This post is part of my #SocialChangeAsADailyPractice series.
In this post I will introduce two concepts that aid in understanding your challenge in contributing to social change without any formal title, mandate or authority to fully reform, or revolutionise (we’ll get to the difference), a complex social system.
The first is a framework for understanding the difference between complex, complicated and simple problems. The second is a framework for determining where in a system to intervene.
Some of the posts in this series will be “fluffier” personal stories or insights dealing with habits, prejudices, privileges — the importance of self-awareness and practicing what you preach, if you will. Other posts will be case studies, examples and critiques. And some, like this one, will provide theoretical frameworks to bind the two. So, bear with me while we start with some theory.
Complex Problems
The above Cynefin framework is used in a lot of social impact, social entrepreneurship and development work. It presents the idea that problems, or challenges, can be simple, complicated, complex or chaotic. A simple problem is a problem that has a clear, formulaic solution that can easily be mechanized or standardized for repeat roll out. A complicated problem is one that can be broken down into multiple simple problems, and solutions engineered across teams or systems. A complex problem is one in which we cannot easily predict all variables in the system, but we have some tools to do so, especially if we pool the right know-how and adopt emergent approaches, accepting that these cannot always be replicated over and over again. A chaotic problem is one in which we have no ability to predict any aspect of the system.
Often, when working on social change, we are faced with attempting to influence a complex issue, in a complex geography, governed by, at the best of times, complicated, often complex (hopefully not chaotic!) institutions.
Processes responding to complexity are often characterized by low levels of agreement on:
o The requirements of the system
o The technologies or interventions to meet the requirements
When simple, or even complicated, models are superimposed on complex problems (for example, top-down compliance, auditing and performance management systems), we can see the wrong solutions being driven, or what appears to be inaction (often in spite of “good policy”, committees, commissions etc).
Some systems appear from the outside to be behaving irrationally. Arriving at a diagnosis of what is really going on is critical to determining your strategy to engage. Look out for two upcoming case studies that will help you learn to do this:
- How Wolwerivier happens
- The symbolism of the Parklet for transformative leadership
If this is your diagnosis, your challenge is going to be setting up methods for reflexive work, where you can “probe-sense-respond” and develop emergent solutions.
Later posts will delve into models and movements, like MassiveSmall and “problem driven adaptive iteration” (PDIA) that offer sets of principles and tools for this sort of work.
Reflexive work also requires a certain level of self-awareness; an awareness of your positionalities, spheres of influence, and biases, and an awareness of how a system may perceive or respond to you based on your politics and identity, for example.
Addressing complex problems through iterative adaptation requires diverse know-how, as well as supportive, collaborative relationships that enable experimenting, learning and adapting to feedback. How we structure teams and find partners and collaborators will also be a central theme of this series. should consider the specific range of know-how for learning and adapting.
Where to Intervene in a System
Meadows “where to intervene in a system” is a piece of theoretical work I have returned to over the years.
The #SocialChangeAsADailyPractice series will focus on tactics towards the top end of this spectrum, but acknowledge that the locus of influence vs. control that you as an individual, group, or organisation have at a particular moment will also inform where in a system you are best positioned to act. The next post in this series will unpack the balance of legitimacy and functionality in your actions, as well as how to leverage collaboration to amplify your influence and shit your impact closer to full system change.
For now, a precautionary note on the lower end — where we focus on what we can measure. Performance management driven institutional cultures* can lead to a prioritisation of decreasingly effective interventions — to the extent that they focus on whatever numbers you can measure, as opposed to a comprehensive theory of change, and incremental interventions driven by tight feedback loops and adaptation.
This is not to say that measurable indicators are not important. It is how we use them that matters. For example, if we know that the reason an indicator can only be shifted within a certain range is a particular binding constraint, our efforts should focus on addressing that binding constraint — and thereby change the rules, or the mindset — rather than on just achieving that within-range shift. For example, if we see a target for shifting to renewable en
- An example of this would be a large local government institution where one department has a Key Performance Indicator that is narrowly defined such as “reduce the number of informal settlements”. Without inter-secting measures of improving housing conditions, improving access to services and opportunities, an indicator like that can lead to terrible outcomes — watch for a future post in this series, “How Wolwerivier happens”, where I will unpack this as another case study in knowing how large systems create irrational outcomes.
If you’re interested in more of the #socialchangeasadailypractice:
