about making better decisions in a world designed to make you think worse. I'm Mike Aponte, also known as M.A. Aponte, former NYPD officer, former Merrill Lynch wealth manager, former trained actor, and current director of a charter school in Florida. And today we're going to discuss systems thinking, how to see ripple effects, second-order consequences, and unintended outcomes before they destroy your solutions. Most people think linearly. Linear thinking is problem solution, problem solved. Systems thinking is problem solution, creates new problems, which create new problems, which loop back and affect the original problem. Here's why linear thinking fails. The world isn't linear. It's a web of interconnected systems. When you change one thing, you don't just affect one thing. You affect everything connected to it. And those things affect other things. And those things loop back. An example from finance, client says, I want higher returns. Linear solution, invest in higher risk assess uh assets. Linear prediction, higher risk equal higher returns, equal problem solved. Systems reality, higher risk, goes to client checks portfolio more often, goes to sees volatility, goes to gets anxious, then sells at the bottom, then looks, excuse me, locks and losses, returns are actually lower than the safe portfolio. So the solution created the opposite outcome. Why? Because I didn't account for the psychological system, how the client would feel about the volatility, how that feeling would change their behavior. System thinking requires seeing the whole web, not just one thread. So here are some core principles of systems thinking. Principle one everything is connected. No decision exists in isolation. When you make a change, ask, what else does this affect? An example from my school is we decide to start school 30 minutes earlier to add more instructional time. Linear thinking, more time equal more learning, equal better outcomes. System thinking, earlier start time. Some students miss the bus. Their parents work early shifts. Those students are now chronically late, then goes to they miss the first period consistently, then they fall behind in that subject, which then grades drop, then motivation draws, then behavior problems increase. The solution, more instructional time, created a new problem, chronic tardiness, which undermines the original goal, better outcomes. We only saw this after the fact. Principle two, second order consequences matter more than first order. First order consequence, the immediate, obvious effect of your decision. The second order consequence, what happens because of the first order consequence. The third order consequence, what happens because of the second order consequence? Most people only think one level deep. An example, you fire an underperforming employee. First order consequence, that person is gone, problem solved. Second order consequence, their workload gets redistributed to remaining team members. Those team members are now overworked, which means quality of work declines, which also means more morale drops. They see you fired someone instead of supporting them. Then there's the third order consequence. Your best employees start looking for other jobs, you lose institutional knowledge when they leave. You have to hire and train new people, which is expensive and disruptive, and teen culture erodes. You thought you were solving a performance problem, you created a retention crisis. System thinkers ask, and then what? And then what? And then what? Principle number three: Delays exist between action and outcome. You make a decision today. The consequences don't show up for months. This creates two problems. Problem one, you don't see the connection between your decision and the outcome. Problem two, we make more bad decisions while waiting for results. Example regarding the math intervention, excuse me. I implemented the solution in September. Math scores improved slightly by December I thought it was working. Teacher burnout became visible in March, but then damage was done. If I had understood delays, I would have watched for leading indicators, attendance, teacher stress, instead of waiting for lagging indicators such as test scores and resignations. Principle four, feedback loops amplify or dampen changes. Reinforcing loop amplifies, uh creates more change in the same direction. So for example, a good teacher equals or go leads to students succeed, which leads to uh teachers feel effective, which leads to teachers better, uh, excuse me, teaches better, which leads to students succeed more, followed by teachers' reputation grows, followed by better student requests that teacher, followed by easier to teach, followed by even better outcomes. That's a virtuous cycle, but reinforcing loops work in reverse too. Struggling teacher means students fail, which means teachers feel ineffective, which means teaches worse, which leads to students fail more, which leads to teachers' reputation suffers. Then difficult students get assigned to that teacher, followed by harder to teach, and then eventually even worse outcomes. This is a vicious cycle. Balancing loop dampens, changes, and creates a response that counteracts that change. An example, you work really hard, which means you get a lot done, and then you feel accomplished, you feel relaxed, you work less hard, you get less done, you feel behind, and then you work really hard again. The system self-regulates. Most organization problems are caused by unintentional reinforcing loops that create vicious cycles. Most solutions fail because they ignore balancing loops that will counteract your change. So, how to think in systems. I'm going to give you a step-by-step guide. Start with step one, map the system. Before you make a decision, draw the system. An example, you're deciding whether to implement a new technology tool at your organization. Linear thinking, new tool equals increased efficiency, which means problem solved. Systems map, however, your new tool requires training, takes time away from current work. Early adopters use it, skeptics resist, which also means creates two workflows: people using the tool, people not using the tool. And then communication breaks down between groups. Efficiency actually decreases during transition, which then leaders get frustrated, pressure people to adopt faster, resentment builds, and then the culture suffers. You only see this if you map the system. Step two, identifying feedback loops. Ask, will this change create a reinforcing loop or a balancing loop? An example from wealth management: a client starts investing consistently. Reinforcing loop invests regularly, portfolio grows, feels good about progress, invests more, portfolio grows faster, confidence increases, invests even more. That's good, you want that loop. But watch for the reverse. Market drops, portfolio shrinks, feels bad, stops investing, misses the recovery, portfolio grows slower than it could have, feels worse, stays out of market longer. Your job as advisor, interpret the vicious cycle before it starts. Step three, look for delays. Ask, how long until I see the results of this decision? What will I see first? Example, you implement a new curriculum at a school. Immediate effect, weeks one through four, confusion, resistance, slower instruction, uh teachers learning new systems, short-term effect, months two to six, teachers get comfortable, instruction quality returns to baseline. Medium-term effect, which is around month six and through twelve. Student outcome starts improving as teachers master the curriculum. And then there's the long-term effect, years two to three, full impact visible and data. If you judge success at week four, you'll think it failed. If you understand delays, you'll give it time. Step four, ask and then what? Three times. For every solution, play it forward. Example, you're cutting a budget line to save money. First order, we save 50,000 this year. And then what? Second order, the program that budget funded is eliminated. People who relied on it are upset. And then what? Third order. Those people lose trust and leadership, morale drops, productivity suffers, you lose more than 50,000 in lost output. Suddenly the savings isn't savings. And here's some common systems thinking mistakes. Mistake number one. Solving systems instead of root causes. An example, problem. Students are disruptive in class. Symptom solution, stricter discipline, more consequence. Result, behavior improves temporarily, then gets worse. Why? You didn't solve the root cause. So what is the root cause? Students are bored because instruction is an engaging. System solution, improve instructional quality. Students aren't are engaged, behavior improves naturally. A system disruption was a signal pointing to the real problem. It's the instruction. You silence the signal instead of solving the problem. Mistake number two, ignoring unintended consequences. Every solution has unintended consequences. The question isn't will there be consequences, but what will they be? An example a company implements strict productivity monitoring. The intended consequence, employees work harder. Unintended consequences, employees gain the metrics, look productive without being productive, trust erodes, creativity drops, people won't take risks if they're consistently monitored. Best employees leave for companies that trust them. The solution achieved the metric, productivity appears higher, but destroy the actual goal. Real productivity. Excuse me, bit better outcomes. But the school isn't just a math department, it's a system. When math gets more time, something else gets less time. That something else is what keeps students engaged and connected to school, whether it's art, music, collectives, you've optimized math at the expense of the whole system. Better question. How do we improve math outcomes without harming other parts of the system? Maybe the answer is better instruction and the time we already have, not more time. Mistake number four, ignoring incentives. People respond to incentives. If your solution creates the wrong incentive, it will fail. An example, a school ties teacher bonuses to test scores. The intended outcome, teachers work harder to improve student learning. The unintended outcome. Teachers teach to the test. Students learn test taking, not actual knowledge. Teachers avoid teaching struggling students. They hurt your average. Teachers focus only on students near the passing threshold. Those far below or far above get ignored. The incentives created the opposite of the intended outcome. So, how I fixed the math intervention problem, you may ask. Remember that opening story I told you? Well, here's how the system's thinking solved it. Step one, I mapped the system. I drew out everything affected by extended math time, student schedules, teacher workloads, student motivation, attendance patterns, other subject areas, and teacher retention. Step two, I identified the real problem. Problem wasn't students needed more time. Problem was students are leaving middle school without foundational skills and I would say high uh elementary school, so that uh math is harder. Math is harder in the eighth grade. That's a this is more of a middle school problem. Uh step three, I looked for leverage points. Instead of adding more time, we partnered with our feeder middle school elementary school to strengthen our eighth grade math and sixth grade and seventh grade for that matter. Created a summer bridge program for incoming uh students who needed it, improved uh math instruction quality without adding time, and then used diagnostic assessments to catch gaps early and address them in small groups, not pulling kids from electives. Step four, I monitor feedback loops. You watched math scores, lagging indicators, student attendance, leading indicators, teacher stress levels, leading indicators, and student engagement surveys leading indicators. Results after one year, math scores improved, attendance increased, teacher retention went up about 94% for that matter, um, and students' engagement scores went up across all subjects. We solved the problem and strengthened the system. Now it's your turn. Think in systems this week. Pick one decision you're about to make and ask one, what else will this affect? Map the system. Two, what will happen because of that? And then what? Second and third order of consequences. Three, what feedback loops will this create? Virtuous or vicious cycles? And four, how long until I see results? What will I see first? These are delays and leading indicators. You'll make better decisions if you do this. Guaranteed. And if you want to get better at system thinking, if you want frameworks for mapping systems, identifying feedback loops, and predicting unintended consequences, I write about this and so much more in critical thinking every week in my Substack. You'll get real decisions I'm making through a systems lens, how to map the systems in your organization, case studies of system thinking in education, finance, leadership, and career uh transitions, as well as my personal reflections. And if you sign up for the$10 a month uh Substack, you get a ton of tools and so much more uh behind the scenes and additional resources. And if you want to practice this with other leaders because seeing the system is hard alone, join the Substack. I will be creating what I like to call a thinking lab. That's coming soon. Please stand by for that as well. And that's it for decision-making models. Next week, uh, we will start cognitive biases and fallacies. First up will be the 12 ways leaders lie to themselves. The cognitive biases every leader needs to recognize. Thanks for thinking with me. I'm Mike Aponte, also known as M.A. Aponte. This is Thinking to Think. Please don't forget to like, share, and subscribe. We really appreciate it. Have a wonderful day.