When Peter Senge, Mark Kramer and I wrote The Water of Systems Change in 2016 we had no way of knowing that the framework we included in the article – The Six Conditions of Systems Change – would become so broadly used by social change practitioners worldwide. Hardly a week goes by without receiving enthusiastic feedback from people across the globe who say the framework has helped clarify their understanding of systems change. And yet, as valuable as the framework has proved to be, I’ve come to believe that an essential insight into how change happens is missing.
Let’s talk about that.
How the framework came to be
The origin of the framework came from our experience facilitating large scale change initiatives bringing together cross sector players who were representative of the actors in a specific ecosystem, be it K-12 education, affordable housing, children’s asthma in Houston, community development in Brazil, or any number of other issues. We called this work “collective impact.”
With representatives of the system present, the focus for practitioners was fostering systems-level change. However, our experience working with these groups revealed that only a small number of participants possessed a clear understanding of the terms “system” or “systems change.” This was problematic given that “system” was their desired line of sight and “systems change” was their goal.
It was Mark who suggested that folks needed a framework to bring some clarity to their thinking. While several systems change frameworks existed, none seemed to resonate with social change practitioners. We decided we would develop a new framework that represented our collective experience with systems change. The goal, to quote Albert Einstein, was to create a framework where “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Hence the introduction of the Six Conditions of Systems Change framework, colloquially known by many today as the upside-down triangle. Here it is below.
(Note: If this framework is new to you, we invite you to explore it in more detail in our original article, The Water of Systems Change (Kania, Kramer, Senge) here and also a subsequent article, Systems Change: Why it Matters (and Isn’t just a Buzzword) (Kania, Rayner) here
Elevating the importance of “mental models”
A core element of the framework was bringing visibility to the concept of “mental models” as the sixth and most transformational condition of systems change. We defined mental models as “habits of thought” - deeply held beliefs and assumptions that influence decision making and actions.
Many practitioners of systems change who already believed in the critical importance of mental models found the framework useful in persuading their colleagues and their boards that shifting mental models should be a priority. Others who had not previously associated mental models to systems change were now able to see the relationship. For both these groups the six conditions framework provided a useful lens for deepening their understanding of systems change.
As I’ve deepened my own understanding of systems change I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the concept of “mental models,” while helpful, is not sufficient to describe how we humans make sense of the world in ways that inform what we think and what we do. Particularly in the Western world, our understanding of people’s meaning-making – how they interpret their experiences – has mostly focused on what’s happening in our minds. A true understanding of what’s going on with people’s meaning-making processes requires going beyond a focus on mental models.
Moving beyond “mental models”
The term, “mental models” was introduced by Scottish psychologist and philosopher, Kenneth Craik. In his 1943 book, The Nature of Explanation, Craik proposed that our minds on a regular basis build internal models of reality that shape thoughts and actions. The chief merit of the term has been that it provides people with a mind’s eye image of what drives behavior and decision making. What “mental models” misses is that it shortcuts how humans actually make and experience meaning. The `use of the word “mental” can connote a sense that our beliefs and actions are made in disembodied ways – suggesting that our mind makes these choices independent of both our body and our environment.
This reflects a Western belief that the mind comes first, but it doesn’t reflect several thousand years of human history and knowledge of how people make sense of their environment. As humans, our understanding (e.g. beliefs and concepts) is formed through on-going patterns of interaction between ourselves and our environment. Importantly, this includes our emotional and somatic (bodily) reactions, which continuously change with our real world experiences.
In fact, the body is the first source of wisdom, with more than 80% of the fibers of the vagus nerve, the largest nerve network in our bodies, flowing with sensory information from the body to the brain. In other words, in the process of what causes our world views to shift, more often the body, and not the brain, is driving the bus. The sensemaking we do as humans is centered in our bodies. When we are embodied we take cues for how we feel and how we might act from our body, acknowledging that the brain will also be involved. We call this manner of making meaning, “embodied sensemaking.”
From mental models to embodiment
It’s important to note that I didn’t come to this understanding on my own, or by sitting in front of a computer conversing with ChatGPT. I came to it through my own embodied experiences. For instance, forming relationships is integral to fostering embodiment, as interpersonal connections—especially those of a close nature—engage people through multiple levels: cognitive, physical and emotional. Working closely over the last three years with two collective healing experts and colleagues, Laura Calderon de la Barca and Louise Marra, both of Indigenous lineage, has helped me see more clearly how embodiment connects to systems.
Louise shows up as Earth embodiment – living out of the interconnectedness of all things. I’ve learned from Indigenous teachers and scholarship that in certain traditions, embodiment isn’t conceptualized as something separate from identity or meaning-making. Someone who is Earth embodied does not see themselves as separate from Earth. They know that they are Earth. Spending time with Louise has helped me to connect with what it means to be Earth embodied, and even to feel earth embodiment myself if only fleetingly, as I lean more into this state of being.
I have also experienced embodiment through the work I’ve done supporting systems change. Time and again I have seen groups shift their states of being and collective views when bodily movement and ritual are introduced into the work, and people are invited to feel what is going on in their body and not just their head.
Additionally, my own personal journey with trauma and healing has helped me to understand that when trauma held in my body gets triggered, I can become disconnected and distorted in my thinking. With new awareness of this, I’m able to work with my body as well as my brain to return to a state of connection.
Finally, it should also be said that, while the perspective I am sharing here is not mainstream in systems change, it is also not new. In fact it reflects advancements in knowledge in many scientifically based disciplines. Recent research in the fields of epidemiology, psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, somatics, epigenetics, trauma-informed care and collective trauma all point to the importance of the body in how people make meaning and make sense of their surrounding world. These newer scientific insights mirror much older ways of knowing within many Indigenous cultures and wisdom traditions.
An evolution of the framework
It is good practice to re-visit a concept or framework from time to time to ensure it stays current with present learning. In the context of what I’ve shared, I believe that the Six Conditions of Systems Change framework should evolve to reflect a shift beyond mental models to embodiment. Embodiment is so critical to systems change – and is so not part of how the mainstream engages in systems change – we have written a new article, How Embodiment Transforms Systems Change to illuminate the opportunity.
In the article we suggest that the concept of “mental models” be replaced by “meaning-making models” and we introduce three layers of meaning-making that humans engage in: cognitive understanding, embodied sensemaking and Earth embodiment. Practitioners can experience deepening levels of connection with the system by learning to make meaning within each of these layers. The article provides a visual update to the framework and also shares how practitioners can help shift meaning-making in a system in ways that move beyond a purely cognitive orientation to one that centers embodiment.
We hope you will read the article and provide us with your reactions. You can comment at the end of this piece, or the companion piece we link to above. Or feel free to email me at john.v.kania@collectivechangelab.org
A few final thoughts
Even as I propose this evolution of the framework, I recognize that there are those among you who may be wondering why this change wasn’t made sooner. Many social change practitioners already engage in their work through embodiment (in my experience, more women than men). For these folks, I can hear them saying, “Welcome to the party! What took you so long?” To these folks I say, “It is indeed a journey. Thank you for your grace.”
There are also others who, upon reading this, may feel squeamish (or angry or irritated) at the word embodiment and respond that “This just isn’t for me.” To these folks, I say, “I understand that this may feel weird and uncomfortable. I can relate. Embodied awareness takes time and doesn’t happen all at once. For starters, maybe try being led by your body just 1% more and see what happens.”* Curiosity is the key.
The most important task for all of us in this time of destabilization, fragmentation and dissonance is to focus on connection. Embodiment deepens our connections and becomes an essential source for our transformation.
* For me, one simple practice (and there are many others) that supports embodiment is to settle comfortably in a chair and take three slow, deep breaths. Pause for a bit and then notice what sensations arise in your body. Welcome those sensations into your awareness and stay with them for 2-3 minutes. Don’t try to analyze them, just acknowledge them. Then connect back to your rational mind and see what comes up. Even a 1% shift in embodiment can make a difference in how we relate with ourselves and others.
I also find the connection between language, body (or embodiment) and knowledge so interesting. We know that the language we speak shapes our relationships (with ourselves and the world around us). The idea of embodiment looks so intuitive when our language affords it. If our language forces us to think about things a certain way (like the Guugu Yimithirr people have an almost ever existing awareness of cardinal directions because they don't have left and right in their vocabulary), I've always wondered what it would mean to 'expand' this capacity by having other mediums like art be a vocabulary of its own. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's worth noting the resistance between feeling and wanted to assign value to it to make it communicable. Also, who do we embody for?
I am happy to see this focus on embodiment, that aspect of reality that has been so cut out by centuries of Cartesian/patriarchal/colonial thinking. And there is much work to be done to illustrate, for those many of us raised in those frameworks, what the implications are for how we show up! And how we can show up differently.
I think it's also worth saying that for many people who are new-ish to change-making (and indeed for some who have been doing it for a long time) the very idea that what we show up with in ourselves has some bearing on the outcome – rather than the problem being solely a political/economic/authoritarian one 'out there' – is a big deal.