Leverage for systemic change
Where to focus to create a future-fit culture of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world” — Archimedes 1
Albert Einstein was working as a second class clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland when he conceived relativity theory.
This fairly lowly position gave him two great advantages over his contemporaries in the world of physics.
Firstly, his day job involved reviewing a number of patent applications for methods of synchronising clocks in different cities.
This was becoming a pressing challenge after formation of the Swiss Federal Railways in January 1902.
The planned direct link with Italy via the Simplon Tunnel (completed in 1906) would put Bern on an important international route from France.
And with train speeds increasing, it was increasingly vital that the station clock in Bern showed the same time as the station clocks in Paris, in Milan, etc.
As a result, Einstein was deeply immersed in practical thinking about the physical relationship between time, distance, speed, etc.
Einstein’s second advantage over his more famous physicist contemporaries such as Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré was as an outsider to the mainstream physics community he wasn’t so wedded to the 200 years of established Newtonian orthodoxy on which their illustrious careers were solidly based.
Poincaré had himself got so far as questioning the absolute nature of time, however both he and Lorentz were “groping towards the same revision of our notions of space and time as Einstein, but were groping through a fog of misperception foisted on them by Newtonian physics”. 2
Our lives may not be consumed with the concerns of theoretical physics, but the same underlying principle applies: we can't see our way to the future when we're trapped in an old orthodoxy. 3
This is why most organisations have such a hard time creating future-fit cultures of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness.
Orthodoxies, paradigms, and culture
The word “orthodoxy” — literally “having the right opinion” — appeared in English in the mid 15th century, coming from the Greek orthodoxos, from orthos “right, true, straight” + doxa “opinion, praise”. 4
Originally used exclusively in reference to religion, by the mid 17th century the term was in general usage for “any established thinking widely accepted as correct”.
The word “paradigm” — originally meaning “pattern, model, precedent, example” appeared in English in the late 15th century, coming from the Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai “exhibit, represent” — literally “show side by side”, from para- “beside” + deiknynai “to show”. 5
In the 20th century, paradigm started to be used in the sense: “logical or conceptual structure serving as a form of thought within a given area of experience” — due to Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 history of scientific progress: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. 6
Donella Meadows, in her famous 1999 paper Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System, references Kuhn, saying:
“So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that.
In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you keep coming yourself, and loudly and with assurance from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.
You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.” 7
That’s a reasonable summary of the purpose of this Substack channel:
pointing out how, in an increasingly uncertain and unpredictable world, the old organisational paradigm is failing
demonstrating that organisations therefore need to create future-fit cultures of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness
highlighting that each organisation always has, and always will have, its own unique culture 8
that organisational culture spreads and embeds via clues, cues, signs, and signals systemically originating in the mindsets of key influencers 9
that the key influencers in an organisation are not necessarily in the most senior positions
that cultures change when key influencer mindsets shift in significant ways
that culture can most usefully be understood as the prevailing system of mindsets that forms and informs people’s awareness of the way we do things round here. 10
How does a change in key influencer mindsets change a culture?
A typical example is when an influential individual renowned for imposing their 2D perspective starts being curious about the 2D perspectives of others — i.e. they adopt a 2D3D mindset.
This change of attitude and behaviour sends powerful signals into the body of the organisation that new ideas and different opinions are valued. 11
This curiosity about other perspectives is both the result of, and systemically propagates, a mindset shift.
Another example is when an influential individual known to harbour negative 2D perspectives about colleagues seeks instead to understand the attitudes and behaviours of those colleagues from the latter’s perspective.
The new understanding they gain opens new possibilities throughout their systemic sphere of influence.
This seeking of greater understanding is again both the result of, and systemically propagates, a mindset shift in the culture.
Leverage points - places to intervene in a system
My focus on key influencer mindsets as the place to gain maximum leverage grew out of direct personal experience helping organisations throughout Europe, Asia, and the US to catalyse culture change from the late 1980’s onwards.
Along the way, I discovered that focusing on mindsets for maximum leverage had also featured centrally in the work of the legendary Donella Meadows — a giant in the world of systems thinking.
Here’s how Meadows introduces her famous 1999 paper Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System (cited above in reference to Kuhn):
“Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in ‘leverage points’. These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.
This idea is not unique to systems analysis — it’s embedded in legend.
The silver bullet, the trimtab, the miracle cure, the secret passage, the magic password, the single hero who turns the tide of history.
The nearly effortless way to cut through or leap over huge obstacles.
We not only want to believe that there are leverage points, we want to know where they are and how to get our hands on them.
Leverage points are points of power.” 12
Meadows goes on to develop the following list of where to intervene for systemic change, in increasing order of leverage from top to bottom:
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows.
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms.
She highlights the “the mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises” as the second most powerful leverage point for systemic change.
In other words, a shift in mindset is more powerful than:
changing the goals of the system (3rd level of leverage)
restructuring the system (4th level of leverage)
changing the rules of the system (5th level of leverage)
modifying information flows (6th level of leverage)
-
And a shift in mindset is vastly more powerful than the lowest (12th) level of leverage, changing parameters — e.g. how much money we throw at things, how many people we allocate, how much we incentivise people through extrinsic carrots and sticks, etc:
“Parameters are dead last on my list of powerful interventions.
Diddling with the details, arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Probably 90, no 95, no 99 percent of our attention goes to parameters, but there’s not a lot of leverage in them.
Not that parameters aren’t important — they can be, especially in the short term and to the individual who’s standing directly in the flow.
People care deeply about parameters and fight fierce battles over them.
But they RARELY CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
If the system is chronically stagnant, parameter changes rarely kick-start it.
If it’s wildly variable, they don’t usually stabilize it.
If it’s growing out of control, they don’t brake it.” 13
Contrast this with Meadows’ observations about the mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises — 2nd highest in leverage:
“Paradigms are the sources of systems. From them, from shared social agreements about the nature of reality, come system goals and information flows, feedbacks, stocks, flows and everything else about systems…
…The ancient Egyptians built pyramids because they believed in an afterlife. We build skyscrapers, because we believe that space in downtown cities is enormously valuable. (Except for blighted spaces, often near the skyscrapers, which we believe are worthless.)
Whether it was Copernicus and Kepler showing that the earth is not the center of the universe, or Einstein hypothesizing that matter and energy are interchangeable, or Adam Smith postulating that the selfish actions of individual players in markets wonderfully accumulate to the common good, people who have managed to intervene in systems at the level of paradigm have hit a leverage point that totally transforms systems.
You could say paradigms are harder to change than anything else about a system, and therefore this item should be lowest on the list, not second-to-highest.
But there’s nothing physical or expensive or even slow in the process of paradigm change.
In a single individual it can happen in a millisecond.
All it takes is a click in the mind, a falling of scales from eyes, a new way of seeing.” 14
New ways of seeing
How does a new way of seeing become established?
An individual or group develops a new perspective that others do not yet see, challenging the current paradigm, orthodoxy, or culture.
This feels threatening to those whose sense of self is heavily invested in the current paradigm, orthodoxy, or culture.
The “old guard” initially ridicule, then strongly oppose, the new way of seeing that challenge the status quo, and their status within it.
Eventually the weight of evidence supporting the new way of seeing prevails and becomes the new paradigm, orthodoxy, or culture. 15
So how can you change the orthodoxy to create a future-fit culture of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness?
I’ve already described how maximum systemic leverage for culture change occurs when there’s a shift in the mindsets of the key influencers.
But how are such shifts brought about?
It’s here where Meadows’ highest level of leverage for systemic change comes into play — the power to transcend paradigms:
“There is yet one leverage point that is even higher than changing a paradigm. That is to keep oneself unattached in the arena of paradigms, to stay flexible, to realize that NO paradigm is “true,” that every one, including the one that sweetly shapes your own worldview, is a tremendously limited understanding of an immense and amazing universe that is far beyond human comprehension.” 16
If you aspire to bring about systemic change to create a future-fit culture of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness you must be able to break free from the constraints of your own 2D perspective, including its underlying paradigm.
Only by doing this can you help key influencers escape the trap of their 2D perspectives — otherwise you’re simply, however subtly, seeking to impose your 2D perspective on them instead.
It’s only by overcoming the tendency to cling to outdated perspectives that we create space for new insights, ideas, and innovations to emerge with the potential to change our organisations, and the world. 17
Questions for reflection
Looking at Meadows’ list of leverage points, which one or ones does your organisation tend to focus on?
Which ones do you personally tend to focus on?
How would you describe the mindset or paradigm that best captures the current culture of your organisation?
Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287 BC – c. 212 BC). This variant of his famous quote is from The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus, Fragments of Book XXVI, as translated by F. R. Walton, in Loeb Classical Library (1957) Vol. XI. cited in Wikiquote.
Quote from Einstein - His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, Simon & Schuster 2007 (p133)
Einstein understood this phenomenon only too well. As he said at Werner Heisenberg’s 1926 Berlin lecture: “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.”
Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Wikipedia.
Therefore the one size fits all so-called best practice methodologies of traditional finders, minders, grinders consulting firms don’t work for creating future-fit cultures.
I describe in more detail how organisational culture is propagated in this earlier article.
There’s more on how this working definition of culture arose in this seven minute video.
For more on 2D perspectives and 2D3D mindsets see this earlier article and/or this six minute video.
Ibid - Meadows, Leverage Points
Ibid - Meadows, Leverage Points
Ibid - Meadows, Leverage Points
This doesn’t usually progress smoothly. As Max Planck, founding father of quantum theory observed “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Scientific Autobiography published 1949). Planck’s comment is sometimes paraphrased as “Science progresses one funeral at a time”.
In The Master and His Emissary (2009) and The Matter With Things (2021) Dr Iain McGilchrist describes how the right brain hemisphere is in touch with this incomprehensible vastness, while the left hemisphere deals in narrower conceptualisations that re-present a diminished version of reality we can manipulate with language and logic for utilitarian ends.
This seven minute video describes several case examples of cultivating a future-fit culture of innovation, agility, and adaptiveness by seeing culture as “system of mindsets” and focusing on shifting key influencer mindsets affecting everyone and everything else.