When given a problem statement in the development sector, what do you do with it? Do you stop at the surface or do you ask follow-up questions, tracing a chain of linearity, digging one layer deeper each time?

Let’s consider a very simple example. X number of girls drop out after 8th Standard.

Scenario 1:

1. Why are they dropping out? Because the family can only afford education for one child 2. Why only one? Because of their socio-economic conditions, if they have to choose one, they choose the son.

3. Why the son? Because parents see a greater return on investment there.

4. Why do they think so? Because that belief has been reinforced by societal norms, structures, upbringing, and their ecosystem.

Scenario 2:

1. Why are they dropping out? Because there are no toilets in the school, girls have started menstruating.

2. Why no toilets? Because they weren’t built or maintained.

3. Why? Because it hasn’t been the top focus.

4. Why? Because limited budgets pushed infrastructure down the list.

Scenario 3:

- Why are they dropping out? Because studies are getting difficult.

- Why is it difficult now? Because of weak foundations in earlier grades and they are unable to catch up now

Scenario 4:

- Why are they dropping out? Because the school ends at 8th. To continue their education, they will need to travel to the next village.

- Why not travel? Parents are concerned about their safety and don’t see further education as absolutely necessary.

These scenarios illustrate one important point: social problems are complex, messy, and rarely come with any direct one-size-fits-all solutions. The same problem statement can hide multiple root causes: household economics, infrastructure gaps, quality of teaching, or access and mobility shaped by social norms.

Each pathway one pursues will imply a very different solution, from providing scholarships to girls to building and maintaining toilets, conducting remedial learning, or ensuring safe transport.

Add up more layers of context to the equation, and the scenario begins to look entirely different.

● X number of girls, particularly from an underserved community, drop out after 8th standard.

● X number of girls drop out after 8th standard in a tribal village.

● X number of girls drop out after 8th standard in Delhi.

Every version carries its own realities, and therefore, consequent solutions.

Yet in practice, while the problems are interconnected, programs attempting to solve them often remain fragmented, each focusing on only one piece of the puzzle.

Consider a single school, five different NGOs might be working there, each with its own mandate, sometimes even multiple programs from the same organisation. Then there are education programs, gender programs, and climate programs, each valuable but limited when addressed in isolation.

For instance, there are so many teaching programs for underserved communities running in government schools. In reality, if a family is struggling to make ends meet, and the child is showing up to school empty stomach, no amount of pedagogical training for teachers, AI-enabled or otherwise, could make the child learn.

This is precisely why a systems lens is not only important, but it is nearly impossible to solve social sector problems without one.

At its core, systems thinking helps us make sense of complex, interconnected environments.

In our dropout scenarios above, the same ecosystem that normalises prioritising boys’ education in one context (Scenario 1), also leads to concerns about girls’ safety in another (Scenario 4). Recognising these connections and relationships allows for interventions to target the root problem.

The importance of this mindset is increasingly recognised globally. As per the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, 42% of employers consider systems thinking as a core workforce skill for 2025, with a projected net increase of 51% between 2025-30. This underscores the continued relevance of human-centric skills even amidst rapid technological advances. While some may dismiss it as jargon, it's a globally recognised cognitive skill.

So, what does it take to be a systems thinker?

● To see networks and relationships, not just hierarchies.

● To understand loops and patterns rather than linear chains.

● To consider the whole rather than only individual parts.

● To view any idea/challenge from multiple perspectives.

The development sector needs systems thinkers more than ever. Practitioners who can ask the right questions in the context of the whole system, who can see a child not just as a statistic, but as part of an interconnected ecosystem.

The problems we solve are not technical mathematical equations with neat solutions. They are adaptive, evolving and complex. Success will come from understanding patterns and designing solutions that reflect the reality of the entire sector.

(Written by Astha Agrawal, a Teach for India alum. Opinions expressed are their own)