Seeing the system, not just the task
In complex organisations, most conversations begin exactly where they should: with the work immediately in front of us.
A delivery issue.
A dependency that’s blocking progress.
A piece of data that doesn’t look quite right.
These conversations are necessary. They keep things moving. But they also carry a risk: if they stay too local, too detailed, or too bounded, they can solve the wrong problem very well.
What often makes the difference isn’t introducing grand strategy or abstract vision statements. It’s something far quieter — and far more practical.
It’s changing the shape of the conversation.
Why local problem-solving isn’t enough
In large systems — public bodies, regulated environments, transformation programmes, complex service organisations — problems rarely exist in isolation.
A delivery delay might be:
a resourcing issue upstream
a governance gap downstream
a data assumption no one has challenged
or a legacy process quietly shaping today’s decisions
When conversations focus only on fixing the immediate issue, they can unintentionally reinforce the very conditions that created it.
The result?
Short-term progress, long-term fragility.
The power of slightly different questions
What shifts conversations upward is rarely instruction. It’s inquiry.
Instead of asking:
How do we fix this?
Ask:
What does this tell us about the wider system?
Instead of:
Are we on track?
Ask:
What else has to be true for this to work end-to-end?
These questions don’t reject detail, they reposition it. They invite people to connect their work to something larger without diminishing their expertise.
Over time, this kind of questioning does something important:
hidden dependencies become discussable
assumptions surface earlier
risk moves from the margins to the centre
Progress versus readiness
One recurring blind spot in completing work is the difference between activity and readiness.
Something can be progressing , milestones met, outputs produced, and still be fundamentally unready for real-world use. Common reasons include:
unclear ownership beyond delivery
reliance on undocumented processes
fragile resourcing models
data that hasn’t been validated in context
Making this distinction explicit changes the conversation. It moves teams from “are we delivering?” to “are we building something that can hold?”
That shift alone can prevent late-stage surprises, audit failures, and costly rework.
Making the invisible visible
Some of the most consequential elements of organisational systems are the least visible:
the manual workaround everyone relies on
the single individual who holds critical knowledge
the legacy tool no one feels empowered to replace
These rarely appear on slides, yet they shape outcomes every day.
Creating space to name these realities, without blame, is one of the most practical leadership acts available. It allows uncertainty to be raised early, when it can still be addressed, rather than late, when it becomes a crisis.
From updates to decisions
Another subtle but powerful shift comes from framing discussions around options and consequences, rather than recommendations alone.
Questions like:
What are the realistic options here?
What are the trade-offs?
What happens if we do nothing?
These don’t slow delivery — they sharpen it. They help teams prepare work that is decision-ready, not just technically complete.
Synthesis over dominance
Big-picture thinking doesn’t require the loudest voice in the room. Often it emerges through synthesis:
letting complexity surface
reflecting it back simply
checking shared understanding
This practice builds clarity without closing down contribution. It helps groups move from detail to structure, and from structure to choice.
Why this matters
The benefits of this approach are practical, not theoretical:
fewer late surprises
stronger decisions
better use of limited resources
teams that feel safer raising uncertainty early
Most importantly, it helps organisations behave more like systems that learn, rather than machines that react.
As Senge argued decades ago, the greatest leverage in complex systems often comes not from working harder, but from seeing more clearly.
A closing thought
Big-picture thinking doesn’t need grand language or abstract strategy sessions.
Often, it begins with asking slightly different questions. And asking them consistently.