Why the Positive Systems Approach to Parenting Outshines Conventional Methods (And Isn’t Just “Gentle Parenting”)

Parenting advice is everywhere. Books, blogs, Instagram posts, well-meaning friends — all offer strategies and styles. As parents try this, that, or the other thing, many still feel stuck, frustrated, or unsure: “What truly works long-term? What aligns with my values? What helps my child and me stay sane?”

That’s the promise of the Positive Systems Approach (PSA): a coherent, evidence-informed, compassion-based framework that doesn’t just tweak behaviour, but transforms relationships, family systems, and how we think about what behaviour means. In this post, I’ll lay out how PSA differs from conventional styles, why it’s superior in many respects, and why it’s not just another form of “gentle parenting” — especially as critiqued in recent commentary (e.g. Psychology Today’s “What’s Wrong With Gentle Parenting?”)

Conventional Parenting Models: What’s Common, What’s Limited

Before delving into PSA, it helps to map out what’s out there — what many parents already know or have tried. These are the conventional models most often discussed in research and popular parenting circles:

1. Authoritarian / Strict Discipline

   
   

   High demands, rigid rules, obedience expected without much input or collaboration. Consequences and punishments figure prominently.

   
   

2. Permissive / Indulgent Parenting

   
   

   Warmth and emotional support are high; expectations, structure, and limits are weak or inconsistent.

   
   

3. Uninvolved / Neglectful Parenting

   
   

   Emotional distance, low demands, little monitoring or engagement.

   
   

4. Authoritative Parenting

   
   

   Often considered the “gold standard” in much psychology research: combines expectations and boundaries with warmth, responsiveness, open communication, and recognition of the child’s voice and feelings.

   
   

5. Behaviour Modification & Traditional Discipline Tools

   
   

   Time-outs, removal of privileges, rewards and punishments, sticker charts, consequences for misbehaviour, etc.

   
   

These approaches differ in how they balance warmth vs control, structure vs flexibility, rules vs autonomy. Many systems used by parents today mix elements of several of the above.

What Is the Positive Systems Approach (PSA)?

To contrast with those conventional methods, here is what distinguishes PSA in principle and practice (drawing on the framework in What if it's Not Just the Behaviour? A New Way to Parent with a Positive Systems Approach:

Book on Amazon

• Behaviour as Communication: Every behaviour is meaningful. When a child misbehaves, is defiant, etc., it’s not just about “breaking rules” — it’s about what that behaviour is telling us (e.g. unmet needs, sensory overload, emotional dysregulation, developmental stage).

• Systems Thinking: More than just reacting to individual incidents. PSA looks at the broader system: family routines, environmental stressors, biological and neurological factors, school or peer contexts, consistency of responses, communication patterns.

• Compassion & Connection: Foundational to PSA is the relational base. Without trust, safety, connection, interventions are fragile. PSA emphasizes creating relational safety, giving human reward (praise, warmth) freely, not just contingently.

• Teaching Skills & Self-Regulation: Rather than just controlling behaviour externally, PSA works to give children tools: emotional regulation, problem solving, communication skills, coping strategies, self-soothing, etc.

• Preventive Design: Routines, predictable structure, environmental modifications, proactive supports rather than waiting for a crisis or misbehaviour to respond with consequence.

• Flexible Boundaries: Clear expectations and limits, but adjustable in light of the child’s developmental stage, temperament, and the context. Boundaries are maintained, but with compassion and flexibility.

• Long-Term Growth & Resilience: The goal is not just a quiet house today, but children who develop inner resources, ability to manage challenges, empathy, and strong relationships.

Key Differences: PSA vs Conventional Approaches

Here are some direct contrasts which help clarify how PSA diverges from conventional models:

Feature	Conventional / Traditional Approaches	PSA (Positive Systems Approach)
View of Misbehaviour	Defiance, rule breaking, testing limits. Behaviour to be punished or suppressed.	Communication of unmet needs, emotional or sensory overload, lacking skill. Root causes considered.
Role of Punishment / Consequences	Central. Used to enforce rules, suppress misbehaviour, create compliance.	Consequences are reframed as opportunities to teach; punishment is minimized or rethought; consequences are logical, related, and respectful.
Reinforcement and Praise	Often contingent, given when “deserving,” sometimes used as manipulation (stickers, rewards).	Abundant and relational; given freely; recognition of small moments; emphasis on human reward (connection) rather than material reward.
Structure & Systems	Rule-driven, often top-down. Less attention paid to environment or context beyond immediate triggers.	Holistic: family routines, physical environment, predictable schedule, supports around transitions, stress reduction.
Parent Emotional State	Can easily spiral: guilt, anger, frustration, punitive impulses. Focus is often on getting child to comply, sometimes at cost of parent-child relationship.	Emphasis on parental self-awareness, emotional regulation, calm boundary setting, reducing parental stress via proactive systems.
Goal	Immediate compliance, order, avoiding bad behaviour.	Long-term competence, self-regulation, strong relationships, resilience, internal moral compass.
Flexibility with boundaries	Boundaries often rigid, one-size-fits-all.	Boundaries clear but responsive to individual child’s needs, developmental stage, context.

In short, the main differences can be characterized through this graphic:

Why PSA Is Superior: Outcomes, Sustainability, Relationship, Well-Being

Why choose PSA over other approaches? Here are several reasons:

1. Deeper & More Lasting Change

   
   

   Because behaviour is addressed as signal rather than symptom, changes tend to stick. Children internalize skills—emotional awareness, self-regulation—that go beyond avoiding punishment.

   
   

2. Better Relationship & Trust

   
   

   Children who feel understood, safe, and valued are more likely to approach parents with concerns, share feelings, take guidance. PSA builds connection—and that strengthens everything from discipline to cooperation.

   
   

3. Reduced Conflict & Meltdowns

   
   

   With environmental supports, predictable routines, understanding triggers, many explosive or challenging moments can be prevented altogether, reducing both child and parent stress.

   
   

4. Parental Well-Being

   
   

   PSA tends to reduce guilt, shame, or the “parenting by reaction” cycle. Parents learn tools, structure, and mindset shifts that help them feel more effective, less helpless.

   
   

5. Adaptable Across Contexts & Children

   
   

   Because PSA is systems-based and skill-oriented, it works across different temperaments, ages, backgrounds. It is not rigid; it allows tailoring.

   
   

6. Supports Moral & Social Development

   
   

   By teaching empathy, respect, problem-solving, cooperation, PSA contributes to more than just obedience—it supports becoming ethical, socially capable people.

   
   

Gentle Parenting: Strengths, Limitations, and How PSA Compares

To help clarify what PSA isn’t, it’s useful to contrast it with Gentle Parenting—especially as discussed in Emily Edlynn, Ph.D.’s article “What’s Wrong With Gentle Parenting?” (Psychology Today). The article praises many of its ideals but raises concerns about its practical limitations. PSA addresses many of these concerns and goes beyond.

What Is Gentle Parenting?

From Edlynn’s article, gentle parenting is broadly defined as:

• Treating the child as an individual with their own point of view. Psychology Today

• Centering guidance, teaching, modeling rather than punishment or shame. Psychology Today

• Emphasis on empathy and understanding. Psychology Today

These are positive, laudable values—they overlap with authoritative parenting, autonomy-supportive parenting, and indeed with PSA in many respects.

Key Critiques of Gentle Parenting (from the Article)

Edlynn raises several concerns or “no’s” about gentle parenting as commonly understood or practiced:

1. Unrealistic Expectations / Idealization

   
   

   Gentle parenting is often presented as an ideal, leading parents to feel shame or guilt when they fall short. Psychology Today

   
   

2. Lack of Clarity When Things Don’t Work

   
   

   What do you do when your child continues undesirable behaviours despite gentle-parenting methods (interruptions, tantrums, etc.)? Gentle parenting may praise patience, empathy, lower voices, but less often gives clear tools for when those do not suffice. Psychology Today

   
   

3. Stress & Shame for the Parent

   
   

   Because of high moral expectations, parents may feel judged by social media or internal standards. There can be intense pressure to always act with perfect empathy, patience, modeled behavior. Psychology Today

   
   

4. Empathy Alone Isn't Enough

   
   

   Empathy is crucial, but does not necessarily change behaviour. Kids may not have the skills yet; neurological, developmental, environmental issues may interfere. Psychology Today

   
   

5. Scientific Weakness / Slippery Definition

   
   

   The concept of “gentle parenting” is broad, loosely defined. The empirical evidence is mixed; definitions vary so much that scientific study is difficult. It’s hard to know what exactly is being tested across studies. Psychology Today

   
   

6. Need for Consequences and Boundaries

   
   

   Gentle parenting material sometimes underplays consequences, or treats them as punishment rather than as logical and educative. Edlynn argues parents still need to enforce limits, have consequences, but often gentle parenting doesn’t sufficiently clarify how. Psychology Today

   
   

How PSA Addresses These Critiques — How It’s Different from Gentle Parenting

Here is how PSA builds on what gentle parenting does right, but also overcomes (or pre-empts) many of the limitations Edlynn describes.

Critique / Limitation of Gentle Parenting	PSA’s Response / Solution
Unrealistic Idealization & Guilt	PSA places realistic expectations, emphasizes experiments and learning rather than “always‐doing it right.” Mistakes are part of growth. The framework gives tools, so parents don’t feel they’re on their own or failing.
What to Do When Gentle Methods Don’t Seem Enough	PSA doesn’t stop at empathy and modeling. It gives clear procedural tools: assessment of environments, checking for biological/sensory stressors, teaching emotional regulation skills, using logical consequences and structured supports. It isn't ideology; it's method.
Parental Stress & Shame	Because PSA incorporates systems thinking, it helps parents design their environments (for themselves and kids) to reduce friction, overwhelm, burnout. It promotes parental self-care, regulation, knowing own triggers. It acknowledges doing well doesn’t mean perfection.
Empathy Without Skills & Context	PSA insists that alongside empathy, parents must build both system supports and teach children skills to handle emotions, conflict, transitions. For example, scaffolding, repetition, calm guidance, not just letting things “slide” or hoping feelings alone will resolve behaviour.
Vague Definitions / Weak Scientific Base	PSA, as per Dr. Bob Carey’s work, is grounded in positive ABA, behavior science, systems theory. It defines tools, structures, and strategies. It is less about a loose ideal and more about specific practices, intervention, measurement of progress, adjusting variables in the system.
Boundaries & Consequences (when needed)	PSA doesn’t avoid consequences. It frames them differently: logical, respectful, educative, related to the misbehaviour. Boundaries are enforced but with compassion; children know what to expect, see fairness, see consistency.

A Side-by-Side Example: Gentle Parenting vs PSA in a Real Situation

To illustrate, let’s imagine a 6-year-old child named Mia who often interrupts her parent while on a work call, even after being reminded not to. How Gentle Parenting might respond, versus how PSA would.

• Gentle Parenting Approach (common version):

  • Parent tries to model calm, waits for moments to gently remind Mia about “phone times,” perhaps uses “inside voice” modeling.

  • If interruption happens, parent might respond with empathy: “I hear you want me to stop what I’m doing. I’m on a call now. Let’s wait until I’m done and then I’ll give you my attention.”

  • But if interruptions continue, parent may feel guilty, shamed (social media memes whisper about being perfect), not fully equipped with what to do next.

  
  

  PSA Approach:

  
  

  • First, see what the interruption means: Is Mia upset, bored, needing attention, testing limits, misunderstanding expectations?

  • Does the system support clarity? For example: Are there visible cues about when the parent is “on call” (a sign, a signal)? Is there predictable “attention” time before or after calls?

  • Teach Mia tools: waiting, using a “help token” or “ask-later” jar, signaling when she wants attention. Practice with parent.

  • Use positive reinforcement: praise when Mia waits, acknowledges the signal, uses the tools.

  • If interruption still happens, logical consequence: perhaps Mia helps pick up or offers to help with something after parent is done. Or there's a calm discussion later about the expectation and consequences.

  • Reflect with Mia: Did the system help? What could change (e.g. shorter calls, more breaks, pre-call attention)?

Thus, PSA doesn’t abandon empathy or relationship (in fact, they’re central), but doesn’t stop there. It builds systems, teaches skills, uses logical consequences, monitors and adjusts.

Why PSA Isn’t Merely Another Gentle Parenting Variation

Given the overlap (empathy, connection, teaching vs punishment) one might wonder: Is PSA just gentle parenting rebranded?

I’d argue no, for these reasons:

1. Clarity of Tools & System Design: Gentle parenting often gives general principles (“be empathetic,” “avoid punishment”) but less on how to build the environmental, relational, and cognitive scaffolds. PSA gives more precise tools: system design, assessment, scaffolding, environmental supports, routines.

2. Explicit Focus on Self-Regulation & Skill Building: While gentle parenting focuses on connection and emotion, PSA intensively works on building the child’s internal coping, regulation, understanding. It treats misbehaviour as lacking skill, not moral failing.

3. Dynamic Adaptiveness & Feedback Loops: PSA expects that not every approach works at once. It builds in feedback: observe what’s happening, adjust the environment/routines/responses, try new supports. Gentle parenting sometimes falls short here — the “what if it doesn’t work?” gap is one of the article’s key critiques. PSA addresses that explicitly.

4. Combining Warmth and Consistent Boundaries with Practical Consequences: Gentle parenting in popular discourse sometimes underplays real consequences; PSA includes these in respectful, related ways. It doesn’t see consequences as punitive but as part of teaching.

5. Grounded in Systems & Behavioral Science: PSA is an integration: positive ABA, developmental psychology & systems theory. Gentle parenting is more philosophical, principle-based, often with less consistent operationalization or empirical validation.

6. Parent as System Designer: PSA gives parents a role not just as emotional supporters but as designers of systems (home environment, schedules, routines, trigger identification) that proactively reduce stressful behaviour. Gentle parenting often focuses more on responses than infrastructure.

Implications for Parents Considering PSA vs Gentle Parenting

If you’re considering which path to take, here are some reflective questions and implications:

• Do you want just to reduce bad behaviour, or to help your child grow emotionally, socially, neurologically?

• When your preferred, gentle-first methods don’t seem to yield enough change, do you want a framework that gives additional tools without abandoning warmth?

• How much does your child’s temperament, sensory or neurological factors, environmental stress, schedule, etc., play a role? Could changing context or routine help?

• Are you okay with imperfection, experimentation, adjusting strategy over time? Do you want a method that supports parent self-regulation as well as child behaviour?

• Do you need actionable, concrete steps and feedback loops, or do you prefer big-picture ideals?

Conclusion

Parenting doesn’t come with a one-size-fits-all manual. But frameworks can help you think more clearly, act more compassionately, and build systems that support your child and you.

The Positive Systems Approach is different from conventional parenting models because it:

• Sees behaviour as communication, not just obedience or defiance

• Emphasizes teaching and self-regulation rather than punishment or coercion

• Builds systemic supports (environment, routines, scaffolding) proactively

• Maintains warm connection, human reward, and strong relationships

• Provides clarity and tools for when things are hard, not just when things are easy

And when compared to gentle parenting, PSA inherits many of its strengths (empathy, connection) but addresses its gaps: giving parents robust, evidence-based tools; being explicit about consequences; designing supports; avoiding idealization and shame; giving paths forward when gentle methods don’t suffice.

If you’re drawn to gentle parenting because of its heart, but you’ve felt frustrated, guilty, or stuck, PSA may offer the next step: one that preserves warmth and connection, but adds structure, science, and sustainability.