Systems change and the OC tree
There are different layers of leverage, as well as different opportunities for change that might come from growth, pruning or rebirth - depending on where you focus and the moment in time.
Dr Fiona McKenzie, Founder and Director of Orange Compass
There are many trajectories and pathways to systems change and transformation. In the simplest terms, achieving transformational change requires nudging or disrupting old patterns in order to allow new ones to emerge.
The good news is there are many ways to achieve that. This article shares a simple tool we use to prompt conversations about the many ways to intervene in the system in order to move it towards a desired state. We call these leverage points. And at Orange Compass we use a framework we refer to as the ‘OC Tree’ to help summarise key categories of leverage.
I’ll take a moment here to acknowledge the important work of many others in identifying and categorising leverage points. The most well-known is the work of Donella Meadows, which was built on a sense that many efforts to create change were in fact “pushing with all their might in the wrong direction”. Complex systems are counter intuitive — meaning leverage points are not intuitive. Meadows proposed that, more often that not, when trying to intuitively use points of leverage, we “use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve”. Since her work was originally published over 20 years ago, many others have taken to categorising leverage points in was other ways. Another well known framework for categorising ‘conditions of systems change’ is known as the ‘FSG triangle’. Our framework builds on critical system heuristics as well as the work of Meadows (2008, 2009) and Kania et al. (2018). [For the avid reader, I’ve taken the liberty of throwing in a few more sources of inspiration here including: Abson et al., 2017; Armson, 2011; Birney, 2021; Bolton, 2022 ; Cabrera et al., 2021; Davidson & Morgan, 2018; Egerer, 2021; Geels, 2011; Omidyar Group, 2017; Slattery. & Kaufman, 2022]
One more thing befre we start — an important caveat comes from Donella Meadows herself, who implored that her work on leverage points not become ‘a recipe’. Rather she shared it as an invitation to think more broadly about systems change.
Here the focus is on comparing ‘business as usual’ patterns — stuck on repeat in current human systems — with what a pattern shift or disruption might look like.
Ok. So now I will share the simple explanations we use to introduce leverage points. Here the focus is on comparing ‘business as usual’ patterns — stuck on repeat in current human systems — with what a pattern shift or disruption might look like. I’ll also note here that systems change can happen at many levels — from cultural and ‘regime’ change (macro), through to nudging systems and supporting niche innovations (meso) and strengthening individual capacity and agency (micro). Like with the symbolic tree, there are different layers of leverage, as well as different opportunities for change that might come from growth, pruning or rebirth, depending on where you focus and the moment in time.
RESOURCES AND CONDITIONS — Put simply, this is the state of the system and the stocks (quantity) and flows (movement) of resources within it. In human systems, examples might include money, time, subsidies, information, expertise and technology.
The usual pattern: Interest groups ask for more of the same (typically money), under the same rules — with a focus on increasing resource quantity.
Example of a pattern shift: Changing rules around resource distribution (new flows) or breaking deeper patterns like the wielding of ‘time’ (or lack thereof) as a barrier to change. Examples of this include committing to longer-term funding or providing a decade long runway to achieve systems change (rather than imposing short-term constraints).
Reflection questions: Am I really challenging how resources flow in the system? Are the resources I am seeking to amplify those that are most needed? What have I overlooked?
FEEDBACK LOOPS — Feedback loops drive adaptation in the system. They can be self-reinforcing or self-correcting. Examples in human systems might include data and knowledge being communicated about the state of the system. Often there are missing or delayed feedback loops that can prove critical.
The usual pattern — Service providers and government funders exchange feedback on contract performance and outputs, with little meaningful inclusion of feedback from communities or families and beneficiaries on the ground.
Example of a pattern shift: The creation of new feedback loops where there wasn’t one — such as an avenue for community feedback — with genuine authorisation by funders to collect and value the feedback, not just leaving it to the funding recipient to filter and report. There are some great examples of this to be found in place-based initiatives. This can also be supported by innovations in data sharing and data sovereignty.
Reflection questions: How well are we really learning about the current state of the system? Is there a feedback loop that has been intentionally missing from the system? Whose purpose has this been serving? Is it driving unchecked growth or decline or affecting the ability of the system to regulate and adapt?
Is there a feedback loop that has been intentionally missing from the system? Whose purpose has this been serving?
DECISION MAKING — This is about the decision-making structures and implementation processes that underpin agenda setting and action. It is essentially the design of ‘the decision making table’ — the where and how decisions get made.
The usual pattern — The bigger the goal or issue at stake, the more centralised the decision making process and the more tightly controlled the decisions by those with high power. As decisions move from intial goal setting and framing to implementation, processes may involve a more diverse subset of stakeholders at a more localised level.
Example of a pattern shift: The creation of inclusive decision-making models for high stakes decisions that incorporate community intelligence and priorities — from the earliest stages of priority setting. There are good examples of governance innovations including mini-publics such as Citizens Assemblies and Community Leadership Tables to name a few.
Reflection questions: Are we only delegating low-stakes decisions, and only once priorities are set and implementation has begun? What realities do current decision making structures help us avoid?
POWER, RELATIONSHIPS AND ROLES — This is about who is trusted and empowered and how connections across the system shape realities and engagement. This is about the gatekeepers who gets to decide who is at the table, not just those that are sitting at it.
The usual pattern: Deep systemic forces keep working against systems change, enabled by actors with vested interests and an innate desire for survival and certainty which quickly overrides good intentions. Those with an ‘inside track’ to powerful decision makers seek to maintain their status and protect their access.
Pattern shift: Powerful actors in the system realise they are part of the problem and seek to challenge their own bias about who they trust, empower or connect. New networks and relationships are forged alongside new shared agendas. Power is no longer seen as finite but as something that can be grown infinitely and shared. An example includes an emerging approach in philanthropy where Foundations are challenging their own use of power (financial, convening, advocacy) and increased the diversity of people who make decisions about funding.
Reflection questions: Is the way power is being framed influencing attitudes on power sharing? Are we inadvertently excluding people with different ways of knowing, being or doing through social norms (such as what is expected in terms of ways of speaking or even appearance)? Whose voices should be louder? What relationships need to change and how? Who ought to be the primary decision makers in the system?
SYSTEM DESIGN — This is the underlying design of the system that helps to drive behaviours and outcomes. It can include structures, laws, policies, institutions and rules (including incentives, punishments and constraints).
The usual pattern: The system is designed to deliver on system intent and deeply held beliefs, with reinforcing (sometimes invisible) incentives for those that protect the status quo and punishments or constraints for those that threaten it. An example would be a welfare system that punishes those individuals that actually need welfare support through punitive policies.
Pattern shift: System rules and structures are redesigned to enable new behaviours and beneficiaries in the system, even if this puts pressure on the ‘status quo’. An example would be the introduction of universal health care, which incentivised improved individual health outcomes, even as it increased costs to the health system — enabled by a shift in system intent (see below) that priorised outcomes higher than cost avoidance.
Reflection questions: What is the current system designed to protect? And how does it incentivise this protection? What structures hold the curent system in place? Could new rules or incentives be deployed in a different way to drive change?
SYSTEM INTENT — This is the deeper goal or purpose of the system and is tightly interwoven with system design. In complex natural systems, the purpose is often survival through adaptation, enabled by simple rules. In human systems, survival is also often a key driver, but the rules (system design) to realise this intent are often elaborate and driven by the dominant paradigms and beliefs of society at the time.
The usual pattern: The system is driven by a purpose of survival and growth of the system itself — even if this is not the publicly stated goal. For example, the economic system is underpinned by mainstream and populist beliefs (or assumptions) about what enables economic growth, including thousands of years of western thought about power, money and success.
Pattern shift: A deliberate effort is made to explore and question the ultimate purpose of the system and the deeply held beliefs that underpin it. An example would be the movement underway to explore alternative economic models — including those that might foster the wellbeing of people and planet, not just economic growth as an ends in itself.
Reflection questions: Whose mental models and beliefs are underpinning the system? If there was success at this level, what might the unintended consequences be (positive or negative) in terms of second and third order effects ? Can scenarios help us to explore alternative narratives, possibilities and pathways outside the framing of dominant paradigms?
So that is the ‘OC tree’. The above categories of leverage are intended to help fuel conversations that surface and explore diverse options for systems change — and avoid jumping to default solutions that reinforce old problems. Just as systems are complex, so too are the possibilities for changing them. Choices about which leverage point to target may be influenced by the external context as well as by the nature of the ‘intervenor’ and their appetite to take up different roles in the system.
Whatever the choice, the search for leverage should be embedded within a broader process of systemic learning and adaptation
Whatever the choice, the search for leverage should be embedded within a broader process of systemic learning and adaptation (stay tuned for an upcoming article on assessing the potential for leverage point implementation). There are many possibilities and considerations to be explored.
Dr Fiona McKenzie is Founder and Director of Orange Compass and is known for facilitating systems transformation initiatives in diverse contexts globally and for her systems thinking expertise.
