the iceberg model that we looked at
previously not only illustrates the
different dimensions of an issue but
also offers insight into how to enact
change most effectively within the
system through what are called leverage
points a leverage point is a place
within a system where small changes can
have large effects the lower we go in
the iceberg the more leverage we have
for transforming the system for example
changing structures and influencing
mental models has a broader more
far-reaching effect than reacting in the
moment and firefighting discrete events
thus the only real way to find high
leverage points is to first find the
root causes
the iceberg metaphor helps to illustrate
that if we somehow altered the event on
top without finding a solution to the
cause the buoyancy of the ice underneath
would simply push up to recreate the tip
again as such only the most superficial
of issues can be resolved at this higher
level symptomatic responses attempt to
push on the system at low leverage
points to resolve immediate causes this
works on easy problems because on easy
problems the forces arising from root
causes are small enough to be overcome
by pushing on low leverage points
systems change requires affecting the
organization at high leverage points to
resolve root causes this approach is
required on difficult problems since
problem solvers can exert only limited
amounts of force on a large system if
that force is applied at low instead of
high leverage points it will be overcome
by the forces of the innate dynamics of
the system that arise from the root
causes
events and reaction if we only look at
events the best we can do is react
something happens and we fix it
this is typically our response the first
time an event occurs we do not shift our
thinking in any way we just act swiftly
to fix the immediate problem using
pre-existing solutions that have worked
in the past for some superficial events
this approach can work well but will
clearly fail if an issue is more
systemic as we are merely dealing with
the symptoms of the problem
pattern and anticipation when we start
to notice a pattern of those events we
have more options we can anticipate what
is going to happen and we can plan for
when we start noticing patterns we can
begin to consider what is causing the
same events to happen over and over
again
structure and design when we start to
look at the underlying structures we
begin to see where we can change what is
happening we are no longer at the mercy
of the system we can begin to identify
the thinking and the mental models that
are resulting in those structures taking
the form they do mental model and
transform changing the model that an
organization uses is the highest
leverage point it can lead to real
transformation with the possibility to
totally restructure the system and
overcome even the greatest of challenges
it is possible that events can change
behavior which changes elements which
change relations function and models but
it is not often a billion events may
pass without altering the system much in
contrast if you go the other direction
and change the paradigm and function of
a system you will almost certainly get
major changes a paradigm shift is when
things move on that level but of course
those things happen very rarely for
example the last time Western society
had a major cultural paradigm shift was
approximately 500 years ago as we
entered the modern era this really did
change almost every aspect of these
societies it created a new body of
knowledge with the Scientific Revolution
a new system of political organization
with the Enlightenment French Revolution
and the rise of the modern Republic
nation-state a new technology based with
the Industrial Revolution a new economic
organizational paradigm with capitalism
a new way of structuring organizations
with the bureaucracy all of that
followed naturally from a shift in the
underlying cultural paradigm from one
grounded in the spirituality of the
Middle Ages to a materialistic
scientific paradigm of the modern era
JW Forrester describes complex systems
as being counterintuitive leverage
points are likewise not intuitive or if
they are we intuitively use them
backward systematically worsening
whatever problems we are trying to solve
for example if we were to take a
political system and look for the
leverage point we would likely look to
the top of the hierarchy thinking that
if we could just change what the leader
is doing then this would affect everyone
else but of course the leader is just an
actor in the system who is responding to
events a politician with four years in
office will spend most of their time
putting out fires and catering to the
interest of those who voted for them so
as to get reelected
where this analysis fails is that it
looks for the leverage points all on one
level the event level but just like the
iceberg model the leverage points are in
abstraction you have to remove the
successive layers of detail before you
will get to the fundamentals where the
leverage really is looking for leverage
points on the event level will lead you
astray
our non systematic ways of thinking lead
us to focus on low leverage changes we
focus on symptoms where the stress is
greatest trying to accumulate a large
number of resources or get into
positions of authority so as to remove
or ameliorate the symptoms however
leverage follows the principle of
economy of means where the best results
come not from large-scale efforts but
from small well focused actions or each
call suggests the idea of social
acupuncture which explores how analysing
the deeper interactions sustaining
patterns can be used to identify
leverage points and how small
accumulative interventions across such
points can be used to disrupt and
transform them real systems change comes
from a change in quality the high
leverage points are really in the
qualitative factors of the system they
are the things that are not being
measured or accounted for and thus they
go largely unnoticed a reductionist
analytical approach has led our cultures
to place an over emphasis on quantity
and numbers has given us the idea that
what we can measure is more important
than what we can't measure in a systems
normal state of operations it may well
be that quantity matters most because it
is in a linear regime but it is quality
that creates change nonlinear change is
a qualitative change it is the one
person who acts qualitatively
differently by standing up and saying no
I will not take a bribe if you look at
major changes like the fall of the
British Empire in India that was
accelerated by a person that acted
qualitatively differently to the way
most people do