22 Mastermind or Systems Whisperer?
Peter Senge and his colleagues (2019) describe systems leadership as the ability to see the larger system beyond isolated problems, foster deep reflection to shift ingrained behaviours, and build coalitions across boundaries to drive collective action.
However, the way leaders in a system may approach driving collective action will differ depending on the nature of the system and of the problem. As Jackson (2024) tells us ‘No two systems are the same.’ Bryan Lindsley (2024) encourages systems leaders to consider the metaphors of Mastermind or Systems Whisperer as structural or systemic change is considered. The choice of strategy depends on your context.
As we explored in the previous chapter, the systems leadership literature largely adheres to participatory and adaptive models of systems change. Neither Mastermind nor Systems Whisperer fits within this model. While Whisperer is more bottom-up and less likely to meet the resistance the Mastermind may experience, it still puts the leader in the ‘designer or architect’ role of system change. The models differ only on how their design is best realised. However, the archetypes that Lindsley draws are easily recognised in organisational life. As with many things in Systemcraft this provides a thinking frame for more intentional choice about your own role in systems change.
Mastermind
As we have seen throughout our systems exploration, most western business schools are embedded in a postwar industrial paradigm, which privileges the strongman theory of leadership. The strong charismatic leader has gifts in envisioning a path forward and engaging coalitions to help them roll out change. As Lindsley (2024, para 5) describes:
This approach … is optimistic, top-down, and thrives in environments where stakeholders are open to change. The Mastermind is willing to take responsibility for outcomes, coordinating every element of the strategy, holding all the strings, and keeping the team aligned. The hallmark of this method is collaboration, trust-building, and a shared sense of ownership over the solution.
At one time, this would have been the default mental model of change management, and as Lindsley (2024) observes it can still be effective in an open system with trust. A Critical Systems Thinking lens would observe however that it lacks reflexivity, with its implicit assumptions that the leader has perfect knowledge of the needs and interests of those whom the change will affect, and the impact of their proposed changes on the system as a whole. Where there is less trust, less systems awareness and less willingness and capability to change, the approach of the Systems Whisperer may be a stronger choice.
System Whisperer
While the Mastermind will employ a top-down approach to systems change the System Whisperer is more bottom-up. Lindsley calls them the ‘quiet instigator of change.’ The approach is analogous to the Nudge theory made popular by Thaler and Sunstein (2008) in Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, A nudge strategy is an intervention that subtly influences people’s choices without restricting their freedom. It is designed to encourage desirable behaviours by altering the choice architecture, making it easier for people to behave in ways that will collectively move the system in the direction desired. It is widely used in policy, business, and public administration to promote beneficial outcomes while preserving individual autonomy.
It’s also similar to Meadow’s idea that small, well-placed interventions can create significant systemic change. Meadows suggests that the most effective systems change agents don’t impose solutions but adjust the deeper structures of a system, often through soft interventions (e.g., shifting paradigms or rules).
It is also somewhat analogous to the strategy of probe, sense respond that Snowden and Boone, recommend in the Cynefin model we explored in Chapter x for working with complexity. However, it suggests more that the whisperer has a theory about how their subtle interventions will result in the desired behaviour, rather than learning through what they discover.
Lindsley (2024) describes the System Whisperer as:
a pragmatist, understanding that change doesn’t happen through meetings or declarations but through incentives and real stakes. Opportunistic and bottom-up, The Systems Whisperer looks for leverage points in the system and quietly encourages people to take them. Unlike the Mastermind, who sets out to solve the problem as a whole, The Systems Whisperer recognizes that no one can fully control a complex system. Instead, they shift incentives and wait for the ripples to cascade.
While sounding Machiavellian, we can see examples of whispering everywhere around us. The Reserve Bank whispers to the economy through interest rate adjustments, knowing that it will drive decisions in businesses and households that move the economic system. A business needing to change their business model to adapt to economic realities may use subtle, non-coercive techniques to shift behaviours, mindsets, and organisational culture through rewards, promotion criteria and other incentives. However, it’s always good to be alive to the idea that these interventions may well have consequences that we can’t predict and be on the watch for emergence.
Which is right for youR System change?
Again, both approaches assume a designing, non-objective interventionist system leader. However each model has its merits and will depend on your context and the level of change you think the system requires. What you want to avoid in a Mastermind approach is where people feign agreement with a plan, but then passively or actively resist change. Systems whispering may require more time than is possible if change is urgent but will be more effective if you do anticipate a high level of negative pushback.
Key Takeaways
-
Systems Leadership Requires Contextual Adaptation
Systems leaders must tailor their approach based on the nature of the system and the level of trust and openness to change. While Mastermind leadership is more structured and top-down, thriving in environments with collaboration and willingness to change, the Systems Whisperer is a more subtle, bottom-up strategist who influences change indirectly by shifting incentives and structures. -
Mastermind vs. Systems Whisperer Reflect Different Change Strategies
The Mastermind approach assumes high control and coordination, where the leader orchestrates system-wide change through trust-building and direct intervention. However, it risks overlooking complexity and unintended consequences. The Systems Whisperer, in contrast, leverages small, indirect nudges to shift system dynamics over time, much like Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge Theory or Donella Meadows’ leverage points. -
Interventionist Leadership Must Remain Reflexive and Adaptive
Both approaches position the leader as an active agent of change, but neither can fully control complex systems. Leaders must remain attuned to unintended consequences and emergent system behaviours, ensuring they adapt and refine interventions rather than assuming their initial strategy will unfold as expected. Reflexivity is key to avoiding resistance and achieving sustainable system shifts.
References
- Jackson, M. C., & John Wiley & Sons, publisher. (2024). Critical systems thinking : a practitioner’s guide. Wiley
- Lindsley, B. (2024, October 9). Who will win: the mastermind or the system whisperer? Bryan Lindsley. https://bryanlindsley.com/system-whisperer/.
- Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute.
- Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2019). The dawn of system leadership. Policy & Practice of Public Human Services, 77(1), 12-
- Snowden D.J, and Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. (cover story). Harvard Business Review. 85(11):68-76.
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin.
Choice architecture refers to the design of the environment in which people make decisions, influencing their choices through the way options are presented, structured, or framed. It is a key concept in behavioural economics,
Probe, Sense, Respond is a decision-making approach in the Cynefin framework used for navigating complex systems where cause-and-effect relationships are unclear and emerge only through action
Machiavellian refers to a strategic, pragmatic, and sometimes ruthless approach to power and leadership, often characterised by manipulation, cunning, and a focus on achieving goals by any means necessary. The term comes from Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, which advocates for political realism and the use of deception or strategic ruthlessness when necessary to maintain power.
A phenomenon in complex systems where larger patterns, structures, or behaviours arise from the interactions of smaller, simpler components without centralised control.
