[Sdpg] Finding The Leverage For Change Robert Gilman

[Wesley Roe and Marjorie Lakin Erickson]

Finding The Leverage For Change  Robert Gilman 
http://www.context.org/GROUPS/CW/paper.htm

"Nothing is ever changed except by making it obsolete." Buckminster Fuller

As I've reflected on the question that The Foundation for Alternatives has 
poised for us, I've found my thoughts grouping under the following 
recommendations:

1. Understand the systems in which the issue you want to address is embedded.

2. Consider a diverse set of options for changing the system and identify 
clearly who will directly need to change in order for each option to succeed.

3. Understand what is needed for an individual or group to choose to change.

4. Understand how innovations spread.

5. Understand your own resistances and barriers to using high-leverage 
choices.

6. Focus your support in ways which are truly empowering.

7. Trust your intuition.

Here, more specifically, is how I see each of these points.
1. Understand the systems in which the issue you want to address is embedded.

Our attention is almost always drawn to the need for change by some 
arresting symptom: the starving child in the Sudan, the destruction of the 
rainforest, and so on. These symptoms are the result of complex chains of 
events -- systems. If the best leverage for change were at the symptom 
level ("feed the child, for God's sake!"), someone else would have likely 
already dealt with the issue. Because of this, the persistent issues we see 
around us -- in the environment, in society, in the global economy, etc. -- 
are best approached well "upstream" of the symptom.

We need to look deeply at the systems in which the issues we want to 
address are embedded. Our eventual goal is to identify points in these 
systems where a relatively small amount of effort can yield a significant 
and lasting change. Initially, however it is sufficient to map out the 
major elements, the key players, the important lines of communication and 
influence, and particularly where key decisions are made, by whom, and for 
what reasons.

Fortunately, you rarely have to do this research and analysis solely on 
your own. There is a wealth of good analysis dealing with most of the major 
issues facing the planet. I found in my years of editing IN CONTEXT that a 
few good conversations with the right people plus a bit of the right 
reading could move me quickly up the learning curve, at least as far as the 
"best current thinking" was concerned. This has its controversies and its 
blind spots, so don't get boxed in by it, but it is still a good starting 
point. If you don't feel you have a strong talent for this kind of system 
analysis and system mapping, get the help of someone you trust who does.

It is important to do this mapping with clear eyes and in an even-handed 
manner. Wholeness is essential to discovering fresh and powerful leverage. 
If you become polarized and caught up in your own (or worse yet, someone 
else's) notions of who are the "good guys" and the "bad guys" you will be 
prone to blocking the wholeness of your understanding of each of the players.

Hunger is a classic case where a broad system understanding leads to 
radically different conclusions from a symptom-focused perception. For 
example, from a symptom-focused point of view it makes sense to send 
subsidized food into places where there is chronic hunger. As sensible as 
this seems, unfortunately this often lowers the price of food in ways that 
undercut the economic viability of local farmers, creates dependency, and 
can lead to less local food production and even more hunger. A deeper 
analysis leads one to understand that hunger is really a symptom of the 
present distribution of wealth and of access to resources like land and 
technology, exacerbated by conditions of trade and population growth.
2. Consider a diverse set of options for changing the system and identify 
clearly who will directly need to change in order for each option to succeed.

The aforementioned process of system-understanding will likely suggest 
prospective leverage points. Try to come up with as diverse a set of 
candidates as your imagination and creativity will allow. For each of these 
options, ask:
Who will need to change, and in what order, for this option to be effective?
Look particularly at those who need to change first as they are crucial to 
the success of the option.
Is it in their self-interest to make this change?
Even if they don't believe the change to be in their self-interest 
initially, do you believe that a convincing case could be made to change 
their minds? How could the option you are considering be reworked to still 
be effective and also be more clearly in the self-interest of those who 
would need to change? While not absolutely essential, it is enormously 
easier when those who need to change first see the change as in their 
self-interest.
How are the status quo forces in the system likely to respond?
If they are likely to fight you from the beginning, it is probably not a 
high leverage option. If you are initially ignored ("below the radar") the 
option is promising. Better yet, if they see the option, in so far as they 
understand it, as in their interest, you have a very promising candidate 
indeed.

The "citizen diplomacy" process between the West and the then USSR in the 
1980s proved to be an very high leverage strategy for facilitating the 
peaceful end to the Cold War -- much more effective than either the 
anti-nuclear protesters in the West or the secret services on either side. 
While the media and the pundits never really noticed, behind the scenes the 
process had a huge impact through opening new communication channels at 
many levels in both societies. There were many facets to why it was 
successfully able to do this, but one of them certainly was that the direct 
players were all either positive or neutral toward the process. Those who 
might have opposed the process if they had truly understood where it was 
headed either were unaware of it or ignored it as harmless.
3. Understand what is needed for an individual or group to choose to change.

For many years I have found the following simple "Equation of Change" to be 
very helpful in identifying where the leverage for change is in any 
particular situation.



The Equation Of Change

What this says is that in order for someone to switch from an old way of 
doing things to a new way (i.e., to adopt an innovation), that person must 
feel that the additional value provided by the new way is greater than the 
"cost" of making the change. Note that the words "value" and "cost" are to 
be understood in psychological as well as monetary terms.

If you have some change that you want to encourage others to adopt, this 
equation says there are three things you can do:
Build up the perceived value of the new way (as many innovators do).
Depress the perceived value of the old way (as social critics do).
Decrease the cost of the change. Political activists have often ignored the 
third term, but businesses know it to be very important ("easy credit, no 
money down," etc.).

 From a whole-system perspective, it is best to use all three approaches, 
giving special attention to whichever one offers the most leverage. I 
generally find, however, that with more and more people feeling that "the 
system isn't working" and with plenty of proven innovations available, the 
"cost of change" has become the limiting factor. For example, public 
opinion polls consistently show that large numbers of people are willing to 
make changes for the good of the environment, but also that only a few have 
actually made these changes. Doing whatever is possible to reduce the 
"hassle", so that those who are already convinced and motivated to change 
in the direction you would like to see can more easily do so, could unleash 
tremendous movement.

The major difficulty with strategies that focus on decreasing the "cost" of 
change seems to be that many people don't find them sufficiently 
emotionally satisfying, a topic I will return to in item #5.


4. Understand how innovations spread.

The sociological study of "the diffusion of innovations" has a great deal 
to teach those of us who wish to encourage meaningful and lasting change. 
This study looks at the free spread of new ideas, technologies, values, 
etc. throughout a culture.. The spread of e-mail and of environmental 
awareness are two very different examples of this diffusion process.

This process has an important bearing on the question of leverage and 
effectiveness, for - as the past few decades make clear - we are in a time 
when any innovation that can be spread through free adoption will likely 
spread faster and last longer than an innovation that requires the power of 
the state to bring it into being. Some changes can only be handled through 
legislation, but it is my feeling that we should challenge our creativity 
by searching long and hard to find diffusion-based strategies before 
turning to government. We also need to recognize that even when legislation 
is involved we will always be well served to make good use of 
diffusion-based strategies.

The sociological findings suggest a number of things worth noting here:

1) The extent of adoption of an innovation over time generally follows an 
"S" curve (see figure on the next page).

2) Change agents (i.e., people like ourselves) have the most leverage 
during the first quarter of the curve, although there are important 
strategic roles for change agents at all points along the curve (see the 
next page).

3) The most important group for change agents to work with are known as 
"early adopters". Think of these as the front edge of the mainstream. They 
tend to be respected by their peers and better educated, more explorative, 
more widely networked, and often better off economically than their peers. 
(This is a terribly politically-incorrect group to focus on for 
change-making, a topic I'll return to in item #5.)

There are many ways to assist the diffusion process. Indeed a key insight 
into the diffusion process is that the most appropriate strategy for 
assisting the spread of an innovation changes dramatically as the 
innovation becomes more widely adopted.





The above figure gives the basic pattern: At first, the innovation needs to 
be refined through experimentation and pilot projects. Pushing to spread an 
innovation before it has proven itself usually does more harm than good.

Once the innovation has proven its worth, the next step is the development 
of businesses and organizations that can provide a support-system or 
infrastructure through which the innovation can become available beyond the 
circle of experimenters. This infrastructure is built through networking 
the innovators with each other and with early adopters. At this early 
stage, attempting to convince the uninterested or the hostile is a waste of 
effort.

It is only after that infrastructure is in place that it makes sense to "go 
public" through the major media to a broader audience of interested people. 
For some innovations, this popularization phase may be all that is needed 
to spread them as far as they can go.

However, if the innovation is controversial, or if it needs government 
support to become fully functional, eventually it will be necessary to 
enter the arena of electoral politics. Political successes can provide the 
innovation with increased respectability, plus leading to an improved 
regulatory environment. This is the phase where those who actively oppose 
the innovation need to be directly addressed, yet it is still best to do so 
with as little polarization as possible.

Finally, once the innovation has gained majority support, it will 
occasionally be appropriate to sweep up the laggards through legislation 
and regulation. This step is full of dangers, since it imposes the "tyranny 
of the majority" and can understandably provoke resentment. It makes sense 
only when the laggards are creating clear harm through their non-adoption 
(e.g., a laggard car company that did not include seat belts as standard 
equipment). Remember, today's laggard may be tomorrow's innovator - as was 
the case for organic farmers, who were laggards about adopting chemical 
agriculture yet innovators for sustainable agriculture.

One bonus of focusing on the full range of diffusion strategies rather than 
just on legislation is that entrenched interests are much less able to slow 
the many routes of diffusion than they are able to block legislation. There 
is so much innovative activity going on in so many places that it is 
impossible for centralized institutions to keep track of it, much less 
broadly interfere.


5. Understand your own resistances and barriers to using high-leverage choices.

The kind of analysis described in the first four points can lead to many 
specific strategies for high-leverage action depending on the particular 
issue involved. However, in my experience it often identifies 
support-system development aimed at early adopters as a key element.

Let me illustrate. First some background It has been clear for some time 
that the people of the industrialized North are responsible for a 
disproportionate share of humanity's environmental impact. It is further 
clear that the design of the North's built-environment (buildings, roads, 
utilities, etc.) is responsible for a large part of the society's total 
environmental impact. For example, 2/3rds of the total energy used in US is 
the direct result of how the built environment has been designed (energy 
used to heat, cool, and light buildings; energy used to produce and 
transport building materials; energy used for the transport required by 
spread-out land-use patterns). While Europe is somewhat more efficient, 
there is still considerable room for improvement. With today's knowledge 
and technologies we could massively reduce that energy-use at a overall 
cost savings to society as a whole and with many wonderful knock-on effects.

Where is the leverage for making these changes? Fortunately many good pilot 
and demonstration projects already exist. The bottlenecks (always a good 
place to look for high-leverage opportunities) are primarily in the 
building and planning related professions. In my understanding, the high 
leverage way to move "sustainable building" forward is to create support 
systems (education, communications, networking, policy teams, etc.) for the 
early adopters among green architects, developers, builders, building-code 
officials, planners, bankers, et al. While these individuals exist in 
countries all over the world, they are concentrated in the industrial North.

And here is where the resistances come in. It is easy to feel, and many in 
our society do, that when there are rainforests to be saved, why waste your 
time on creating support systems for Northern professionals? (Never mind 
the fact that it is the purchasing decisions of these Northern 
professionals that drive a major part of the impact on the forests.) The 
same human tendencies that make symptomatic relief so popular in the health 
arena also somehow make direct action at the visible point of the social or 
environmental symptom so much more emotionally appealing regardless of how 
effective that action is in producing long-term meaningful change (e.g. 
focusing on "saving" the cuddly animal while ignoring the destruction of 
its habitat).

We also have to deal with a powerful part of the West's Judeo-Christian 
heritage, namely the notion that you can gain merit through acts of 
charity. Many other religious traditions support this as well. A corollary 
to this is the more needy the direct beneficiaries are, the more 
meritorious the action. Likewise, there is little spiritual merit seen in 
helping those perceived as already advantaged.

While this may make evocative emotional sense, it is a disastrous 
impediment to being able to wisely intervene at high-leverage points in 
complex systems, and thereby being best able to produce long-term 
improvement in the conditions of the poorest of the poor, the state of the 
environment, etc.

Let me be clear that I am not saying the high leverage always lies with 
Northern professionals, but if you want to change the system you need to 
deal with those who are most influential in shaping its direction. There is 
a tremendous multiplier effect in further empowering your already 
influential allies.

It is my experience that acting at high-leverage but unglamorous points in 
complex systems can be deeply emotionally and spiritually rewarding, but I 
have had to set aside the society's pre-conceptions to discover this. I 
have also had to take more time to explain to others why what they saw as 
indirect (or even irrelevant) actions were actually a faster route to real 
results.

This short discussion only touches on a large and charged subject but I 
hope it will prompt you to examine the ways in which your social 
conditioning and personal emotional needs may be blocking you from being as 
effective as you would like to be. My sense is that this is an issue we all 
face whether we are conscious of it or not.
6. Focus your support in ways that are truly empowering.

Finding the right place to intervene in the system, while critical, is only 
part of the journey to effectiveness. Equally important is finding the 
right projects or groups, (essentially, the right people) to support and 
then supporting them in the right way.

The NGO world has its horror stories from both extremes: those cases where 
funders were too trusting and those where they micromanaged a program to 
death. Finding the right balance is an art, especially when dealing with 
innovative approaches that are not already covered by large, well 
established NGOs. My own experience is that the best route is to find 
people to support whom you respect as people as well as for their work, 
establish clear but simple and non-burdensome accountability requirements, 
and then provide them with, or help to arrange, sufficient support for them 
to really be effective.

Scale is often a crucial consideration here. It can be more effective to 
fully support a smaller project which you can know more intimately than to 
launch a project whose scale requires more support than you are willing or 
able to provide and thus much of its initial energy is exhausted in 
fundraising. If that larger scale is unavoidable, then the wisest first 
stage may be to support a fundraiser. What does not work well, in my 
experience is to expect someone whose skills would shine if the full 
support were in place to simultaneously work on the basic issue and fundraise.
7. Trust your intuition.

I believe in the value of research, analysis, and due-diligence and I also 
know that they all have their limits, especially when attempting to blaze 
new trails in rapidly changing times. If your intuition is so good that you 
have no need for the analysis part, my hat is off to you, but if you are 
like most of us, you are more likely to under value and under utilize your 
intuition.

And that's a pity, because, many of the high-leverage strategies from the 
past that now look so brilliant were birthed with considerable intuitive input.

My experience is that things go best when I give my "inner sensing" an 
honored and equal place alongside my "rational analysis" as advisors to my 
decision-making. Since our society tends not even to acknowledge, much less 
support, such a role for intuition, it is helpful to make an extra effort, 
for yourself and with your co-workers and confidants, to explicitly make 
time to converse with your own "inner knowing".

Rarely have I heard anyone say that, after careful consideration of the 
options, that they regretted having followed their intuition in the end. 
Often have I heard regrets for having not done so. All life is a risk. 
Better to risk with your intuition than without it or against it.

All contents copyright (c)1999 by Context, all rights reserved.

Please send comments to webmaster

Last Updated 28 September 1999.

URL: http://www.context.org/GROUPS/CW/paper.htm