In part 1 I shared my personal introduction to systems thinking and the conclusion I reached that there were some systems when it simply made no sense to me to hold a single person responsible for results, for good or bad. Often when people in the social sciences or change world talk about system change they mean something more than a process-based system. I referenced Dave Snowden’s work and his Cynefin framework, as I’ve discussed before, supposes that there are three types of system: ordered (clear and complicated), disordered (complex) and chaotic. Ordered systems are characterised by discernible cause and effect relationships. The entire scientific revolution was predicated on this. These are systems that exist in the complicated realm; while the relationships may not be immediately obvious, they can be determined, the parts of the system or process analysed, improved, and put together in an efficient manner. The machine metaphor works well here. 

When we consider education or health, though, we move to the complex domain and we do so largely because we are dealing with an exponentially greater range of factors and relationships, many of which will never be known to those acting within the system to try and secure the desired outcomes (GPs, teachers, nurses etc). Cause and effect relationships are unhelpful here even when we think we can uncover them; indeed, more harm than good is perpetrated in good faith by those who think they are addressing the real challenge only to find out through the observance of unintended consequences that reality has shifted and the intervention has not survived contact with the real world. Of course, in a world that is treating a complex challenge with logic that only works in the complicated domain, where experts rule the roost, we blame the individual for this failing – of diagnosis or implementation – and sanction them with various measures. They are clearly not expert enough, not competent enough an employee, and so on. 

Few others at that time seemed to think the prevailing logic was fundamentally flawed so imagine my relief when I found the work of John Seddon and Dave Snowden and they offered insights that helped me make sense of what was going on. A bigger challenge, though, was to change these systems themselves. There was a self-perpetuating logic to this – the social system was producing people schooled in the very thinking that led to these systems being perpetuated, like a virus that ensures it’s own survival by causing the host to cough it out so it can infect someone else. 

And so we move to the idea that not all systems are created equal. Indeed, as (link to visual roadmap) work by XX shows, systems thinking and complexity have multiple historical antecedents. Perhaps that’s part of the challenge. Depending on your perspective, training, occupation and so on, you will see complexity and systems differently. 

There remain challenges to bridge these two worlds, and I tend here to err on the side of the practical. Some will say that in complexity a systems approach is unhelpful in that you can’t set a clear objective and march in an orderly fashion towards it. Some will say that a systems approach is about understanding what lies beneath the obvious, the deeper contextual factors that are driving the systems performance. Others will say it’s about understanding the evolutionary potential in the present and seeking to make the best next step forward. I tend to think a bit of all: in the ordered domain a system comprises a predictable set of relationships and therefore outcomes and objectives can be established and delivered. In a complex system, a part of the disordered domain, we need to focus far more on the process as key to unlocking learning about what’s really going on. Clear goals and objectives are unhelpful here as they can blinker us to the possibilities that emerge through the interaction of the parts of the system and lead us to blame ‘poor performance’ on the individual leading the work. 

And so, after a long and winding diversion, we land at a place were perhaps I can offer an answer to my own question regarding how we define systems change. And of course the answer is ‘it depends’; not unhelpfully, but because what we mean by systems change is entirely dependent on the nature of the system we are working in. If we are in a complicated system, systems change can be seen akin to process improvement or, to revise the machine metaphor, like a mechanic making changes to fix a an engine. If we are in a complex system, however, systems change can appear as a rainbow of colours shifting with time and the prevailing conditions. The absence of cause and effect leaves us seeking to intervene in the system with the pure intention of generating learning through feedback to inform our next step. Think of a GP prescribing a treatment for someone who is obese and holding them to account for whether their patient loses weight or not, yet they have no control over their patient’s heritage, beliefs, home environment, attitudes, access to open space, finances, propensity of fast food stores in their neighbourhood, knowledge of healthy eating, air quality and so on. The list can be endless. 

Claiming change in a complex system, and here I think we can include all social systems, is a humble challenge given the absence of discernible cause and effect. A key characteristic of complex systems is emergence; the visible properties of the system, its outcomes or purpose, is seen but not predictable. Of course emergence is, by definition, change. So if we are not careful we run the risk of claiming some agency in bringing change about when, in reality, the system is in constant change. We are but an actor in that system – and we can’t predict with any certainty the results of our actions. And so complex systems will always change; we will always seek to nudge or influence the directionality of that change, but we should do so – I believe – with humility about the extent of our agency to create change.  

Does this offer a definition? I’m not sure. But in complex systems, change is the norm; perhaps it is better to think of the endeavour of systems change as an art as opposed to a science, a dance with multiple elements rather than a direct walk to the corner shop. In future articles I will dig in to some of these ideas more deeply, as I am particularly interested in how different cultures view systems change once we shake free of a largely western, reductionist mindset.