Seeing the Whole: Tensions in the Field
As we explored this territory, we saw key patterns and high-level observations which are not necessarily positive or challenging but are phenomenological. We hope that in sharing these, it can improve our understanding of the mindsets and dynamics within this space. It is also important to remember that individuals interviewed represent a smaller sample of efforts involved in systems work, with a smaller percentage of funders, government officials and investors represented.
THE SYSTEMS SPACE IS FRAGMENTED. IS THIS A GOOD THING, A BAD THING, OR BOTH?
The so-called “systems community” represents a wide variety of fields of awareness. For example, for some, an effort is “systemic” if it involves a diversity of stakeholders. For others, the multi-stakeholder condition is insufficient: it’s only systemic if it actively confronts societal power structures and dominant narratives, which involves radically changing who has power in the process. For some, working systemically is about methodology, while for others, it’s about mindset. For many, it is a combination of these.
Most acknowledge that there is no one “right” way of achieving systemic change and the practice is constantly evolving. Systemic change is not owned by any one actor, sector, movement or group. At the same time, there are those who feel that they are at the forefront of the movement and have more ownership over it than others.
This dynamic introduces a tension in how to grow effective systems change practice: On one hand, effective systemic change must be inclusive, able to be interpreted and reinterpreted in different contexts by more and more people. On the other hand, “good” practice and “bad” practice needs to be understood and illuminated. What are the core, inviolable practices or ideas that separate the good from the bad? How can the field identify those without creating an exclusive club of those “in the know”?
If there is a thread that binds the practice of systemic change, it may be an authentic embrace of humility and curiosity.
HOW DO WE NAVIGATE TENSION BETWEEN AGITATING, INNOVATING AND ORCHESTRATING TOWARD CHANGE?
In their Sept 2017 SSIR article, Julie Battilana & Marissa Kimsey asked: “should you agitate, innovate, or orchestrate?” Systems change agents must ask themselves this question. Agitation is stirring things up to challenge the status quo. Innovation is developing new solutions/ alternatives to the status quo. Orchestration is the coordination of different efforts.
Many feel we are at a critical inflection point around the way capital is distributed in solving/remedying social issues. They feel we need agitation: taking an activist approach to radically change it.
““Making social change through an entrepreneurial mindset has largely been colonized by neoliberal thinking. Colonization is the word. But if you talk about neo-liberalism head on - you will be marginalized.””
Others see the radical perspective as impractical. The view is that you need to work with those who have power to begin to redistribute that power and enact change. They feel we need innovation and orchestration - working within existing systems.
The discussion around this tension can become polarized, but many see the need for multiple perspectives and gradations of all. They recognize that incremental change may sometimes be effective, but radical change also needs to be on the table, otherwise slow change will always be the default.
““Many of us were raised in an environment in which we are judged by grades. We get praised when we get an ‘A’. But with the systems approach, maybe you get a ‘C” ’in terms of outcomes, but what matters is more what you learned and how are you improving. The system is structured to give money or get money if you get an ‘A.’ This linear model is more stable. That’s much harder to do in a codified way. So, if we’re talking about social change, we have these systems that are pretty bureaucratic & standardized, in government & philanthropy. The system of incentives is structured to gain money if you get an “A.” When systems change practitioners say ‘let’s tear this up,’ there’s a defensiveness reaction. So, is the first step to change mindset? That’s the hardest thing to do. Maybe it’s more about the system of thinking that created philanthropy as it is now, that needs shifting?” ”
While some interviewees reported having great experiences with some philanthropic organizations, many are not seen as understanding what it truly means to share power with their grantees and collaborators, particularly when responding to the changing dynamics in the field that grantees are experiencing on a day to day basis.
Who does the current field of systems practice benefit, and who does it exclude? The answers depend on the context, but it does seem clear that the systems community needs to improve its literacy and appreciation for the role of power in systemic change.
““When people talk about social innovation and systemic change, the language tends to be very abstract and very non-political. As if, somehow, the system exists this way because nobody was paying attention. The status quo is not an accident. You have to recognize that many people are opposed to systemic change! One of the not-often recognized problems with philanthropy is that it is about incremental change. By and large, foundations are established within the confines of what’s good for the status quo (though there are exceptions).””
Our Experience Working Together from Different Vantage Points
In doing this work, we lived much of the tension we are exploring: the challenge of finding common ground across different perspectives, particularly in the way we initially defined it as between “funder” and “systems” people. Even though all team members have been involved in “systems work”, we came from different worlds. One member of our team has spent decades in philanthropy and has a deep passion for building an effective philanthropic sector, as well as funding systems change organizations and initiatives, while others have spent their careers seeking funding for systemic change work.
We each have different networks with different sensitivities, and we had misperceptions about each other’s professional worlds and practices. When we think about who we want to inspire and who we want to provoke with challenging ideas, we have different ways and people in mind.
To work through this tension, we had to learn how to find a truly shared voice to interpret and highlight information. We came to understand that what counts as “jargon” vs. clear communication is not clear-cut; it depends on the communities of practice (and the language that comes with it) with which people are comfortable. For example, we each had to unlearn or broaden our preconceived notions of what we see as a “concrete proposal,” or “systemic.”
We also learned that our language can represent the mental models we use to understand the world, and this can cause miscommunication and conflict. The framing of “systems people” and “funders” implies a difference between “systems people” and “non-systems people,” which has a connotation of “those who ‘get it’” vs. “those who don’t.”
This was a tough realization. It was uncomfortable to realize that our perspectives were, at times, antithetical to the most basic principle of working systemically: don’t assume your lens is complete or correct. We also had to avoid this commitment becoming a platitude by pretending that everyone is in the same boat and there is no conflict and no differences. Some people and organizations are doing better work than others in responding to the complex and urgent challenges we face.
Overall, we realized that the real value of our work came from the fact that we were different. Nobody wanted to create an echo chamber and, even though it was hard, we committed to find a way forward despite our differences. We invested a lot of time in our team to find this way forward. Our team went through a “polarity map” exercise, in which we mapped out our greatest hopes and fears about the different directions our work could go, and we agreed to practices that would help us realize the best-case scenarios.
Perhaps what we learned was that “good work” is often about the mindsets and the values behind practice - a genuine sense of curiosity, a willingness to act in the face of ambiguity, the practice of being in love with a question rather than an answer and to hold that space. These practices are the real thread that bound us. We discovered that we all share them.
In writing this paper and interpreting this information, we had to work hard to find the words that felt right for each of us. But we did that work and remained committed to embracing the experience of being confused and frustrated and chose to trust that the outcome was better for it.
““Sometimes when you hit a wall together, it feels like the end, but then the insights and the gold that comes from this only becomes apparent after you’re stuck. This is an important process.” ”