“Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right thing.”
--Peter Drucker
Using Peter Drucker’s words as a guiding principle, let’s think about the following scenario:
There is a social worker in Mecklenburg County that has been tasked with helping a family address the issue of housing instability. There are two courses of action the social worker considers taking. In strategy 1, they could assess the family’s situation and provide immediate solutions, like providing a referral to a local shelter. This would be the easiest, most overarching solution and provide the family with a roof over their head for the time being. In strategy 2, the social worker considers creating a more comprehensive plan that looks at the family’s financial status, employment, and possible support networks. By collaborating with the family, they can come up with an action plan that includes both short term and long-term aspirations and goals for elevating the family out of their situation.
Neither strategy is wrong. Both are valid approaches that get the job done. However, while strategy 1 is right, strategy 2 involves doing the right thing for sustainable family success; strategy 1 is a more automatic response to the situation, while strategy 2 is a thoughtful response to a complex problem. Drucker’s words inherently get at the idea of type 1 thinking and type 2 thinking, which we will be discussing in this Lightbulb Moment.
Want updates on upcoming Lightbulb Moment articles?
Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli American psychologist, who wrote the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, where he discusses System 1 and System 2 thinking. Psychology Today describes these two types of cognitive processes; System 1 is a fast, automatic process that quickly sizes up a situation and jumps to a conclusion, whereas System 2 is a slower, more deliberate process that attempts to work through the problem more systematically. System 1 thinking is often emotionally driven and leads to simple decisions, while System 2 thinking is logically driven and leads to complex decisions. According to Pherson et al., System 1 thinking is more susceptible to cognitive biases, which are unconscious errors of reasoning caused by simplistic information processing strategies. Psychology Today explains that a cognitive bias is a mental shortcut or heuristic intended to spare us time, effort, or discomfort, sometimes at the cost of accuracy and reliability. When we let cognitive biases run our decisions, a journal article in Frontiers in Psychology discusses how we are limiting ourselves in making proper decisions to address complex and long-term challenges, like those that come with serving families. This short video by author and TED speaker, Jacob Morgan, does a fantastic job contextualizing type 1 and type 2 thinking and speaking about the importance of type 2 thinking.
A visual representation to remember the differences between the two is to think of the classic example of the tortoise and the hare. The hare represents System 1 thinking. The hare represents our System 1 thinking, which is fast and intuitive. The hare is aware of its natural speed and has past experiences to back up relying on his speed and instincts to confidently win the race. However, due to overconfidence and taking a nap during the race, the hares quick judgements ended up being a mistake. On the other hand, the tortoise represents our System 2 thinking, being slower and more deliberate. The tortoise is analytical and moves with intention, which allows him to adopt a strategic approach. While it takes him longer, he has a winning outcome. Using this old fable shows us the benefits, downfalls, and characteristics of the systems of thinking.
Examples of System 1 and System 2 Thinking
System 1 thinking examples for professionals that work with families include:
- Relying on intuition to quickly assess a child’s immediate safety during a home visit
- Using instinctive responses to de-escalate a client in a mental health crisis
- Providing standard advice and resources without extensive deliberation to support a family in distress
- Instinctively managing classroom behavior based on immediate observations and past experiences
System 2 thinking examples for professionals that work with families include:
- Thoroughly reviewing all case details as a child welfare professional, considering multiple perspectives and consulting colleagues before making a long-term placement
- Conducting an in-depth assessment and evaluations to develop an understanding of a client's mental health needs
- Crafting individualized treatment plans that consider a person’s history, needs, and long-term goals
- Collaborating and learning from families to create plans to address their unique needs
- Conducting comprehensive assessments to understand a student’s strengths and areas for improvement
Leaning into System 2 Thinking
There is room for both systems of thinking in the work that helping professionals do. However, sometimes, it is more suitable to lean into System 2 thinking. Incorporating System 2 thinking into practices can enhance the effectiveness and contribute to more sustainable changes and outcomes for families and communities. While System 1 thinking can be beneficial in certain contexts but can lead to missed opportunities for more well-considered decisions.
- Carefully evaluate all available information, consider multiple perspectives, and weigh the potential consequences of their decisions
- Enhanced problem solving, leading to more creative and innovative solutions
- When professionals take the time to think critically and reflect, they can convey their messages more empathetically and clearly
- Reduced bias through deliberate reflection
- Long-term goals and sustainability are improved through tailored, thoughtful solutions
When helping professionals carefully evaluate a family or a community's situation, we can create tailored, thoughtful solutions, building up the people we want to serve and coming from a place of empathy and curiosity. The Institute for Family challenges you to take time today to think about a recent professional decision you made that you made using a type 1 way of thinking. Reapproach the situation using a type 2 framework of thinking. Did it change your perspective on the situation? Do you feel like your solution is better tailored to a holistic solution? Encourage your colleagues to go through the same process and embed these principles into some of your team’s decision-making processes. While there will always be a need for type 1 thinking, we have the potential to use type 2 thinking in more complex situations to create thought, reflective, and sustainable solutions and practices.
If you have any questions or comments about the content in this Lightbulb Moment article, please get in touch with our Research Lead, Madeline Attianese, at mattianese@chsnc.org.
