Third-order change refers to a process in which schemata themselves become objects for continuous cognitive innovation and development. Achieving the capacity for third-order change, however, presumes experience that is transconceptual, not subsumed by individual or social cognitive structures.

Maxwell Maltz

First-order change is doing more – or less – of something we are already doing. First-order change is always reversible. Second-order change is deciding – or being forced – to do something significantly or fundamentally different from what we have done before.

The following is an example of first-order change: Daughter comes to mom, describing struggle with substances and depression and the resulting bad grades she is earning at school this semester. Mom attempts to “rescue” daughter.

First-Order Change. First-order change is change that occurs on the behavioral level without impacting the operating rules of the system. These changes are considered more superficial and less sustainable than second-order changes.

Second-order change is often described as ‘transformational’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘radical’, ‘disruptive’, or ‘discontinuous’. It involves seeing the world in a different way, challenging assumptions, and working from a new and different worldview.

Every action has a consequence, and each consequence has another consequence. These are called Second-Order Effects. Every change you make to a system will have Second-Order Effects, which may affect the system’s functionality. Be careful when making changes, they may have the opposite effect of what you aimed for.

Second-order thinking is more deliberate. Second order thinkers ask themselves the question “And then what?” This means thinking about the consequences of repeatedly eating a chocolate bar when you are hungry and using that to inform your decision. If you do this you’re more likely to eat something healthy.