Addressing symptoms shifts the burden from addressing fundamental causes

Every problem has a fundamental cause, but is recognized by the presenting symptoms. Identifying, understanding, and addressing the fundamental cause of a problem is more complicated and time-consuming than addressing the presenting symptoms of the problem. Consequently, people tend to adopt symptomatic solutions which makes the fundamental problem worse and, thus, harder to solve.

An underlying problem generates symptoms that demand attention. But the underlying problem is difficult for people to address, either because it is obscure or costly to confront. So people “shift the burden” of their problem to other solutions—well intentioned, easy fixes which seem extremely efficient. Unfortunately, the easier “solutions” only ameliorate the symptoms; they leave the underlying problem unaltered. The underlying problem grows worse, unnoticed because the symptoms apparently clear up, and the system loses whatever abilities it had to solve the underlying problem.^[1]

The “shifting the burden” structure is composed of two balancing (stabilizing) processes that are trying to address the same problem. One is the symptomatic intervention (the quick fix that temporarily reduces the symptoms) and the other is the fundamental intervention. Addressing the fundamental causes of a problem is effective because it addresses the problem systemically, but its effects take longer to become evident, as there is a delay between action and effect.

Dealing effectively with shifting-the-burden structures requires a combination of strengthening the fundamental response and weakening the symptomatic response. The character of organizations is often revealed in their ability (or inability) to face shifting-the-burden structures. Strengthening fundamental responses requires a long-term orientation and a sense of shared vision.^[2]

#systems-thinking