How do we believe change happens in systems? One of the most positive moves in change practice in our sector is a shift towards “systems change”. By this we mean identifying & addressing the causes of problems in the system rather than treating their symptoms. Often, we start by identifying methods & approaches for our systems change initiatives. As we build our practices in this area, we should dig deeper. We need to reflect on our “mental models” about how we undertake systems change. This means the beliefs & assumptions we hold about how change happens, shaping what we notice, what we expect & how we act. I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, as a result of an international improvement initiative I’m involved in. If we want to make big, positive changes happen in the world, do we start by identifying areas for collective action & “leverage points” for change? Or do we start by building the relationships & connections that create the conditions for change to emerge? By being explicit about our mental models & assumptions, we avoid the risk of different partners in the change operating with conflicting, unspoken views about how systems change and can align all our change activities (strategy, methods, reporting etc) around agreed ways forward. I have found an article by @JewlyaLynn & Julia Coffman very helpful for my own thinking (all links in comments). They describe two mental models in systems change. “Systems dynamics” assumes a system’s main patterns are predictable. Our change strategy here targets high-leverage points with a theory of change & defined outcomes. “Systems emergence” assumes new patterns grow from the relationships between people. Our change strategy here brings in new voices, builds trust & learns alongside partners. Neither model is better. Some parts of a system are predictable & others are in flux, so many strategies use both. Problems can start when the models get mixed unnoticed. The most common mismatch is emergent work held to systems dynamics accountability. Boards tend to favour clear predictions & quantitative metrics. Russ Gaskin sees the same pattern. Initiatives speak the language of co-creation while using consultation methods, & the people involved never come to own the work. Systems maps & theories of change keep their value when they become a starting point for conversation. Three reflections from me: 1) Whose mental model sits at the centre matters. When leaders impose their own view or process of change on the people closest to the work, they reinforce the power dynamics they set out to shift. 2) Our reporting mechanisms carry a mental model. When the strategy is emergent & the Board asks for predictions, the reporting pulls the work back towards prediction. 3) Naming our mental models is part of the work. Teams that make their assumptions visible can align strategy, methods & reporting with the system for better outcomes. Links: Lynn J & Coffman J. Passing in the Dark: Making Visible Philanthropy’s Hidden and Conflicting Mental Models for Systems Change. The Foundation Review, 2024;16(1):142-60. doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.17… See also a shorter piece these authors wrote on the same topic: evaluationinnovation.org/pub… Gaskin R. The Emergence of Dialogic Systems Change. Horizons of Change, January 2026. horizonsofchange.substack.co…