Living Systems – 4SD Foundation

Dialoguing at scale – reflecting on experience

cheima.touir — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:30:07 +0000

Dialoguing at scale – reflecting on experience

This article was co-authored by John Atkinson, David Nabarro, Florence Lasbennes and Charlotte Dufour. It was first published at HeartOfTheArt.org on May 07, 2025.

Background

More than 1,600 multi-stakeholder dialogues were convened in preparation for the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021. These dialogues helped facilitate inclusive explorations of the complex challenges of transforming food systems and accelerate progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The context for the summit and the place of dialogues within it can be explored in more detail in an article published in ‘Nature Food’ here.

The dialogues were designed to help stakeholders in agriculture, food and sustainable development as together they made sense of and started to shape their own food systems. This document reflects some of the premises that guided the design roll-out and stewardship of the dialogues as a ‘systems intervention’ and suggests areas of learning. The term ‘systems intervention’ is used to mean a deliberate effort to prompt a shift in how a system functions among many entities with multiple interests. It is distinguished from delivering a programme of work in a specific single field or embarking on a process of organisational development within a single organisation.

In this regard, food systems share characteristics with other Human Systems. There are multiple over-lapping and inter-dependent networks, resulting in multiple sources of power and authority and multiple perspectives on an appropriate path forward. This creates an infinite number of different combinations which makes it hard to discern cause and effect clearly. Every action leads to multiple unintended consequences, only some of which are predictable. In short, systems interventions take place in a complex environment and rarely provide clear indications of cause and effect. Instead of trying to appreciate the origins of new ways of thinking and working, it can be more valuable to consider the conditions which favour their emergence and the benefits that will accrue as a result.

Why dialoguing

Dialogue has been a part of human activity for as long as there has been language. Groups of people converse together to determine how, or even if, they wish to move forward together. It is an everyday occurrence in many indigenous cultures that can manifest as informal, formal, and ritual interaction.

More recently in Western interpretation and particularly following the work of Bill Isaacs, David Bohm and others, dialogue has come to mean an open conversation with generative intent. What is of special interest is the features of a dialogue that enable it to generate promising new ways of thinking and working, particularly encouraging participants to suspend internal points of view and judgement. This makes it easier for them to listen to what others say, respect their viewpoints and build upon them when they intervene. They avoid the habitual reflex of jumping in with their own thoughts or judgements. The dialogue finds a flow that is creative and progressive.

This kind of dialogue provides a way of managing multiple non-aligned interests and power imbalances in pursuit of an ideal. However, those who do it successfully require a degree of self-discipline, comfort in the process, and experience of interacting in this way.

Dialogues and UN Food System Summit 2021

Global and National (and sub-National) Food Systems are characterised by tensions and power imbalances. Land ownership and use has in many cases been a source of conflict. Power is disproportionately held by governments and large corporations often to the disadvantage of smallholder farmers of which there may be some 500 million worldwide. Feeding a growing urban population is no simple matter. Feelings can run high.

It was important to ensure that a wide diversity of perspectives was both represented and able to speak and be heard. The dialogues needed to create an environment where young and old, women and men, small holders and indigenous peoples could sit alongside government officials, academics, and global businesses. This required skilful design, preparation, and facilitation and 4SD invested carefully in equipping people to do this.

For dialogues to be used as a successful approach for navigating such a system, and fostering novel ways of working, a specific architecture had to be created to hold the tensions in the system. A purist viewpoint would be unfeasible given the timescale and starting conditions, outwith areas where such approaches were already practised. 4SD evolved a structure and approach to dialoguing that provided the architecture for over 1600 dialogues. Governments were asked to identify individuals to perform the role of National Dialogue Convenor. They were nominated in 148 countries. Non-governmental organisations, civil society, academics and local authorities could also run their own dialogues nominating their own convenors. These led to 111 national Pathways to sustainable and equitable food systems, with 96 heads of state endorsing them at the UN Food Systems Summit. They link to national budgets, strategies and development plans.

The details of this structure, including handbooks and manuals needed to successfully run it, the feedback from each dialogue, the depth and breadth of participation and Synthesis Reports that tell the story of the dialogues are all available on the website summit dialogues.

This document does not seek to repeat or expand on what is a most thorough resource. Instead, it seeks to share key areas of learning from four specific aspects as follows.

The act of designing and evolving systems interventions
The art of accompanying people through a systems intervention
The experience of being involved in systems interventions
The mindsets that help us work this way.

A document that captures these learnings more fully, identifying qualities with descriptions and examples, is attached as an annex.

The act of designing and evolving systems interventions

To create the conditions in which 1600+ dialogues led to global discernible outputs required an architecture, a process and a system for orienting those using it. This needed to build on and acknowledge existing practice and find the line between providing enough structure to satisfy the aims of the summit whilst allowing sufficient flexibility to maximise local benefit. The guiding principle in dealing with National Dialogue Convenors was to use the momentum and impetus provided by the summit to further what is needed nationally rather than simply satisfying the needs of the summit itself.

To do this required a design for the dialogues which enabled local leaders to take on the process to address local challenges. Their actions were especially valuable if they reflected a set of critical guidelines.

The first was clarity on the intent of the dialogues. It provided a common language and identity, a sense that participants were doing something important for their communities and at the same time were contributing to a critical global movement.

The second was on participation: the need for attracting and enabling as diverse and inclusive a group of participants as possible – all stakeholders with an interest, with efforts to ensure that there were diverse participants from within each stakeholder group.

The third was to ensure that the approach was flexible enough to take account of local circumstances, including weather, elections, conflict and COVID-19.

The fourth was for the process to be able to evolve whilst maintaining the integrity of the work. 4SD did this by creating open spaces where everyone could learn from the participant experience.

The fifth was to land something meaningful by the time of the UN Food Systems Summit, the whole process taking place within a year and in a Covid restricted environment.

The act of designing and evolving the approach was one of constant attention to purpose, curiosity on how it could be realized, and feedback amongst the summit organizers. Not everything worked everywhere, and processes of regular reporting (on progress) communication (on engagement) and training (open to all with an interest) were built in. They enabled processes for design and rollout to be responsive and adaptive.

All this would not have happened without financial support from the Summit secretariat to national convenors. Organising and running dialogues requires an investment in time and incurs cost.

The art of accompanying people through a systems intervention

If the ‘act of designing’ provided an architecture for the dialogues, this would not have been sufficient without the ability to create a relational context within which the various elements could be found. Throughout the dialogues there was much attention given to creating and tending this relational space. It was referred to as the place where people were accompanied through the systems intervention’. The dialogue ‘convenors’ were identified as being essential catalysts and national governments were invited to place them at the heart of the process. The 4SD role was to serve them in relation to their role with the summit.

Throughout the dialogue period a great deal of emphasis was placed on the nature and quality of interaction among the National convenors and their communications with the Summit organisers. This has involved establishing a regular rhythm tempo and style of meetings, working weekly in multiple languages to ensure ease of comprehension and engagement. This was a two-way flow, convenors wanted to know how preparations for the summit were developing, how their work would feature, what would be valuable. The summit organizers needed to know how things were progressing, what was working and where barriers lay, what more convenors needed. 4SD oscillated between being catalyst for, and midwife to, the process

The success of the whole process depended on there being unequivocal trust between the convenors (and their governments) and the summit organizers (and the multilateral entities they represent). The 4SD investment included fostering a sense of common interest, as well as being visible, transparent, responsible, generous and inclusive. Carefully attending to these attributes and testing the validity and legitimacy of assumptions, gave 4SD the confidence to make bold advances without being reckless.

The experience of being involved in systems interventions

Systems are by their very nature complex and food systems are certainly no exception. What happens in these complex human environments is affected by how power is concentrated and used: indeed, politics are an inevitable and significant phenomenon within them. Where approaches and outcomes are contested, and power is dispersed, the individuals and groups who want to get things done seek the power that enables them to do so. That means that engaging in a food systems intervention is engaging in a political activity. It is a reality that is worth recognizing because it means paying constant attention to the political dynamics within food systems and how they shift over place and time. It also means that those involved in influencing how food systems behave need to be comfortable with operating in this sphere.

To do so with comfort means being able to manage paradox skilfully. Different views need not be opposites. Two or more elements that appear to be in conflict can both be valid. Those working with food systems are constantly involved in creating frames for conversations and activities that can hold multiple perspectives. Constant effort is needed to hold that frame firmly but lightly. In the case of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues the emphasis was on prioritizing the interests and needs of participants, and not on pursuing specific outcomes that might be desired by the summit organizers or by 4SD as their contractors. In this kind of working others expect to be asked to support, or oppose, a particular agenda. They can be disconcerted and even become critical when effort is invested in creating an agnostic platform for collective working. Yet it is vital for the catalyst to remain neutral and earn the authority to operate in challenging spaces.

All of this describes environments where passions run high, emotions are aroused and those involved may well find themselves caught in the energy of the moment. It would be naïve to request that you remain unaffected in such circumstances. It may be useful if you recognise the emotion of a situation, and its impact on yourself and on others.

The mindsets that help us work this way

The success of your efforts to work in this way will be determined by your mindset. There is no straightforward “mindset test” to apply. But a systems leadership mindset begins from curiosity, from questions like “What is going on here, how do we know, what might work?” Continuing to seek answers drives the desire to explore capacity for adaptation. As circumstances evolve, understanding shifts and new potential emerges. This creates opportunities for rethinking, redesigning and retuning.

Successfully stimulating meaningful changes takes energy. There is huge energy for changing and improving what is eaten and ways food is produced. Tapping into that energy and unleashing it requires widespread, high quality connections. Make a habit of investing in people – finding the time that is needed to meet them where they are, listen to them, understand what drives them and respect differences between them. Create the spaces in which they can get your measure and decide for themselves the amounts of their energies they will commit to the work. 4SD quickly realized the impossibility of mobilizing change in food systems in over a hundred countries around the world through personal drive alone. There were systematic efforts to tap into the goodwill, excitement and energy of others to foster a sense of movement and the potential for an exponential shift in outcome.

The expectations were high as dialogues were advanced, pathways emerged, and the Summit date approached. But anxiety ran throughout. In each dialogue, participants asked what they had to give up moving forward? Are they going in the right direction? Anxiety is inevitable when new ways of thinking and working are starting to emerge. That is because we move from the comfort and security of the known into the transformative realm that is as yet unknown. This anxiety is vital but it can be crippling. This means that the environment, validity and readiness for new approaches is constantly being tested. Embracing anxiety is hard: 4SD’s close-knit and committed team made a habit of regularly connecting on the morning of each working day to help ensure that this vital element of mindset was not disregarded.

Going further

The summit dialogues website summit dialogues website provides a huge resource on a unique global process. The learning here is applicable to other global events, national or sub-national events and for commercial corporations. If you wish to explore any element further, please contact the authors contact@4SD.org.

Annex: Detailed Learnings Document

The 4-page document mentioned above is embedded below.
If the PDF does not display, you can download it here.

Your browser does not support inline PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF.

Acknowledgement

The 4SD team extends its sincere gratitude to the United Nations for the confidence placed in us and for the opportunity to support the preparatory process for the UN Food Systems Summit. We also wish to express our profound appreciation to all partners, collaborators, and participants for their invaluable engagement and contributions throughout this significant initiative.

Disclaimer

The views, interpretations, and lessons presented in this paper are solely those of the 4SD team, reflecting their experiences and reflections. They do not necessarily represent or reflect the official views, policies, positions, or endorsements of the United Nations, its affiliated agencies, or its Member States. Responsibility for the content and conclusions herein rests exclusively with 4SD.

Navigating difference

cheima.touir — Mon, 05 May 2025 12:19:55 +0000

Navigating difference

This article was co-authored by John Atkinson and David Nabarro. It was first published on 29 April 2025 on HeartOfTheArt.org.

Leadership requires the capacity to navigate difference. Good leaders help groups of people achieve greater impact through enabling them to make sense of their different perspectives. This is vital if those involved share an interest but do not have a clear agreement on how to move forward. They may disagree on what needs to be done. Even basic facts might be contested. Leadership helps them to navigate through their differences and find the best ways to move forward.
The leader does not begin by insisting that differences must first be resolved.

Leading for greater impact

A capacity to work with human systems is essential when making sense of complex issues like disease outbreaks, changing weather or food shortages. Systems leaders help the groups working on these issues to expand their ambition and achieve greater impact, despite their different perspectives. They help articulate a story and direction that makes sense to all and encourage others to explore this direction through their own life lenses. Thus, they make room for others to advance in ways that are inspiring and meaningful.

Seeing difference as a strength

Systems leaders see different perspectives as assets and not as problems. They know that inevitably there are competing points of view on any issue that matters, and that those who hold them believe they are correct. Good systems leaders can hold different points of view lightly, without favor or prejudice, whether in open or private exchanges. If they can hold many different perspectives at the same time, and can model this behavior to others, they demonstrate what is needed to help divergent groups navigate difference.

Taking care re simplifying

Where there are multiple perspectives on what to do there are often calls for the leader to help. To clarify, simplify and offer concrete direction. Be careful if this leads to stark choices between competing options: seductive, simple, either-or choices. Often in the Western dialectic tradition, a dispute is answered through debate between opposite positions. However, simplification and debate often lead to the emergence of competing factions. Each has their backers, positions become entrenched, and winners (and losers) emerge. In the most volatile environments this can lead to deepening resentment and generations of conflict. Ballot victories are hollow if the issue festers as an unhealed wound. The divergence is exacerbated, and the leader’s role becomes harder.

Seductively stark choices are unreal

It is a seductive but false notion that you can address divergence by breaking down complex issues into stark either-or choices. Real life is rarely straightforward. Complexity fares badly when simplified into two competing viewpoints because there are invariably many options and are seldom opposites. In setting up a choice between two options the leader must omit some perspectives, prioritize selected data over others, and so present an incomplete picture that misinforms and may even be seen as manipulative. The leader who handles divergence by taking sides may end up facing even more intractable challenges.

Holding divergence skillfully

A systems leader who holds divergence skillfully succeeds by expanding the frame for thought, pointing towards a collective ‘better’ (not necessarily the ‘best’), and holding that direction lightly. The leader enables people to see how the collective better helps them fulfil their needs. Exploring this gives people the room they need to invest in a bigger and broader cause.

Holding differences as necessary paradoxes

Systems leaders who can hold competing perspectives over time, without taking sides, enable new relationships to form. They encourage the emergence of wonderful new ways of being and doing. They do not need bigger brains or more processing power to do this. But even in the face of the most complex and contested challenges they do need one basic skill. That is their ability to hold differences, lightly and long enough to live with them as necessary tensions. When they can do it for themselves, they can help others do it too.

Practical implications for the leader

1. Hold multiple competing viewpoints together and treat them all as valid even when they appear to contradict.
2. Avoid boiling difficult issues down to stark either-or choices in the name of keeping things simple.
3. Avoid contributing to the deliberate spread of misinformation: you will not be trusted if this surfaces.
4. Be aware there always will be unintended consequences in any approach – that they will occur again and again, evolving over time and space, often in unpredictable ways. Look out for them and build them into your strategy, adapting to new circumstance as you learn more about the space in which you are operating.

Handling one’s own uncertainty

If leaders are to help others hold differences, they need to be able to hold differences for themselves. As they juggle with many points of view, they must also handle their own uncertainties. They have to accept that there may be no solution to the challenges they face. They need to be conscious of, and then park, their own biases. They learn to stop trying to find answers to unanswerable questions. And they do not need to propose solutions to be seen, noticed and affirmed.

Leading in living webs

Systems leadership is part of a living web of human activity. It is best described using ecological metaphors. Human systems are dynamic and generative, with inbuilt vitality. They are complex, diverse and symbiotic. They are living systems. Those who lead in them find that seemingly insignificant connections can profoundly influence outcomes and that novel phenomena emerge from new relationships. Leadership should be seen as tending to this living web, leaders are not mechanics tuning a large machine to make it more efficient.

A rich resource for the collective good

Unresolved differences within groups of people can paralyze them when they try to tackle complex challenges together. Paralyzing conflicts occur in many settings, including parliaments, governments, institutions, organizations, communities and even families. Systems leaders who can help groups to navigate their differences have much to offer. They enable new relationships to form where people can hold onto and make good use of their differences – as they may well contain what is needed to enable everyone to move forward together.

Leadership and system change with Sir David Nabarro – A Systemcraft conversation with Wasafiri’s Kate Simpson

info — Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:17:09 +0000

Systemcraft is Wasafiri’s framework for tackling complex problems. It helps change leaders and their institutions to answer “What next?”. It is built from a robust body of theory and grounded in our experience as change practitioners working in diverse contexts.

Click here to watch a recording directly or find it on the Systemcraft network – A place for purpose-driven leaders who want to learn and apply Systemcraft to get help from experts and peers, access training and resources, and stay inspired.

Reflecting on Our Times: Valuing Transformative Leadership in Real-World “Living Systems”

info — Wed, 10 May 2023 12:16:17 +0000

Article on living systems by John Atkinson, Florence Lasbennes and David Nabarro from the American Journal of Evaluation.

Citation: Atkinson, J., Lasbennes, F., & Nabarro, D. (2021). Reflecting on Our Times: Valuing Transformative Leadership in Real-World “Living Systems.” American Journal of Evaluation, 42(1), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020982071

Abstract

We present this brief reflection on key aspects of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the implications of the worldwide focus on achieving the sustainable development goals as external observers of the evaluation endeavor around the world. We have conducted and participated in evaluations, but it is not our primary field of work and we are not engaged in the global community of evaluation specialists. However, we believe that the urgency of the challenges confronting the world today should inspire those influencing and shaping evaluation internationally to focus much more fiercely on the value of evaluation and its implications for leadership at all levels and in all fields of work. We propose that evaluation as practice should support and help inspire, value, and evaluate the type of leadership that the world needs now—dynamic and purposeful “living systems” leaders working toward large-scale, drastic change.

Living Systems Leadership (EXTRACT)

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (ASD) encourages people and nations to work together when tackling deep systemic issues. This requires a holistic approach across issues and geographies that is best advanced through systems thinking. Designs and plans that are based on linear models of change, and achieving results through matching specific solutions to individual problems, can add value in specific situations but are poorly suited when groups of diverse actors have to come together to tackle the complex issues the world faces today. When actors with very different interests join hands to encourage meaningful systems change, they need innovative leadership styles that are based on systems thinking and complexity science concepts. Of particular importance is living systems leadership.

The living systems approach to change focuses on systems that display the key characteristics of life, in particular people and their connectedness within the natural and societal ecosystems on which all life depends (Capra & Luisi, 2019). Living systems continuously evolve as a result of changes in the behaviors of those within them. The success of initiatives to adapt living systems in line with the 2030 ASD therefore depends greatly on how the process of adaptation is being led, hence the need to focus on the qualities of living systems leaders who can inspire, nurture, and guide humanity in directions strategically aligned toward achieving the 2030 ASD—and now, also dealing with the long-term aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

5 Principles to Guide Adaptive Leadership

info — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:16:57 +0000

5 PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP

by Ben Ramalingam , David Nabarro , Arkebe Oqubuy , Dame Ruth Carnall and Leni Wild. Originally published by Harvard Business Review on 11 September 2020 as one of a number of free articles related to COVID for all readers. Click here to go to the original article.

The Covid-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, with leaders facing unpredictability, imperfect information, multiple unknowns, and the need to identify responses quickly — all while recognizing the multi-dimensional (health-related, economic, social, political, cultural) nature of the crisis.

Responding to the crisis requires adaptive leadership, which involves what we refer to as the 4 A’s:

Anticipation of likely future needs, trends and options.
Articulation of these needs to build collective understanding and support for action.
Adaptation so that there is continuous learning and the adjustment of responses as necessary.
Accountability, including maximum transparency in decision making processes and openness to challenges and feedback.

All of the 4 A’s are plain to see in the most successful responses to the pandemic. Take the pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca. Thanks to their large Chinese operations, they learned about the virus early, and started working to anticipate future needs and issues, while also navigating the considerable uncertainties and unknowns. They articulated these needs to a wide range of internal and external stakeholders to garner commitment and support, and adapted a range of new business models and partnerships to effectively meet the most urgent Covid-19 needs — most notably vaccine development, but also testing and screening methods, health facility development, and the use of AI to support diagnostics and case management. Perhaps most notably, the firm has established an inclusive approach to accountability, with a commitment to support the global Covid-19 response “as economically and as equitably” as possible — including numerous agreements for the large-scale production and distribution of any successful vaccine at zero profit during the period of pandemic.

From our collective experience at the heart of WHO’s Covid-19 response (David), advising those at the top of national governments (Arkebe), leading and advising on large complex health and care systems (Ruth), and supporting crisis responses in developed and developing countries as well as humanitarian settings (Ben and Leni), we have identified five common principles to guide this kind of adaptive leadership across the Covid-19 response.

1. Ensure evidence-based learning and adaptation

Adaptive leadership means teams and organizations need to constantly assess their actions, recognizing that they will have to continuously iterate and adapt their interventions as they learn more about the outcomes of decisions. This requires clear processes for determining the best options for action; collecting, interpreting and acting on evidence, including defining a set of key measures for determining success or failure; ensuring ongoing collection of operationally relevant data; and setting out a clear process for how changes in data and trends will trigger changes in action.

Putting social learning and adaptation at the center of the response in this way has been found to be a crucial element in recent disease outbreak management, most notably in dealing with Ebola in West Africa. An analysis of the successful eradication of smallpox has shown that the success was attributable to processes of strategic adaptation and learning — more than any other single factor.

This learning process must be open and diverse to be effective. For example, the German government enlisted the advice not just of epidemiologists and medical specialists, but also social scientists, philosophers, historians of science, theologians, and jurists as it navigated the delicate ethical balancing act of reopening society while safeguarding the health of the public.

2. Stress-test underlying theories, assumptions, and beliefs

Just as institutions such as banks regularly undergo stress testing to ensure they can deal with future crises, the assumptions and hypotheses guiding an adaptive response need to subject to robust and rigorous reflection and examination, including through the simulation of different possible future scenarios.

One of the most systematic and rigorous approaches to Covid-19 scenario planning has been developed by Boston Consulting Group. Drawing on military approaches to strategic learning, they advocate that firms establish an integrated model of “anticipation, intelligence, and response” that can underpin business decision-making. Using such an approach, different scenarios have been developed for use by the automotive, fashion, and luxury goods sectors. These scenarios account for critical uncertainties in the public health situation, the impact of government measures, the wider economic environment and business-specific demand forecasts, and make use of real-time monitoring as the basis for decision-making.

3. Streamline deliberative decision making

A major challenge faced by leaders is that the data on Covid-19 is changing all the time and is often contradictory. Where decision makers feel threatened, they are much more likely to revert to risk-averse and siloed responses to ensure a degree of safety that results from narrowly defined targets.

Decision makers at different levels therefore need to be clear about what they are basing their assumptions and hypotheses on. They need to explain what is being done and why, and how a decision was made, so that if errors are identified, trust can still be maintained in the process.

The most successful national responses — in South Korea, Taiwan, and Germany; in less well-publicized initiatives, such as in Vietnam and Ethiopia; and in sub-national efforts such as Kerala, India — have used the pandemic as a catalyst for transforming the policy process, making it more open, dynamic and nimble. These responses have also improved integration across different systems — from health care to transportation to energy — which has resulted in unprecedented levels of planning, information sharing, and coordination.

4. Strengthen transparency, inclusion, and accountability

People around the world have been asked to make major behavior changes, and these bring significant costs for society, businesses, and governments. Because the stakes are so high, there is a need to examine how earlier decisions were made, bearing in mind the information available at the time. Ongoing real-time assessment of the response is needed to maximize learning. Such assessments should include all relevant stakeholders — from professionals to affected populations.

The best adaptive leaders — from business leaders to policy makers to community organizers — have recognized mistakes are likely to be made and actively used them to identify shared learning opportunities. For example, the UK’s National Health Service has held an open, honest, and challenging dialogue about how institutionalized biases in dealing with Covid-19 have led to greater levels of pain and suffering among black and ethnic minority patients and staff alike. And there has been acknowledgement at the highest levels that however difficult this process might be, this had to be seen a “fundamental inflection point” for one of the world’s largest health care providers.

The European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has advocated the use of after-action reviews and similar processes to assess how public health decisions were taken at different points and on what basis. Given the fact that the pandemic response is increasingly being viewed as a marathon and not a sprint, it is vital to assess what has happened so far, to identify strategic priorities, and to exchange lessons learned. This means leaders need to commit to sharing their thinking at every stage and by acting in such an open and transparent way, set a benchmark for how to engage with constituencies and stakeholders as the pandemic progresses. More than that, by acknowledging their fallibility, leaders create an environment of candor, psychological safety, and mutual trust that is vital for effective crisis response.

5. Mobilize collective action

The Covid-19 crisis is not just a public health crisis; it’s also an economic, social and political crisis. It is a “complex systems” problem that requires changes in behaviors and incentives and in the relationships between different groups and organizations. Effective responses therefore need to build on collaboration across different sectors, industries and professionals and between international, national and local levels — an ambition that has often proved difficult to put into practice.

Collective action in this regard might be in the form of coordination (e.g. among businesses), partnerships among different interest groups (e.g. businesses and communities), or dialogue across a range of stakeholders. Adaptive leadership has a crucial role to play in helping to identify shared alignment of objectives and scope for collective action across different silos and levels of the response. Such interactions enrich debate, are inclusive, and improve ownership of decisions.

There have been some remarkable multi-sectoral interventions which span public, private and not-for-profit capabilities in exactly this way. In the UK, for example, shared awareness of the existing health care capacity underpinned landmark deal to rapidly commission of all private-sector hospitals for use by the National Health Service, at cost, leading to an accelerated scaling up of available beds and equipment. Civil society and citizen groups have also played a central role in mobilizing inclusive approaches the pandemic, especially in resource-constrained settings. Local responses have emerged in the form of community-led support for the most vulnerable in Bhopal, India; the repurposing manufacturing capability to enable locally produced PPE across the U.S.; and the strengthening of “social economy” approaches to rebuilding disrupted economies from the grassroots up in Canada and numerous European countries.

What we do in this crisis response will have repercussions for years and decades to come. These five principles of adaptive leadership are not just vital to guide our immediate responses; they will also be vital for shaping longer-term recovery and resilience plans. Our collective future may be uncertain, but this uncertainty is at the very heart of human creativity.

Work-life balance: Care, Connection, Compassion for a Change

info — Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:59:24 +0000

Photo by Saitarg via Iwaria

By David Nabarro, Strategic Director of 4SD – Skills, Systems & Synergies for Sustainable Development.

Addressing the complex challenges that underpin the 2030 Agenda is accompanied by a great deal of stress. Breaking silos and engaging people from many cultures and disciplines means stepping out of our comfort zones. Catalysing partnerships and action requires a lot of energy and the courage to expose one’s self. The question thus arises: how can we manage our own stress levels so that we not only do our work, but also are present for our family and friends and navigate life with joy and compassion?

So… how can we optimize our personal capacity to be agents of positive change, at home, in our community and in the workplace?

Here are a few tips that work for me:

Focus on one thing at a time: More and more evidence demonstrate that multi-tasking is a myth! As humans, our brains perform better when engaging fully in one thing. So, let’s fully engage, and fully disengage, to be fully present to the task or the person at hand.
Meet people, fully and right where they really are: The way people show up is the way they show up. We can’t force them into holding our point of view. We can’t make them move faster than they are prepared to go. So, at home as much as in our workplace, let’s cultivate our curiosity for people and their stories and quiet our judgements. Let’s see people, hear them and engage with them from where they are, not from where we feel they should be. We will save our precious energy to move on with the potential that exists, however great or small.
Connect with people with warmth: Always connect first, with smile and eye contact when possible, empathy and real curiosity for what each person brings. It facilitates trust, communication and absorption of ideas. Smile on the phone, the person you are talking to will feel it and open more easily. Pause whatever else you were doing, and engage fully, from your heart. There is always something to learn, another perspective to discover, another story to unveil.
Take your job seriously, without taking yourself too seriously! Hold your lightness through even the most serious circumstances. Whatever prize I get, however serious or high level the group is that I engage with, I wear fun socks! Most people don’t see them, but they are my important reminder to have fun and not take myself too seriously.

There are many other tips and practice that can help us balance our busy lives. Connecting with people, fully and warmly, with passion and humility, is the one that keeps me going! At times when I cannot manage, I depend on this.

World Economic Forum: Systems leadership can change the world – but what exactly is it?

info — Thu, 07 May 2020 18:05:55 +0000

A Systems Leadership article by Lisa Dreier, Managing Director, Advanced Leadership Initiative, Harvard University, Sir David Nabarro, Co-Director, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Jane Nelson, Director, Corporate Responsibility Initiative,Harvard Kennedy School of Government. This article was originally published on the World Economic Forum on 24 September, 2019 here.

As world leaders and activists gather in New York this week to address the climate crisis and the faltering rate of progress toward the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the calls for systemic change are getting ever louder. Systems change is an inspiring goal – but how can we achieve it?

Transforming a complex system – such as the energy, health or food system – is a monumental task requiring coordinated action by people with very different viewpoints. Systems-change initiatives often engage hundreds of organizations – governments, companies, civil society organizations, worker associations, research institutions and others – combining their capacities to achieve a shared goal.

These large-scale initiatives are often driven and supported by people who fit a certain profile – those who are able to catalyze and empower collective action among others, rather than controlling or directing the action themselves. These people are increasingly described as systems leaders.

A balancing act Image: Harvard Kennedy School

We studied examples of systems leaders working on diverse issues around the world, and found some striking similarities. Systems leaders – whether they are global leaders or community activists, working in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas – often apply a similar set of tactics and have similar experiences leading large, complex initiatives. We summarized some of the key elements and success factors of systems leadership in a new report in the interest of encouraging others in the global community to apply and refine this approach.

Systems leadership: a tool for our times

Systems leadership is a set of skills and capacities that any individual or organization can use to catalyze, enable and support the process of systems-level change. It combines collaborative leadership, coalition-building and systems insight to mobilize innovation and action across a large, decentralized network.

Two very different examples illustrate what it can look like in practice. The 2015 Paris Agreement, signed by 195 countries with support from thousands of organizations, was spearheaded by Christiana Figueres, a global diplomat who emphasized practicality, flexibility and collaboration to bring stakeholders onboard, securing an historic agreement. At a more local level in Richmond, California, a community organizer named Najari Smith founded a new venture called Rich City Rides, galvanizing community members, local businesses and city government to address the interconnected challenges of employment, health and environmental sustainability among low-income communities of color in the city.

These two leaders operated in very different spheres, but they used some similar tactics: combining a deep understanding of the systemic issues they wanted to address; an ability to engage and align diverse stakeholders around shared goals; and an emphasis on empowering action and collaboration by a broad network of organizations.

Systems leaders apply an unusual combination of skills and attributes to mobilize large-scale action for systems change. Like many leaders, they tend to be smart, ambitious visionaries with strong skills in management and execution. Unlike traditional leaders, they are often humble, good listeners, and skilled facilitators who can successfully engage stakeholders with highly divergent priorities and perspectives. Systems leaders see their role as catalyzing, enabling and supporting widespread action – rather than occupying the spotlight themselves.

Systems leadership in action

The systems leadership approach is well-suited to complex challenges that require collective action, where no single entity is in control. However, the approach is challenging – involving high transaction costs, ambiguous outcomes and long timeframes. It is best applied to complex issues that cannot be solved through more direct means.

We distilled five key elements of the systems change process into the ‘CLEAR’ framework for leading systems change. These five elements are not necessarily sequential – they may overlap or repeat in cycles throughout the course of an initiative.

1. Convene and commit

Key stakeholders engage in moderated dialogue to address a complex issue of mutual concern. They define shared interests and goals, and commit to working together in new ways to create systemic change. For example, the We Mean Business Coalition engaged nearly 1,000 leading companies to advocate for ambitious, science-based climate policy, and has made over 1,500 action commitments.

2. Look and learn

Through system mapping, stakeholders jointly build a shared understanding of the components, actors, dynamics, and influences that create the system and its current outcomes, generating new insights and ideas. For example, The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition targets specific gaps in the nutrition system, working to catalyze and scale market-based solutions, and targeting vulnerable populations who are most in need.

3. Engage and energize

Strong stakeholder engagement is built through continuous communication to build trust, commitment, innovation and collaboration. Inspiration, incentives and milestones help drive progress and maintain momentum. For example, the New Vision for Agriculture initiative engaged over 650 organizations and 1,500 individual leaders around the world, catalyzing action in 21 countries including over 90 value-chain projects.

4. Act with accountability

Shared goals and principles set the direction of the initiative, while measurement frameworks help track progress. Coordination and governance structures can be developed as initiatives mature. For example, the Every Woman Every Child movement mobilized hundreds of action commitments towards its global strategy, monitoring progress through a unified accountability framework, with oversight from a high-level steering group and coordination by a global secretariat.

5. Review and revise

Stakeholders review progress regularly and adapt their strategy accordingly. Adopting an agile, flexible, innovative and learning-centered approach allows for evolution and experimentation. For example, the 2030 Water Resources Group evolved its organizational structure through several stages, commissioning external evaluations to both review its progress and recommend opportunities to increase its impact.

While the CLEAR Framework appears quite structured, the reality of the systems change process is often messy and ambiguous. Many stakeholders describe the experience of systems leadership as a journey of discovery that evolves over time, leading to moments of discovery or insight – what we describe as ‘Aha! moments’ – that crystallize each step of the journey.

Mainstreaming the systems leadership approach

While the concept of systems leadership makes intuitive sense to many stakeholders, it is not yet widely embraced and practiced. Mainstreaming its application will require a broader and more coordinated effort to develop research, share knowledge and build capacity. A number of philanthropists, consultancies and academics are active on these fronts, but they are not always well-connected. New platforms are needed to connect practitioners and experts, share insights and accelerate learning to support a wider array of organizations in applying Systems Leadership to advance progress toward the SDGs.

foodtank: David Nabarro Aims to Equip Leaders to Meet U.N. Sustainability Goals

info — Mon, 04 May 2020 11:00:52 +0000

This article was originally published by Jared Kaufman at FoodTank in August 2019 here.

When David Nabarro worked with the United Nations to develop the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, he noticed a problem: the specialized university tracks many global leaders go through, whether in health, nutrition or development studies, might not prepare them for the kind of cross-disciplinary, people-centered leadership Nabarro deemed necessary to implement the agenda’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The goals are ambitious; they call for, in part, the complete elimination of poverty, hunger, and unsustainable resource use by the close of the next decade.

In response, Nabarro, who is a medical doctor, longtime public health diplomat, and 2018 World Food Prize laureate, started a social enterprise called 4SD—“skills, systems, and synergies for sustainable development”—to give leaders the tools they’ll need to put the 2030 agenda into action. Systems-focused agronomist Florence Lasbennes joined 4SD as Managing Director soon after the enterprise’s founding. Each of the 17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals touches the food system in some way, Nabarro explains to Food Tank, making food central to realizing the 2030 agenda. To address the challenges in food, people need to “work together in a multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary way, and that in a way is our proof of principle,” Nabarro says. “If [4SD] can work on food systems, we believe it can work on many other areas of human endeavor.”

4SD grounds its work in the idea of “living systems,” which calls for centering the role of people and interpersonal connections in what might otherwise feel like mechanical bureaucratic environments. The traditional way institutions organize their teams—a hierarchical chart that tracks the distribution of power—doesn’t tell a realistic story anymore, Nabarro says.

“The best organizations don’t really work like that. They work as a result of relationships between individuals that go across the organization,” Nabarro tells Food Tank. The living systems framework, he says, outlines a way for leaders to actively facilitate the sharing of information to break through rigid institutional protocols. “What you can do then is to combine this focus on people and their relationships and their identities with the processes and structures and protocols, to establish a much more viable way of leadership and getting the job done.”

“If [4SD] can work on food systems, we believe it can work on many other areas of human endeavor,” says 4SD strategic director David Nabarro.

4SD introduces leaders to the living systems framework through their signature immersions, which Lasbennes is careful to point out are not trainings or lecture-based conferences. Instead, 4SD’s immersions include a three-day residential workshop during which facilitators such as Nabarro, living systems specialist John Atkinson, and food systems expert Charlotte Dufour encourage the small group of participants to discuss their vulnerabilities and institutional challenges. Then, participants are paired with 4SD mentors to guide them as they integrate 4SD’s principles into their organizations.

“That creates a context, a playground, through which we can—through webinars, through phone calls—follow up the discussions so that people are accompanied in their real work situations,” Lasbennes tells Food Tank.

With an initial group of 15 mentors and a goal of reaching 30 to 50 mentees by the end of the year, 4SD is starting small but actively growing. Nabarro hopes that through future immersions, the mentorship network, and a “playbook” that’s currently under development, the 4SD idea can be “seeded” in institutions, schools, and governments around the world and grow in a way that doesn’t sacrifice the person-to-person focus that Nabarro believes is necessary to solving the world’s thorniest challenges. 4SD currently maintains relationships with universities including Imperial College London, where Nabarro co-directs the Institute of Global Health Innovation and the University of Montpellier in southern France. The organization is also working to develop relationships with colleges from Asia to Latin America.

For 4SD, achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals—and addressing systemic inequalities—means not only rethinking leadership, but also encouraging leaders to rethink their own identities.

“We believe that changing the way we lead requires us to change something inside ourselves,” Lasbennes tells Food Tank. “Looking at things a bit differently will help [shift] mindsets, but it’s also being able to listen much more than we’ve been encouraged to do to the views of others, to the environment in which we are working, [and] to the political views and opinions that are around what we are doing.”

Encouraging Systems Change

info — Sat, 09 Nov 2019 15:58:44 +0000

Encouraging Systems Change

This article was co-authored by John Atkinson and David Nabarro. It was first published on November 9, 2019 on HeartOfTheArt.org.

From linear solutions to systems change

As we face into some of the greatest problems of our times a new mantra emerges, the mantra of ‘systems change’. Why? The major challenges facing our world cannot be solved for everyone everywhere through discrete solutions.

For example:

The challenges of climate change call for solutions that go beyond energy use and governance changes.
The challenge of ensuring everyone can access healthy and nutritious diets cannot be solved just through increasing use of fertilisers or genetically modified crops to boost productivity.
The care needed by increasing numbers of elders will be hard to fund through existing patterns of state-based support.

We continue to look for single solutions because that is our usual way of working, it feels comfortable and stable. But in these examples, and in many others, there are no single solutions that can be relied on to overcome the challenges. Our comfort is being undermined by the growing sense that though many things we currently do are good, they may also not be sufficient. Hence the shift to thinking in terms of systems change.

Adapting constantly

In truth, references to the ways in which we have always done things are stories we tell more than they are a reality. The ways that we do things are always adapting. New technology, different forms of governance, resource availability or shortages have all over time shaped the way anything gets done. As humans have moved from small communities, to kingdoms, to democracies, the way things get done has adapted. These changes in modes of governance have been emergent. They have arisen from the contingencies and opportunities of the day, unplanned and undirected.

Can systems change be controlled?

Over the last century another thing has also emerged – a mindset that propagates a belief in our ability to direct and control these sorts of systems changes. Fed on a diet of management speak, we have come to have faith in a falsehood and then take it for granted. That falsehood is that we humans are able to direct and control large scale change in our relationship with our environment.

Can systems change be commanded?

Even those who know that systems change cannot be commanded are seduced by the collective view that it is possible. We join with others in writing reports that describe an ideal future state and the ways to get there. We convene workshops to agree policies. We describe and instigate pilot projects in the hope that we can roll these out as global exemplars. We set outcomes, presenting them as objectives for global change. We do all this because we share a belief that those with the power can be convinced of the need both to command change and then to control it for the common good.

Perhaps, but…

It isn’t that reports, policies, pilots and outcomes are bad things. It is that systems change doesn’t occur by focusing on these things in isolation.

Systems change is a new state

When we envision systems change as a new state which emerges from what is currently happening, it leads our thoughts and thus our activity into a different plane. A plane where we appreciate that our current institutions exist in the form of unstable equilibria, and that they can be encouraged to move into new forms of organisation around any issue. But we realise that they cannot be directed to transform in this way – our encouragement cannot define the outcome.

How does system change emerge?

The emergence of a systems change arises when, in the presence of sufficient energy and disturbance, the systems shift in ways that enable new (though still unstable) equilibria to form. The shift happens when there is consistent encouragement for change through the formation of new and positive feedback loops; loops which can exponentially amplify even slight movement in the system.

Supporting the emergence of systems change

As leaders, we do our best to predict how new feedback loops will form, to help make them happen and to anticipate the new equilibrium that will arise. But, we cannot determine how and when the change will happen. We must be content with doing our best to support emergence as it happens (and not doing things that might hinder it).

And yet, much leadership deters emergence

Most leadership activity actually acts to deter the likely emergence of a new state rather than encourage it. Traditional modes of leadership need to hold attention, gain credit, occupy ground and own a message: they can so easily suck energy from those who might otherwise contribute. They may suppress differing opinions in overt ways by use of organisational or personal power. Sometimes they may do this less obviously by crafting mission, vision or value statements that exclude the diversity of thought and opinion.

These forms of power-play minimise disturbance and prevent its value being fully appreciated. By trying to stabilise situations, reduce variation and harmonise approaches, leaders may unwittingly encourage negative feedback which dampens creativity and stifles the potential for emergence.

The art of connecting

If as leaders, we wish to encourage system change we need to embrace and encourage emergence. To do this we need to:

Tap into the energy that already exists for any change and feed it.
Create spaces where disturbance can be heard, encouraged and developed.
Connect competing and opposing camps in new and novel ways.

Nurturing uncomfortable connections

We cannot just stumble into this. If we are to deliberately foster such disturbance we need to:

Create environments that nurture uncomfortable connections.
Work with the existing sources of power that are uneasy with what might be perceived as dangerous dissonance.
Align with the strands of that power and work with them to weave the cradles within which nascent changes can start to form.

Enquiring wisely – widely and openly

This means the real activity that encourages systems change is not analysis, or programme planning or project management. It is a relational activity that asks us to engage widely and openly, including with those who trouble us. It asks us to enquire into their motive and means. It means we must be ready to listen more than to tell, to connect and not to direct, to propagate and not to control.

Sensing for fluidity and rigidity

As we feel into the existing rhythms within the systems that interest us, we are sensing for their patterns of fluidity and rigidity.

Where might we encourage and accelerate the new?

Where must we pause a while, keep connecting and wait for the readiness?

When the time comes, how will we assemble and use our collective abilities to support the shift?

Power and fragility in our cradle

All the time that we are acting to encourage systems change we must be conscious of the fragility of our endeavour and how easily it can revert back into the existing norm. We must be keenly aware that the environment in which we operate is dynamic, this means that we must constantly attend to that web of relationships and power that forms our cradle.

Credit for the conditions, not for success

And we must train ourselves to let go of our need to be credited with success. As systems leaders we are keenly aware that all systems, in order to preserve their identities, will react rapidly to any attempts at changing. We know that the work we do to form and tend to relationships is what matters the most in creating the conditions for positive emergence – if we focus instead on our personal need to achieve a particular result and receive credit from our peers or beyond, we may fail to see those who we should be seeing and hear the voices that need to be heard. By letting others take the credit and accolades for whatever emerges, we can be happy in the knowledge that we have contributed as catalysts to the enabling of fundamental change.

We know we matter; that is why it doesn’t matter that we don’t matter to others.

A Glossary of Regenerative Culture

info — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:19:40 +0000

This “Glossary of Regenerative Culture” was published by Jenny Andersson in her Medium blog Regenerate The Future on May 26, 2019. Access the original article here.

As new ways of thinking and doing grow, a new language always grows with them. Here are many of the words, phrases and terms you’re likely to find in discussions about a regenerative future.

The legendary Joanna Macy

Active Hope: legendary deep ecologist Joanna Macy’s approach to the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambigious future we face. Not just being blithely hopeful, but digging in with deep commitment to fostering action for the future. Joanna’s Work That Reconnects is a perfect example of how to find active hope; recognise your grief for what we are losing, find your focus — what you can do and go forth in community to take action.

Agroecology — is the science of sustainable farming as well as a political movement that aims to improve the way food is grown and processed globally. Fundamentally, agroecology is about shifting the control of the land, seeds, markets and labour out of the hands of big business and back into the hands of small-scale farmers.

Agroforestry — the Soil Association describes this as the combination of forestry and agriculture. There are two main types: silvo-pastoral agroforestry: grazing of animals under trees, where the animals enrich the soil while the trees provide shelter and fodder for the animals; and silvo-arable agroforestry: where crops are grown beneath trees, often in rows which are large enough for a tractor to tend to the crops without damaging the trees. This is farming in 3D, the trees and the crops occupy different levels above ground, and also below ground where the tree roots will reach down deeper than the crops.

World Cocoa Foundation’s Cocoa & Forests Initiative helps to increase agroforestry

Agroforestry is helping to revitalise degraded cocoa plantations in West Africa for example.

Anthropocene: the name given by scientists to the era — estimated to have begun near the late 1950s — when the impact of one single species — humans — determined the fate of all other life on Earth.

Biomes are global-scale zones, generally defined by the type of plant life that they support in response to average rainfall and temperature patterns. For example, tundra, coral reefs or savannas.

Biomimicry: is an approach to innovation that seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies. Founded by the awesome Janine Benyus, the Biomimicry Institute seeks to promote and develop design and social innovation according to the principles of nature.

Velcro | Cobweb glass and homeostatic building in Essen, Germany

A famous piece of biomimicry design were the ultimately-banned Speedo sharksin swimsuits.

Bioregion: a debated term. I’ll go for the World Resources Institute definition:

“A bio-region is a land and water territory whose limits are defined not by political boundaries, but by the geographical limits of human communities and ecological systems. Such an area must be large enough to maintain the integrity of the region’s biological communities, habitats, and ecosystems; to support important ecological processes, such as nutrient and waste cycling, migration, and stream flow; to meet the habitat requirements of keystone and indicator species; and to include the human communities involved in the management, use, and understanding of biological resources. It must be small enough for local residents to consider it home.

A bioregion would typically embrace thousands to hundreds of thousands of hectares. It may be no bigger than a small watershed or as large as a small state or province. In special cases, a bioregion might span the borders of two or more countries.

A bioregion is also defined by its people. It must have a unique cultural identity and be a place in which local residents have the primary right to determine their own development. This primary right does not, however, imply an absolute right. Rather, it means that the livelihoods, claims, and interests of local communities should be both the starting point and the criteria for regional development and conservation. Within that framework many other state, investor, and other economic interests must be accommodated.

Bioregionalism is the act of working out how to create a regenerative future in any specific, defined bioregion. Cascadia in Western America is a great example of a bioregional approach to the future (see above map).

In the UK, Bioregional is a not-for-profit consultancy led by Sue Riddlestone which supports towns and cities to develop their own One Planet Living approach to bioregional stability. We also have The Bioregional Learning Centre in Devon which looking at a bioregional strategy for the South Hams.

In the USA, the Capital Institute is bringing together a number of different bioregional initiatives and projects under the Regenerative Communities Network and Hubs.

Blended Finance: according to the OECD, blended finance is the strategic use of development finance for the mobilisation of additional finance towards sustainable development in developing countries. It is a mechanism designed to help deliver the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Blind Spots: Nora Bateson has something beautiful to say on blinds spots.Blind spots show up as the reflex always to bestow uncritical faith in authorities (including one’s own superiors) and handed-down rules; the other, the quick dismissal of seemingly irreverent assertions. It’s a comfort blanket in times of uncertainty and volatility that we all need to be aware of when working towards a regenerative future.

Buckminster Fuller Institute: again not a piece of terminology, more of a legend. The institute covers just about everything that sits under the umbrella of Design Science Revolution.

Circular Economy: is synonymous with Ellen Macarthur for me. No-one has done more to promote the concept and value of shifting from sustainability to a circular approach to tackling our extractive, wasteful economy. Her Ted Talk still gives me the shivers.

Climate Emergency: thanks to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg, it seems there is at last some momentum from grassroots to government to recognise that we need radical action yesterday. The resurgence of non-violent activism of the 60s and 70s which served Martin Luther King, marks a new renaissance for resistance to business-as-usual. Long may it glue up the works.

Extinction Rebellion Principles

Complexity: I like author Michelle Holliday’s story in The Age of Thrivabilityand I hope she won’t mind me paraphrasing it here. The wiring on an aircraft is complicated; it would take you a long time to figure out where everything had to go if you didn’t know. But you could study and learn. Put a crew and passengers on a flight, combine it with prevailing weather and you can’t possible predict or work out what might happen on that flight. Even if you studied all the people for years. The system’s behaviour is unknowable because it is complex.

Co-creative collaboration: is what nature does, and its how we should approach the future. Contrary to the most popular interpretation of Darwinism, although competition exists in nature, it’s not quite the dog-eat-dog world of high human finance that we might have been led to think. A great example is the collaboration between sea anemones and clownfish which is also a symbiotic relationship.

Commons (avoiding the tragedy of): I love Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons — it’s been transformative to my thinking. Elinor Ostrom’s work deals with common pool resource (CPR) management, for which she won a Nobel Prize in economics in 2009. Ostrom outlines a few theories that we typically use to explain why common resource allocation will fail without intervention:

Prisoner’s dilemma: A game where two individuals do not cooperate, even though they rationally ought to
Tragedy of the commons: Individuals in the commons act according to their personal interest, thus depleting the resource
Free-rider problem: Individuals enjoy a benefit without contributing back, because there is no cost associated with doing so

The underlying assumption is that without external intervention, individuals will act selfishly, without regard for collective interests.

Convergence: when the divergent parts of an ecosystem or biological entity or system come together in relationship to form a convergent whole with new characteristics and capabilities.

Daniel Christian Wahl: author of Designing Regenerative Cultures sneaks in at D because although he’s a name not a narrative word, he’s the author of one of the most seminal books on regenerative culture and he can’t be left out! He’s written multiple articles on this platform that are worth exploring.

Divergence: in every living system there are individual parts — for example the cells, organs and systems within our bodies or the different departments and people in an organisation. The more diverse the parts are able to be, the more likely it is that the whole will be adaptable, agile and resilient the system will be.

Doughnut Economics: economist Kate Raworth’s model for a just space for humanity, combining the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s Planetary Boundaries and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. A brilliant framework for creative conversations around innovation for a regenerative future. We need bridges like this that help us to have the dificult discussions we need to have to take us forward.

Kate Raworth and the Doughnut

Duality: could be described in many ways. But here I’ll use binary thinking, the presentation of discussion as black/white, right/wrong.

Ecoliteracy: I’ll leave this one to Daniel Christian Wahl. He says: “Ecoliteracy is the ability to understand the organization of natural systems and the processes that maintain the healthy functioning of living systems and sustain life on Earth. An ecologically literate person is able to apply this understanding to the design and organization of our human communities and the creation of a regenerative culture.” Read more here.

Ecosystem: a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment — for example a marine ecosystem; a complex network or interconnected system — an entrepreneurial ecosystem like Silicon Valley

Ecosystem Services: a disputed term, but one definition is the benefits provided by an ecosystem that make human life possible and enjoyable. Clearly that’s an anthropocentric definition that doesn’t work for a regenerative mindset. So I think of it as what ecosystems do for people (that often aren’t recognised, protected or rewarded in any way) including providing food and water, controlling climate and disease, supporting nutrient cycles and oxygen production and offering cultural benefits to humans such as leisure pursuits.

EcoRestorationCamps — is a non-profit organisation founded by a movement of people who wanted an action-based solution to address accelerating climate change. Less of a terminology, more of a movement on a mission to restore degraded landscapes on a global scale. One for the out and out action takers who want to get their hands dirty.

Courtesy of EcoRestorationCamps

Emergence: in systems theory refers to how collective properties arise form the properties of parts which come together. I see emergence happening when running creative strategy workshops where the collective intelligence in the room can bring into being a solution to a problem that no one individual could have created alone.

Gaia Theory: was written by scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock alongside microbiologist Lynn Margulis. The principle of gaia theory is that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. Life creates the conditions conducive to life.

Green New Deal: brought back to life by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the green new deal is a proposed stimulus package in the USA that aims to address climate change and economic inequality. It is opposed by President Trump. It is growing globally as a movement for people that want to take control of their environmental and economoic futures and to change the rules to deliver the investment and shifts in economic power needed to make the new green deal a reality.

Holistic agriculture — home of the Savory Institute who have done so much to pioneer regenerative land management through holistic approaches. Reinvigorating grasslands through a shift from industrial agriculture to rotational and mixed agriculture — mainly livestock — on his family farm has been the lifework of Will Harris of White Oak Pastures. You can hear both Will and Danielle Ibarra-Howell, CEO of Savory talk about their approaches below.

Regenerative Agriculture (Regenerative Series)

HOST: Jenny Andersson | We Activate the FutureSPEAKERS: Daniela Howell | CEO at Savory Institute. Roian Atwood |…

www.connectle.com

Indigenous Wisdom: regenerative culture recognises the wisdom and knowledge that exists about life creating the conditions conducive to life in the indigenous peoples of the world — and speaks respectfully about their culture and contribution to the future. Equally ancient wisdom also has a place in regenerative conversations.

Interbeing: the quality of not being separated, it means to inter-dependently co-exist.Of being able to acknowledge and live with other life in partnership.The suggested replacement word for the verb “to be,” coined by Vietnamese Buddhist Monk and scholar Thich Nhat Hanh. The meaning of interbeingrecognizes the dependence of any one person or thing as to all other people and objects.

Liminality: a period of time or state of mind characteried by ambguity and disorientation. We’ve all been there as teenagers. Standing with one leg in one world and one in the unknown future.

Maker Movement: The Maker Movement is a cultural phenomenon and is highly inclusive as everyone is welcome, regardless of their race, financial status or background. It is also changing the way we learn, discover and innovate and is seen as a valuable contributor to our local economy.

A makerspace is a workshop where professionals, novices, entrepreneurs or students alike can come together under one roof to collaborate and share ideas or work on individual projects with a firm focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects. There are nearly over a 100 makerspaces across the UK. This movement has now also been firmly embedded into well know established universities and colleges and are viewed as a key selling point when talking to prospective students and forms a compelling argument for learning through hands-on exploration.

Makerspaces are also referred to as hackerspaces and Fab Labs and in certain instances provide communal facilities in an open accessible space, giving access to resources including digital fabrication and electronics.

Midwifing: has become a popular term for bringing forth the new regenerative future we want – much like a medical midwife helps bring new life into being.

Natural Capital: another hotly debated term and idea that might not have a real place in regenerative language, but gets included because it has growing backing in the world of business so we need to examine its place. According to the World Forum on Natural Capital, natural capital can be defined as the world’s stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things. It is from this natural capital that humans derive a wide range of services, often called ecosystem services (see above), which make human life possible. Should we use the language of capitalism to put a price on what is priceless? Although nature is priceless, it isn’t without value. By putting a monetary value on nature’s services to us, it enables the world to allocate the cost of ‘externalities’ i.e. damage done by primary production and processing businesses, to the environment. This may, in the future, lead to better legislation and financial measures to call organisations to account and prevent future degradation.

Prince William and Sir David Attenborough at Davos 2019

New Deal for Nature: is closely related to natural capital. Alongside WWF and Prince William, Sir David Attenborough called for a new deal for nature at WEF 2019. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is aiming to produce a report to be launched prior to the 15th CDB COP meeting in Beijing in 2020 which sets out a framework to mobilise governments, and which would essentially redefine the biodiversity agenda, such that the rather technical frame of protecting biological diversity becomes broadened into a movement that sets out a “New Deal for Nature” — something that captures wider public, business and political imaginations.

Organic: when we think of organic, we mostly think of food. Food grown without pesticides and fertilisers. Organic agriculture is part of the regenerative agriculture movement in that it does not deplete soil. It does not have to be fully regenerative in terms of providing high levels of animal welfare or biodiversity care, but in general an organic farm will be much more likely to provide both these things.

Permaculture — the practice of producing food, energy, etc, using ways that do not deplete the earth’s natural resources. Permaculture design principles are a great way to protect biodiversity in your own built environment. The Permaculture movement has spread all over the world. You can learn the basics in the UK in many places; start your voyage of discovery at The Permaculture Association.

Regenerative: regeneration is an interconnected process of becoming that all living systems participate in, where the healthy unfolding of every life form is inextricably connected with the healthy unfolding of everything else. This interconnected process includes the unfolding of everything from tiny bacteria cells, to insects, trees, animals and human beings, right through to schools, organisations, societies, and the Earth as a whole. The regenerative movement covers all major systems such as agriculture, energy, business, oceans, land management, but also regenerative culture. Check out my Regenerative Series of inteviews for Connectle platform.

Ash Buchanan summed up the different regenerative fields in his article on regenerative wellbeing:

Regenerative design and development; “a process by which cities, towns, and other human communities bring themselves back into life-giving alignment with the ecological systems that support them. As a practice, it seeks to create a built environment and human systems that are capable of co-evolving with nature.” (Bill Reed, Pamela Mang, Ben Haggard and Regenesis)
Regenerative economics which is based on the observation; “we can — and must — bring our economic theory and practice into alignment with our latest understanding of how the universe and our humanity actually work.” (John Fullerton). The EU Cost Action RESTORE which is concerned with REthinking Sustainability TOwards a Regenerative Economy — defined Regenerative Economy as ‘a product of human and societal vitality, rooted in ecological health and the inclusive development of human capabilities and potential’.
Regenerative business which explores how the concept of regeneration applies “to business strategy with an emphasis on: human potential, work systems, resilience and growth.” (Carol Sandford)
Regenerative cultures which asks; “how can we collaborate in the creation of diverse regenerative cultures adapted to the unique biocultural conditions of place?” (Daniel Christian Wahl)
Regenerative agriculture which seeks to “provide food, water, clean air, a stable climate, biodiversity, good health, security and happiness.” (Commonland)

Resilience: back in 1973 C S Hollins published research into the complexity of change within ecosystems. He noted that while complex systems existed within a variety of different states of equilibrium, after they have received a shock, they can either bounce back to their original state or they will degenerate to a lesser state. In ecosystems services, resilience refers to the ability of a system to withstand shocks and have the inate elasticity to return to its former state. You can read more about this specific application of resilience in Daniel Christian Wahl’s Designing Regenerative Cultures or here on his profile page.

Sacred reciprocity: regenerative entrepreneur Maya Zuckerman describes this as a concept that most traditional societies have used . It’s a practice of being reciprocal with nature and all relations and relationships.

Salutogenesis: regenerative health — a design for the built environment that focuses on the improvement of health, rather than just an absence of bad health, or only reducing health impacts

Sovereignty: I first heard a modern idea of sovereignty when studying evolutionary biology and came across Joe Rogan’s infamous interview with Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson. I’ve learned more from Jordan Greenhall recently through Rebel Wisdom.

Stewardship: brings in the idea of care, responsibility, duty and reverence for the awesome but simple fact that, as far as we know, we are still the only planet in the vast ocean of the universe that contains life. Stewardship offers a sense of a spiritual calling to not just future generations of humanity, but future generations of life. To protect the idea of life on earth. As Kenneth Mikkelsen said in his talk to House of Beautiful Business — To be a good descendent and a good ancestor.

The Symbiocene: a name proposed by Glenn Albrecht for the post Anthropocene era. The key organizing principles of a Symbiocene society include:

full and benign recyclability and biodegradability of all inputs and outputs;
safe and socially just forms of clean, renewable energy;
full and harmonious integration of human systems with biogeochemical systems at all scales;
using the renewable resources of place and bioregion;
the elimination of toxic waste in all aspects of production, consumption and enterprise;
all species, great and small, having their life-interests and life-sharing understood and respected;
evidence of a harmony or balance of interests where conflict is recognized as a sub-set of grand-scale cooperation;
protection of symbiotic bonds between and within species at all scales; and
re-establishment of symbiotic bonds where they have been severed in the Anthropocene.

Symmathesy: anew word for ‘System’, proposed by Nora Bateson. Symmathesy refers specifically to living systems and to their capacity for interacting with, and learning from, one another.

The nutrient-poor diet of cicadas is supplemented thanks to specialized bacterial symbionts Photo: Texas Eagle

Symbiosis: is a relationship between two different biological entities, and can be mutual (anemone and clownfish/bees as pollinators), parasitic (mistletoe and host tree) commensalism, or amensalism. There are many great case studies of symbiotic relationships at Ask Nature.

Synthesise: I am a human synthesiser. I see life in patterns of interconnected ideas. I can join dots together easily and make one simple idea bigger and bolder by immediately connecting it to other parts of a system into which is can have impact. Synthesisers as humans are polymaths, neo-generalists — people who have many layers ofexpertise held together by a fine red thread. They are people whose skills should be much more in demand than they are for this era of complexity but we are still addicted to our notion of experts.

Systems Thinking: a simple but profound idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Systems thinking is interested in the inter-relatedness of parts, and of synthesising what happens or what impact occurs through the pattern of interaction between an organism and the environment in which it lives. The systems thinkers who have most influenced me include Fritjof Capra, Donella Meadows, Nora Bateson, biologist Humberto Maturana, Peter Senge. But there are many more.

Tensegrity: couldn’t leave Buckminster Fuller out of this list! Tensegrity is an elision of ‘tension + integrity’. Buckminster Fuller, building on the highly original sculptures of Kenneth Snelson, coined the term, to indicate that the integrity of the structure derived from the balance of tension members, not the compression struts. Tensegrities can be built in hierarchies — each element of a tensegrity can be built out of smaller tensegrities — making for the most efficient use of materials, an evolutionary imperative. This efficiency is also a very important property, as the rule of biological evolution is efficiency — getting the most performance from the least material.

Theory U — another model, but one which allows us to think and feel into the emerging future as we use it to develop transformational change. As it’s based on the creative process, I find this easy to use in almost all circumstances as it is highly adjustable in terms of the level of consciousness of the audience. You can go as ‘deep’ or as light as you like. You can learn more through The Presencing Institute or ULab. Thanks Otto Scharmer et al!

Thrivability: Seb Paquet, a co-founder of the innovative Enspiral network of initiatives, describes thrivability like this:

Thrivability is a philosophy of work that is centred on perfroming actions that are generative. This is in contrast to sustainability. I associate thrivability with spirals. Something that is thrivable will spiral out, constantly improving, becoming more beautiful, cleaner or more enjoyable. It is a continual unfolding.

Author Michelle Holliday describes it as ‘a continual and purposeful drive to create the fertile conditions for life to thrive at the levels of the individual, the organisation, the community and the biosphere.’

Transition Network: again a movement not a noun but should have been in from the start. One of the most successful experiments in community activation and imagination for a fossil-free future, Transition has many active communities around the world achieving genuine grassroots and regional impact within town and village communities. In Europe, Belgium and France have been particularly successful, and of course Totnes in Devon is the movement’s flagship town.

Unintended Consequences: are freezing some governments (IMHO) from taking the action they need to. In a complex world it is almost impossible to predict outcomes of taking action within a system. Of course the precautionary principle applies, but even so, unintended consequences are everyone’s worst nightmare. This video is probably the best I’ve ever seen to describe UC.

Weaving connections and collaborations replicates the way in which nature brings different communities together for mutual benefit. You’ll frequently hear people in the regenerative community refer to themselves as weavers — a recognition of the complexity we live and work in, but also the value of people who bring polymathic approaches to regeneration.

Warm Data: recognizing that complex problems are not susceptible to predetermined solutions, the International Bateson Institute has taken up the task of generating a category of information specifically dedicated to description of contextual relational interaction, calling it “Warm Data”. The units of knowledge by which reasoning and calculations are made namely, data, information, and facts, suggest processes of research into which we place our hopes for better understanding of the world we inhabit.

Xenophilia — Awareness and understanding that enables inclusive design for ‘the other’, i.e. not just human-centric design, but designing as part of nature not apart from nature, also, importantly a holistic design for all that is socially just not only for wealthy, influential, our culture.

So. What have I missed out? What would you like to add? Or is there anything you would like to edit? Let me know in the comments below.

Jenny Andersson is a creative strategist helping organisations and leaders to develop strategic narratives. She designs collective intelligence journeys and workshops to help organisations shape regenerative strategies and communications.