Ego-systems, eco-systems and sharing resources (from June 2024)

Yesterday, Joss Colchester, who ably leads the Systems Innovation network , shared the following post on LinkedIn .

My first reaction was a feeling of unease. An invitation to "like", or to suggest, particular people had too much of an individualistic flavour, a non-systemic flavour, for my, erm, liking.

My second reaction was a feeling of pleasure and even pride. I was happy to - as it seemed to me - be included in a list of people whose work on complexity, systems and innovation has been inspiring and important to me and many others.

My third reaction was a feeling of anxiety. I was nervous about being put on a list which I wasn't sure I deserved to be on, and about the possibility that I might somehow need to justify my inclusion.

My fourth reaction was a feeling of concern. If a list of people doing interesting and creative work on systems innovation included me - and my somewhat conceptual meanderings - that might not bode well for the systems innovation field!

Anyway, I let these feelings percolate for a while, occasionally looking at people's response to Joss's question, before then - perhaps encouraged by the first principle of permaculture , "observe and interact" (h/t Bhavesh Patel ) - deciding to respond in a way that took account of my feelings and as a result felt comfortable to me.

Here's my response .

As I began crafting that response, I quickly realized - embarrassingly, a few hours later than I should - that Joss's inclusion of me on the list was almost certainly not because he thinks I'm some sort of key player in the systems innovation space! And that instead, Joss - having chatted with me on Monday, including about my knowledge gardening practices - perhaps felt that I might have some useful suggestions to share.

This realization and shift of perspective led to a change in my feelings. Yes, the unease lingered, and the concern remained, but those feelings were now more clearly focused on the question that had been posed and on the systems innovation field, rather than on me. The pleasure and the anxiety melted away, as quickly as my perspective had changed!

I then got on with my day. Exploring the landscape, tending my knowledge garden , making connections (including through the wonderful Nora Bateson-inspired "people need people" session I'd mentioned here ), and thereby contributing in my own small way to the emergence of an increasingly rich ecosystem of people and organizations focused on complexity, systems and innovation. Exploring, connecting and contributing felt great, as it pretty much always does, and much better than being on a list!

Some of the fruits of my knowledge gardening - all of the items added to my garden in June 2024 - can be found here . There's lots of interesting things in there, but a cluster of three things particularly caught my attention.

First, "Passing in the Dark ", an outstanding piece by Jewlya Lynn and Julia Coffman on the mental models that inform systems change work, and the importance of making explicit what those models are. See here for my earlier share and some useful discussion.

Second, a hard-hitting and constructive review of evaluation practices in the anti-corruption space by Tom Shipley. This is a space which would, in my view, be improved by greater clarity about - and testing and discussion of - the mental models and assumptions about how change happens, and how it can be supported, which explicitly or implicitly inform efforts to address corruption.

Third, a couple of recent pieces by Ken Opalo, about policymaking in Africa and the priorities of philanthropists . Having spent significant chunks of time working with SOAS-ACE colleagues on the ways in which vested interests can distort policy implementation by diverting resources, and how such corruption might be addressed, Ken's emphasis on the political economy of policy and implementation struck a chord, and connects too with the calls for clarity about mental models, assumptions, and theories of change.

As Ken puts it: "Everyone would be better off if policymaking was brought down to the real world of distributive politics, conflicting material interests, ideology, and electoral concerns." Or, more pithily still, "Policy without mobilized interests behind it is useless policy."

Next week, inshallah, I plan to share a piece that sets out my six step approach to knowledge gardening. For now, here's a clip of me chatting with Nina Sletten, a product design consultant, about why I'm excited to be using Tana - a new and fundamentally systemic piece of software - for knowledge gardening in complexity.

Thanks for reading. If you’re interested to learn more about my explorations and how they might be useful for you, or see connections with things that you are doing, just drop me a line. And if you'd like to receive my occasional updates by email, please sign up here . And watch this space, soon, for more on my knowledge gardening practices.