The following paper was prepared for an invitational meeting in London entitled "Creative Wealth" and organized by the Foundation for Alternatives. I [Robert Gilman] was unable to attend for personal reasons so I sent this paper instead.

------------------

Finding The Leverage For Change

"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:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. Build up the perceived value of the new way (as many innovators do).
2. Depress the perceived value of the old way (as social critics do).
3. 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.