The Deeper Shift: Culture and systems change
This blog post was part of the event Step Into System Innovation - A Festival of Ideas and Insights on Nov 9th to 13th, 2020 and sums up the third webinar of the week. Watch the recorded webinar and read about the event here.
——
As Immy Kaur wonderfully put it, there is a “beautiful dance” that must be learned as we interact both with the current system and operate outside of it, while also acknowledging wisdoms, histories, truths, marginalised communities and future generations. Immy, and I think all of us, can see this dance being performed with finesse by both Al Etmanski and Diane Roussin, who successfully navigate through systems while also working to radically change the values, principles and mindsets that those systems were built on.
How do we bring about the deeper cultural shift needed to transform a system? I’d like to highlight a few of the key points made by our speakers, as well as some of the poignant questions that were put forward.
Firstly, in order to take steps towards a better future, we must begin by looking at the past. Both Al and Diane acknowledge the importance of learning from our history and old teachings. Our engagement with history must be critical and conscious.
Al Etmanski tackles the challenges faced by people with disabilities and the systems’ failure to properly serve them. Al is behind several innovations that have changed the disability system, including a first-of-its-kind savings plan for people with disabilities, which has made it possible to break the connection between disability and poverty. When he was asked if he believes his work has successfully managed to shift assumptions, Al concurred that it hasn’t yet gone far enough: “lurking deep in our institutions and in the habits and behaviours of people in those structures are beliefs about people with disabilities that are wrong, false. Attitudes and beliefs that are systemic and frankly, without raising alarms, I think those assumptions go back to the eugenics era when people with disabilities were seen as unworthy.” These beliefs have been brought forward from history, and until we really get to the root of them and completely untangle them, system-wide change cannot occur.
Throughout history, marginalised groups have not been acknowledged by the system, something that both Immy and Diane also see as a factor for inhibiting systems change: “the systems created did not involve us and therefore did not serve us well”.
Through their work, all three speakers demonstrate the importance of creating spaces in which new conversations can start taking place, conversations where there is honesty and space for systems changers to create a new kind of language. Immy addressed the problem of language very well, “talking about the ‘problem’, ‘opportunity’, ‘problem’, ‘solution’, this language sets up artificial binaries, we need a language of and - and it can be true that our own behaviours are a product of many things and it can be true that we need to work with the system and it can be true that we need to change the system and it can be true that we need to design for the now and the needs of people but it can also be true that isn’t enough, that we need to design long into the future and that sometimes means having to give up something now.”
For them, getting comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations is key. That is why, within their projects, they create spaces for passion, thought and reflection. As Diane neatly put it, “We don’t want standardisation, we want customisation. We want responsiveness, flexibility, adaptability and values-based decision making.” In order to get to this point, we need to be having open conversations. And in order to create the space for that, Al believes we must establish our own power base that is independently funded, that takes responsibility for the design, support and implementation of a new approach. We must engage in an equal power relationship with the system. As he put it, “we decide what the language is, what the solution is, and how we go about doing it, then we engage with the system.”
Why aren’t we talking about love?
“The problem is not lack of statistics or money or arguments, it’s lack of loving in the public arena.” As Al passionately said, there is a fundamental ingredient that is currently lacking from our social care systems, and ironically, that ingredient is care itself. An essential element of Al and Diane’s approach involves building meaningful, trustworthy, long-term relationships. In order to move forward, we have to inject genuine love and affection back into the system. Without that love, we cannot hope for better outcomes.
What they are offering, therefore, is not a systemic approach to systems change, but an approach based on loving, strong relationships where there is mutual trust which leads to open conversations that then will drive the change. If we develop relationships between practitioners and the people they intend to serve, then we can, as Al said, “watch them shine, watch them grow, watch them flourish.” This idea was also picked up by Diane, who argues that we need to “get to a place of thriving, not surviving.” Diane does this in the Winnipeg Boldness Project by centring indigenous wisdom, building capacities of families, developing relationships with them and asking them what the problem is, rather than having this decided by the system on their behalf. Part of this indigenous wisdom also includes the love and healing that Al talks about.
Building these relationships will mean that real, tangible change can happen faster. As Diane said, “when the solid deep trust is built, we can get into complexity and problem-solving quickly, the pace you can work out is far more effective than a top-down, transactional system. So be patient, listen, try to understand, be the bridge-builder.”
As well as forming these relationships, there is also a reframing of the challenge that must take place. Al calls for a change in the way that we address issues from the get-go: “the problem with problems is that people move to solutions… we need to look at challenges really as mysteries - this framing brings humility to quest, it doesn’t try to be strident and forcing, it’s about engaging as opposed to manipulating and changing.” Then, we must approach these mysteries and challenges with an open heart. We must, in fact, fall in love with the challenge we are tackling, with its mysteries and contradictions. It is only with this loving outlook that we will truly be able to get to the heart of the problem and find a way out. It is about the journey, it is about the process. It is about how we move from problem to opportunity, and what relationships we can build along the way.
Some participants asked about the difficulty of working within a system, and whether it is easier to drive change while operating outside of it. This is where Immy’s delicate dance comes into play again. She highlighted the need for the “creative tension” that occurs when you are working both at odds and at ease with the system. It is not either/or. In fact, it is this creative tension that makes it possible to usher in new approaches. Staying completely in opposition to something can create a mirrored behaviour which is then simply replicated.
Al, Diane and Immy all agree that very rarely are the players of the game problematic, but rather the conditions that the system has created that makes the game unfair, and therefore makes it difficult for the players to show their true cards. As Diane said, “it’s the and, it’s not the either/or. We need all the voices. Everyone has a role and everyone has a voice.”
That brings us back, therefore, to their emphasis on building relationships. It isn’t just about creating these relationships between social innovators and people in need, it’s also about building relationships between all the players working within systems change, both inside and out. In order to bring about cross-sector, widespread change, we need the respect, humility and courage to have the difficult conversations with players from across the field. No matter which perspective you’re coming from or what position you hold, the conversation must always come back to the central goal: how can we move forward together?
Perhaps hanging above both Al and Diane’s approaches is a key question that should define and drive all of our decisions, ideas and actions. That question is, what does the good life mean for this individual? In Al’s work, he has campaigned for years to demonstrate that people with disabilities have the right to a good life, designed by and for them, using their capacity to decide what they need and want. Similarly, for the indigenous communities Diane works with, they too should have the power to think about what they need to create a good life. As Al said, “it’s a one-size-fits-one question”.
So it’s about connection and aspiration. It’s about opening up opportunities. It’s easier for the system to address through a problem lens, as you can do that without engaging in cultural change. However, in order to move towards the opportunity side of the equation, you must engage in this cultural shift, which involves introducing love, building strong relationships, centring indigenous wisdom, reframing the “problem” and creating a new kind of language to deal with systemic challenges.
To finish off, I’d like to end with Immy’s impassioned call for action which she eloquently expressed at the end of our live discussion. To dominant systems, she says, “you have to meet us halfway. Now that we've done some of the work, you can’t sit back and wait. There are people falling in love with the opportunity and challenge. You have to meet us halfway with the resources and funding.”
