Clarity Connect

We are all part of systems and societies, some chosen by default and others that we actively engage in through our work, education, or community service. Being part of an ecosystem is not just about understanding its strategy and workings. Anyone who has worked in systems change knows that ‘systems’ are complex webs of relationships, incentives, and power.

Systems and societies change starts with understanding what exists, asking what needs to change, and why change is needed (often driven by measuring outcomes and impact against mission). Yet, even small changes, such as a budget approval for a product or program pilot, can be a mammoth effort in the smallest or largest of organisations. Even with approvals, people who drive new or change projects often find themselves operating on the sidelines of mainstream, core, business-as-usual activities. Some of these get branded as ‘innovative’ approaches, which is great, but can lead to stereotyping and allocation of limited attention and resources. And because true systems change and innovation takes longer than usual, there is constant scrutiny and scepticism in meaningful engagement.

This is not new; there is an entire multidisciplinary literature on systems thinking, bureaucracy, technocracy, political economy, governance, sociology, creativity, innovation and more for anyone keen to understand why real change fails in the real world. And it is only more difficult in a heightened geopolitical environment. In my view, these are important factors to consider, reflect, yet change requires both energy and action. So, how do we keep the energy and momentum in the middle of these competing forces?

In my experience, the drivers of innovation and impactful change have to be rooted in something simpler: values, people, and the affective connections between them. And there are many examples of initiatives that have been more successful than others in driving change, aligning efforts, and resources. Some may be local, others regional, or global, though all show:

1. Grounded in Values – Values are usually applied actively to the individual self and relationships, but rarely to policy decisions or institutions. Yet when it comes to decision-making, we must ask: are the people making decisions and the policy guided by a set of shared values? Values not just provide direction, but function as active constraints, applied to trade-offs when priorities are contested. At the same time, values are not static or universally agreed upon. They are actively contested, interpreted, and applied differently by different groups. Recognising this is not a weakness of a value-based anchoring. The work of systems change is not simply to declare shared values but to create spaces where value conflicts can be deliberated, negotiated, and aligned.
2. Shaped by People – Despite its benefits, using a systems lens should not lead to ignorance of the people and relationships that need to be built to create and sustain change. Treating individuals as interchangeable components ignores that decision makers drive narratives, priorities, and resources. We see the same system under different leaders making different decisions, and driving different outcomes. But this is not only about those in formal power. The people closest to the problem, those who implement solutions, and those who bear the consequences all shape whether change takes effect. The human impact of decisions – social, environmental, emotional, cultural- all need to be considered.
3. Affective in Engagement– The environmental and social aspects are well regarded in impact ecosystem discourse, and I feel there is a need to recognise that decisions impact societies and cultures more deeply in the long term. In the 21st century, institutions and organisations are being challenged and questioned repeatedly despite accountability and transparency policies. We see the affective side of decisions being leveraged in political rhetoric, yet institutions and we as innovation or change practitioners also need to communicate and advocate for a deeper connection to the more subtle (not small) impact of change. This is less about efficiency, scale or numbers, but more about inspiration and shared meaning. It is about change that people want to support, not just something they have to follow. This is a much more difficult ask for larger organisations and initiatives, and something I am still understanding and exploring.

Coming back to the practical aspect of innovation and change projects, some questions which may be helpful as we engage:
• Who is represented at the table?
• What are the values and principles of the people leading the decisions? What are the values behind decisions? Are these agreed and aligned across stakeholders?
• Who is getting impacted by the decision? What are their values?
• How can we create momentum, discourse, spaces, and advocacy for greater alignment and affective engagement?
• How can we communicate and build deeper affective engagement internally and externally?