#42: Change by any other name

On how we frame the change we seek to make.

I’m Luke Craven; this is another of my weekly explorations of how systems thinking and complexity can be used to drive real, transformative change in the public sector and beyond. The first issue explains what the newsletter is about; you can see all the issues here.

---

Hello, dear reader,

I’ve been neglecting you! It’s been three weeks since my last issue, due largely to my new job and the purchase of a new house, and in that time we’ve welcomed more than 400 new subscribers. Greetings to you all.

Change is a small, unassuming word, but it is one we use to express the vast array of our experiences with dynamic and complex systems. We intuitively know that some changes are larger than others, some are more significant than others, and some are more final than others. We recognise that seasons change. We believe in political change. We say that people change. But in each of these examples, the language of change is remarkably imprecise. 

In my new role, I spend a lot of time thinking about the categories of change that systems practitioners often find themselves involved in and how they relate to one another. I’ve written before that one of the most pernicious biases of systems practice is that all change is quickly badged as ‘systems change’ even when it occurs within the existing landscape of the system. In my mind for something to rise to ‘systems change’ it must involve shifts to the landscape itself.

Add to this a raft of other concepts and language, particularly in the context of collective impact work, including ‘community-led change’ and ‘place-based change’ and it’s easy to get quickly confused. I often hear people talk about these respective categories as if they overlap—enter community-led, place-based, systems change—but I’m not convinced that we should be so quick to collapse the distinctions between these different types of change.

If I allow myself the indulgence of a Venn diagram to help illustrate this point (here is another one I like) I think the following distinctions become clear:

• Place can be a useful container for systems change work, but there are many systemic patterns and dynamics that transverse or exist independent of geographic boundaries (see: globalisation). An overemphasis on spatial and territorial metaphors in anchoring systems work will likely result in change strategies that understate the impact of macro patterns on local behaviour.

• Just because place can be a useful container for systems work, doesn’t make place-based work inherently systemic. Place is a boundary, not a strategy, mindset or approach. You only need to look at the disconnect between urban infrastructure and public health planning in most global cities to see that systems thinking has been historically absent from most place-based work.

• Some of the most notable examples of community-led systems change (the rise of the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, anti-nuclear activism) haven’t relied on place as their primary organising logic. In fact systems change in each of these examples has often only been possible once communities have come to terms with the limits of local change amidst global tumult.

• Most contemporary examples of place-based systems change are not community-led. This work is often led by government and is focused on the design and implementation of new commissioning models to enable service providers to collaborate or access pooled funding.

Now, at first glance, this might read like a beat up on place-based change strategies. That is not my intent. I’ve long been an advocate for the power and possibility of place-based systems work. The point I am trying to make is that ‘community-led change’, ‘place-based change’, and ‘systems change’ are three very different things. They overlap at times, sure, but we should resist the urge to collapse them into one big catch-all. The work is in weaving them together, where necessary, in context, and with purpose to achieve the kind of change we ought to value.

---

Year Two

We’re fast approaching the year-end and that means lots of reflection and planning for what 2022 will bring for Pig on the Tracks. All of this is still a work in progress, but here is what I am thinking:

1. Issues will continue to be released weekly, but their format will likely rotate on a monthly cadence, including the possibility of having a guest post each month.

2. Some posts may combine audio and text content as I continue to experiment with medium and form. I’m loath to jump on the podcast bandwagon but am keen to produce some Systems Snippets that chunk through a single idea in 10 minutes or less.

3. There might be a paid content option (which emoji best describes your reaction to this idea? 😍 | 😡)

As always I’d love any other thoughts or feedback about what year two might bring.

---

By the way: This newsletter is hard to categorise and probably not for everyone—but if you know unconventional thinkers who might enjoy it, please share it with them.

Find me elsewhere on the web at www.lukecraven.com, on Twitter @LukeCraven, on LinkedIn here, or by email at <luke.k.craven@gmail.com>.