Wuli, Shili, Renli
What is it?
WSR is a Chinese systems thinking model developed in the 1950s, rooted in the Neo-Confucian principle of Li (essence, patterns, principles, reasoning) and the teachings of Ge Wu Qiong Li. WSR embodies a “differentiated whole” perspective, where reality is a unified whole yet differentiated into material, cognitive, and social realms. Wu, Shi, and Ren are parallel to the Confucian conception of 'the unity of Being, the unity of Existence, the unity of Life, and the unity of Value’.
Ontologically, WSR reflects a Chinese holistic worldview—where the universe is understood through the interplay of physical law (Wu), pragmatic action (Shi), and moral/social principle (Ren). It has deep roots in classical Chinese thought, including the triad of Heaven-Earth-Human. A particularly relevant text for further exploration of this triad is The I Ching: Or Book of Changes by Richard Wilhelm, Hellmut Wilhelm, and Cary F. Baynes.
At its core, WSR presents a culturally informed approach to knowledge synthesis. The methodology emphasizes that none of the three—Wu, Shi, or Ren—can be ignored in favor of another when making decisions. For example, prioritizing Wuli (technical feasibility) without considering Renli (human engagement) can lead to efficient but unpopular policies, while focusing solely on Renli without addressing Wuli may result in impractical solutions. Similarly, neglecting Shili (strategic logic) can create confusion and inefficiency. The key lies in maintaining a dynamic balance between the three to ensure sustainable and effective decision-making. Wuli, Shili, and Renli are differentiable yet inseparable, forming a holistic structure where each component maintains its distinct function while contributing to the overall coherence of a system. Wuli, Shili, and Renli are always conditioning, underlying, and influencing the whole process of projects, although sometimes one Li may appear to be more crucial, important, urgent, or dominant than others. Therefore, WSR contends that we should prepare to deal with a system of all Lis throughout the entire process of our decision-making, actions, design, or project execution. Different Lis govern various phenomena, interactions, and relationships, and each must be approached with its own framework rather than applying a single mode of understanding universally. The interplay of the three Lis is the essence of the decision process; such interplay also leads to the consideration of important facets that are not captured by any one perspective. Therefore, 'cross-cuing,' 'cross-cutting,' and 'integration' among Lis must be encouraged.
Each modality has its own order and is governed by its own set of laws, making it impossible to interpret the behavior of one modality solely through the laws of another. You cannot understand one modality in terms of the other as each follows distinct Lis that cannot be crossed over. For example, using molecular dynamics as a metaphor for stakeholder analysis or workplace politics is misleading, as politics involves human emotions and relationships that cannot be equated with molecular interactions—except at the quantum level maybe, such as quantum entanglement, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. So, it is crucial to distinguish these disciplines while recognizing their interplay in forming a cohesive whole. It is of utmost importance to distinguish between these pillars and disciplines, treating and using them as separate entities that still work together to form the whole.
On a global level, there is a tendency in modern society to use science as the leading modality, often at the expense of other ways of understanding reality. You cannot understand everything through science alone—human affairs are human affairs, and science is science. As Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, science has overextended itself into areas where it does not belong, creating an imbalance in our interpretation of reality. A relevant read on this topic is The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake, which critiques the limitations of scientific dogmatism and its encroachment into domains beyond its natural scope.
What is WSR Made Of?
WSR’s epistemology can be broken down as follows:
Wuli: Understanding objective reality through scientific facts and technical constraints.
Shili: Applying modeling and strategy to interpret and enhance efficiency.
Renli: Integrating human interests, values, and relationships into decision-making.
In practical terms, WSR is often used for systems projects, where successful execution is seen as conditioned by:
Wu (objective existence),
First, Wu in WSR denotes dynamic relations within objective existence, 'the whole range of "facts" in our resources and constrains. Accordingly Wuli covers orders, regularities and mechanisms that governing those objective relations.
Shi (affairs and engagements), and
Next, Shi is used to describe 'affairs' and 'engagements' through which we human beings 'involve into' the world: seeing, thinking, planning and acting, or in short, the modelling of models. Accordingly, Shili is 'defined' as patterns or ways in which humans think and act in the world. 'In studying Shili, we focus on investigating and understanding how the world can be better modelled and managed' . Therefore Shili can be interpreted as pertaining to the study of relations between humans and the world.
Ren (human relations, encompassing objectivity, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity).
Then, 'Renli highlights the importance of human relations', 'stresses the intersubjective relations among parties concerned by our actions', 'denotes to patterns of human behaviour and interaction, effects of encounters among different value systems and interests, as well as ways of investigating and tackling those patterns, effects, and encounters'.
Object relationships in Renli refer to formal, structured, and institutionalized human connections.
These relationships are governed by external rules, laws, roles, and systemic constraints rather than subjective personal dynamics. For example, the Employer-Employee Relationship (as defined by labor contracts, HR policies).
Subjective relationships in Renli refer to individual experiences, emotions, and perceptions in social interactions. Unlike object relationships, which are externally imposed, subjective relationships emerge from personal feelings, interpretations, and psychological states. For example, a person's trust in their boss (beyond the contractual employer-employee relationship).
Inter-subjective relationships in Renli go beyond individual emotions—they represent shared cultural norms, collective agreements, and mutual understandings.
They are not purely external structures (object) nor purely personal experiences (subjective) but emerge through social interactions and shared meaning-making. For example, a company that values innovation and openness creates inter-subjective work ethics.
My Opinion on Wuli, Shili, Renli
Why I Like It
WSR offers a systems vision built on differentiation and multiplicity, which resonates with Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic thinking/ontology. It challenges the reductionist tendencies in traditional systems approaches by emphasizing a differentiated and interconnected perspective on reality, human inquiry, and systemic operations. With the differentiation-multiplicity vision as their core rationale, it is natural that WSR holds an open attitude towards other methods and integrating other approaches into it.
What I particularly appreciate is the self-awareness in acknowledging that WSR is part of Shili, reinforcing its nature as a meta-thinking method. It does not claim to be the 'supreme truth' or the 'rightest' way to approach things, but rather a balanced way to perceive and act in certain contexts—particularly in dealing with ecology, large systems, or extensive human interactions. More precisely, WSR is a piece of Shili—suggesting a way of seeing and doing things, improving and popularizing systems research and practice by pursuing appropriate methods to address differentiable Wuli, Shili, and Renli in a systemically informed way.
WSR can be understood as a kind of 'meta-system'—not in the sense of presenting a particular system based on systemic principles, where relational elements and relationships form a unified whole, but rather as a framework for observing and understanding systems. It functions as a 'system of looking at systems' or a 'system about systems' without positioning itself as a competitor to other systems. This aligns with the idea that everything is a process, requiring flexibility, adaptability, and an ongoing dialogue with the environment. Instead of asserting itself as the ultimate or 'rightest' approach, WSR embracesbalance, making it a tool that can be molded to suit different complexities and situations.
Furthermore, WSR highlights the importance of adaptability in decision-making, acknowledging that different phenomena require distinct approaches. For example, in crisis management, a rigid adherence to predefined procedures (Shili) may be insufficient when unexpected challenges arise. By integrating adaptability—balancing technical constraints (Wuli), strategic flexibility (Shili), and human responsiveness (Renli)—WSR allows decision-makers to navigate uncertainty more effectively. This adaptability is particularly relevant in fields such as disaster response, policy-making, and large-scale organizational change, where dynamic conditions require flexible yet structured approaches. This perspective is particularly relevant in today’s complex environments, where rigid frameworks often fail to address multifaceted challenges. Ultimately, WSR reinforces the idea that systemic thinking should not be static but should evolve dynamically, integrating diverse perspectives to create sustainable and meaningful solutions. The designers of WSR hold a modest attitude towards their own approach. WSR is not 'facts-pertaining,' nor is it 'objective' in the sense of 'universal laws.' Rather, it should only be considered as having potential value for carrying out certain kinds of affairs 'better.'
More technical domains require structured methods, and WSR itself acknowledges this by emphasizing that everything is contextual. Even when one pillar appears more dominant or urgent, the other two remain actively at play, shaping decisions and actions. Ultimately, every situation involves the world, oneself, and other people. It is subjective because it is based on personal interpretations of Confucian teachings and contemporary systems science. Here again, I see how this rhizomatic idea integrates with my undertakings and my way of being. The notion that everything is a process, and that one should remain flexible, malleable, and open to constant flux in response to the environment, aligns with Deleuzian philosophy. This adaptability prevents limitations and instead fosters creative thriving—a Lust am Leben, a creative impulse to create for its own sake rather than from a place of lack.
This is the beauty of WSR—it does not impose a singular modality onto all others but instead acknowledges three distinct yet interdependent modalities. Each of these three rests on different Lis, values, assumptions, or even physical laws, highlighting their fundamental distinctions. You can think of these functioning like 3D axes, dynamically adjusting the intersection point (the contextual situation ie: project, programme, etc.) to match environmental complexity. This framework ensures viability by offering multiple ways to maneuver out of failure. If one modality is insufficient, another can be leveraged to shift reality and restore equilibrium.
The best aspect of WSR, in my view, is that it provides the freedom to use it loosely and contextually, making it highly adaptable, scalable, and organic—implying growth and continuous refinement. It serves as an entry point into understanding how to manage projects in a balanced way, much like training wheels on a bike. Initially, WSR provides a structured approach that offers stability and guidance, helping individuals navigate complexity with a sense of balance. Over time, as practitioners gain experience and develop their own adaptive strategies, they internalize the principles of WSR, making the structured guidance less necessary. This transition mirrors the process of learning to ride a bike—starting with support, gradually building confidence, and eventually moving fluidly through the system without relying on rigid frameworks. WSR offers not just a methodology but a way of being, aligning one's actions with the contextual subjective complexity at hand—like shifting gears in a car to match varying terrains. Once readers understand the philosophy and principles of WSR, as long as they realise tasks to fulfil, provided that they have more appropriate methods of their own, the presentation of the six-step procedure of WSR had better be forgotten.
This is something I have always felt—methods like PMP are devoid of values and principles, focusing heavily on rigid structures and technical execution without deeper philosophical grounding. Axelos MSP, while slightly more interesting due to its emphasis on program management and strategic alignment, still lacked depth in fostering a true systemic understanding. Many people around me have applied these methods in an overly rigid and mechanical way, if at all. I believe that such methods should not just be procedural but should fundamentally shape one's way of being, shifting perspectives and influencing how we engage with the world. While guidelines are important, they should be tools for transformation rather than rigid constraints.
Conclusion
WSR is a Trinitarian relations system— by considering technical feasibility (Wuli), strategic alignment (Shili), and human engagement (Renli), one simultaneously investigates the objective world, reflects on our subjective modeling of reality, and fosters intersubjectivity among human beings. It serves as a balanced framework that integrates these dimensions, ensuring that decision-making and systemic thinking remain analytical, adaptable, inclusive, relational and context-sensitive.
Zhu, Zhichang. (1999). Systems approaches: Where the East meets the West. World Futures. 53. 253-276. 10.1080/02604027.1999.9972742.
