In this post, I describe the three main problems with the currently predominant systems change model.
Then, I show how these three problems are interrelated and create a feedback loop that reinforces lack of understanding. As an alternative, I propose a positively reinforcing systems change model. This new model enables local actors to focus on problem understanding and act in their best interests.
Just like in my online course, I show why empowering local practitioners should be a top systems change principle.
Problem #1: Focusing on initiatives instead of problems
Those trying to solve problems at the local level often have a lack of understanding about the problem at hand. This is common and to be expected because complex problems are opaque and difficult to understand. However, instead of spending most of their time learning about the problem itself, they spend most of their time and energy running systems change initiatives (problem #1). As practitioners in the field can tell you, whole years can go by dominated by fundraising, facilitating large group meetings, and writing grant reports.
Problem #2: Adopting an inflexible orthodoxy of systems change
Systems change guides, created primarily by philanthropy, often promote a specific and rigid roadmap for action (problem #2). [My No-Bullshit Systems Change Guide: all you need in just 10 minutes is an exception]. They are based on system thinking concepts but also adopt an orthodoxy that prescribes how local practitioners should address any given problem.
Since the roadmap often requires bureaucratic governance by many stakeholders and a large budget, practitioners have little choice but to seek ongoing philanthropic funding (problem #1).
Problem #3: Directing change and accountability from out-of-town
Through grants, philanthropic and nonprofit leaders from out-of-town often direct how to run local systems change initiatives (problem #3).
Based on systems change orthodoxy (problem #2), grant agreements codify inflexible multi-year timelines. They often spend little time gaining a deep understanding of the problem or acknowledging its complexity. Instead, they require significant time convening and hosting meetings to manufacture consensus around simple cause-and-effect diagnoses. These are often followed by implementation of similarly simple policy solutions.
Thus, practitioners who should be spending time learning about the problem instead run systems change initiatives (problem #1). As I mentioned earlier, these initiatives often spend inordinate time facilitating funder involvement and convening unproductive stakeholder meetings.
A negatively reinforcing systems model
Local lack of understanding about the problem persists (problem #1). This only empowers philanthropy and nonprofits to double down on holding practitioners accountable (problem #3). Calls are made to more closely follow the systems change orthodoxy (problem #2).
Concept map of dysfunctional systems change dynamics
These dynamics sound ridiculous, if not impossibly unlikely. That is, until you participate in a multi-year systems change initiative that doesn’t make any progress on resolving the problem. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. It turns out that everyone is so busy running the systems change initiative that they don’t have time to spend on understanding their own role in the problem itself.
It’s a reinforcing system that can be hard for those involved to recognize as dysfunctional because every step along the way is seemingly well-intentioned. Local practitioners genuinely want guidance and resources and philanthropy genuinely believes they can provide the right way to seek change.
What can be done differently to increase the likelihood of positive impact?
Problem #1 resolved: Focus on the problem, not how to run systems change initiatives
Comprehensive understanding is the prerequisite to deciding:
- what exactly the problem is,
- who should be involved in addressing it, and
- what actions should be taken to resolve it.
Acknowledging that lack of understanding about the problem is the default starting point.
A commitment to continuous learning about the problem itself is also important. The problem itself, and your objectives concerning it, will then be the guide for what to do and who to convene. Let the problem and how it works show you the way.
As you study the problem, there will inevitably be a sense of urgency and calls for quick action to “show that you’re serious”. Or “get some quick wins”. But direction matters more than speed. If you don’t yet know what direction to go in resolving the problem, it doesn’t matter how fast you move or organize others. Be deliberative. Stick with individual and informal approaches to engaging others. Don’t create a formal initiative unless you’re certain it is essential to problem resolution.
Problem #2 resolved: Pick tools suited to complex problem-solving
Whereas many of the methods and tools of the systems change orthodoxy are built based on a prescription for how you and stakeholders must work together, a better approach to complex problems focuses on the problem itself.
To learn about the problem, practitioners need a range of approaches suited to complex problem-solving. At the beginning, this will involve a range of problem structuring tools, including problem modeling and stakeholder interviews about how they perceive the problem.
Then practitioners can tailor their strategy, methods and tools to the particular problem at hand. This type of non-prescriptive guidance is wonderfully freeing. It doesn’t presuppose who should be involved or how you make decisions. Rather, it is an always applicable insight about how to think about and gain understanding of complex problems.
Problem #3 resolved: Empower those with skin in the game to act as they see fit
Philanthropic and nonprofit leaders can trade being specifically wrong (e.g. that there is a right way to seek change, that they know it and should direct others how to do it) for being generally right.
For example, they can let go of giving specific instructions in grant agreements about how to seek change. Instead they can seek commitments from local stakeholders to continuously learn about the problem and adapt appropriately. Rather than reinforcing an orthodoxy, they can offer access to a range of methods and tools along with guidance about the conditions in which the tool is most useful.
A positively reinforcing systems model
The underlying solution is to empower those on the ground to continuously gain understanding of problems and act accordingly. All that needs to be done to transform the feedback loop is to let go of the mistaken idea that there is one best way to improve the world. Then we can open ourselves up to a world of possibilities.
If you’re interested in learning more about the many successful ways you can pursue systems change, check out my online course for practitioners. It will give you all the skills, methods and tools you need to make a difference.
