Questions about “System Change”
Increased calls for “system change” — fueled by a global pandemic and growing racial and economic inequity — rarely are accompanied by clear statements about what is meant by that term and how it is achieved. If we are to achieve system change we should first ask a handful of foundational questions.
What is a system?
We certainly cannot change a system without a shared understanding of what we mean by the term. Merriam-Webster offers five distinct definitions of “system,” including “a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole.” Within the context of community, a system is the interdependent “group of items” – such as organizations, institutions, programs and individuals – that regularly interact to address a civic priority. For example, the “civic education system” within a community is made up of a host diverse, distinct and interconnected entities and individuals that include (but are not limited to) students, teachers, parents, public schools, private schools, tutoring programs, early childhood programs, K-12 programs, private colleges, public colleges, for-profit schools, etc. In general, civic systems consist of individuals, policy makers, funders and service providers. Many players within a civic system play multiple roles, for example government players can be a policy maker, a funder and a service provider.
What are the boundaries of a system?
If we want to “change the system,” we need to have some idea of what is inside the system and what is outside. The great system thinker Donella Meadows observed that each boundary we draw within the systems we encounter is artificial. We need to draw boundaries to keep the system from encompassing everything, but she warns us to acknowledge that the boundaries are of our making, not the system’s.
For example, there are no clear, agreed upon demarcation about what is part of the “education system” and what is left out. Does the “education system” include early childhood development or life-long learning programs? Who says? Political boundaries are artificial, but at least they are relatively clear and generally agreed upon. The boundaries of our civic system are artificial, unclear and rarely explored, let alone agreed upon. Early in our efforts at system change we should start drawing some boundaries and be open to redrawing them as we learn more about what influences the system’s outcomes.
What are the outcomes of a system?
The outcomes of an organization or a program are much clearer than those of a civic system. For example, the graduation rate of K-12 school district or a community college can be measured in a consistent manner that can be compared against similar entities. But what are the outcomes of the civic system of education within our community? How do we aggregate the outcomes produced by the “group of items” that make up the system? If we narrowly define our community’s education system as K-12, perhaps we could aggregate the graduation rates of all of schools and/or school districts in the community. But are graduation rates the only outcome we measure? And how do we measure what role a tutoring program or pre-school program had on those outcomes?
What conditions shape the outcomes of the system?
If we want to change the system, we need to understand the forces that hold the system in place; i.e. the forces that sustain the status quo. John Kania, Mark Kramer and Peter Senge have developed a helpful framework of six conditions that shape the performance of a system. The most visible three are the programs, policies and funding flows that make up the structures of the system. The less visible are the power dynamics and relationships that influence how the players within the system interact with each other. And the least visible – but most important -- condition is the mental models that players use to shape their expectations for and attitudes about the system. It is our mental models – our deeply held beliefs that inform our thoughts and actions -- that determine whether and how we work on system change. If we deeply believe our education system should not produce inequitable outcomes based on race, we will work to work to assure it produces more equitable outcomes. As Meadows said, “A change in purpose changes a system profoundly, even if every element and interconnection remains the same.”
How do we change the purpose of a civic system?
System change starts when a small group of players unwilling to tolerate the status quo begin to ask compelling questions and listen deeply to the answers they generate. Some are aspirational questions about what we want our community to look like and some are procedural questions about how we will make decisions together. We will make much more progress down the path of system change if we also ask foundational questions that help us develop a shared understanding of the system we want to change and the forces that are holding the intolerable status quo in place.
