Figure 11. Systemcraft. Where are we in this? (Joyner, 2025)

As the last element in Systems Inquiry, we looked at the idea of the Focusing Question as the bridge between Systems Inquiry and Systems Intervention.  In Systemcraft, this step exemplifies the shift from merely understanding the system to actively engaging with it, a shift that requires both rigor and humility.

The first question in Systems Intervention, ‘Where are we in this?’ helps with both these requirements (rigor and humility). This question is not merely about identifying our role in the system but about developing a conscious and reflexive awareness of our agendas, assumptions, and contributions within the system. It is about peeling back layers to understand how we shape, and are shaped by, the very systems we aim to change.

OUR Payoffs FROM the Status Quo

To engage in meaningful system change, we must start by recognising the payoffs we receive from the status quo (Stroh, 2015). Systems persist because they serve purposes; some of those purposes benefit us. Are we benefiting from privileges, conveniences, or efficiencies that the current system affords? For example, in an organisation with hierarchical decision-making, leaders might benefit from clarity of authority, even if this inhibits innovation or inclusivity. We might not want to invest the time and energy in even crucial systems change and thereby enjoy the peace of inertia.

The Sacrifices We’re Prepared to Make

Change demands trade-offs. Once we recognise the benefits we derive from the current system, we must ask which of these benefits we are willing to sacrifice. Real change often requires giving up something we value: resources, comfort, influence, or even cherished beliefs. If we are unwilling to make sacrifices, our calls for change risk being superficial. Systems change for the common good requires integrity, and integrity starts with being honest about what we are prepared to lose for the sake of a better system.

The Payoffs of System Change

Equally important is examining what we stand to gain from the change we propose. This idea is what Baddely and James (1987) describe as ‘carrying.’ When we advocate for system change, are we unconsciously ‘carrying’ an agenda that aligns with our personal goals or ambitions? For instance, an executive might support restructuring to enhance efficiency but overlook how this change consolidates their own power. Reflexivity involves acknowledging these agendas, not to invalidate them but to bring them into conscious awareness. Transparency about our motives allows for more authentic collaboration with others in the system.

Positionality: Seeing the Water

David Foster Wallace’s famous analogy of the fish and water is a powerful metaphor for positionality. Fish do not see the water they swim in; just as we often fail to see the assumptions, perspectives, and worldviews that shape our actions. Yet these perspectives are not neutral; they colour our understanding of the system and influence the changes we propose. For example, a policy maker trained in economics may naturally gravitate toward market-based solutions, overlooking cultural or social dynamics that could offer more sustainable outcomes.

Becoming conscious of the ‘water’ in which we swim requires us to step outside our habitual ways of thinking. Tools like perspective-taking, stakeholder engagement, and critical reflection can help us uncover hidden biases and broaden our understanding of the system. Systems thinking requires the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously.

How Are We Contributing to the Problem?

Finally, we must confront a difficult truth: we are not merely observers of problematic systems; we are participants in them. As nodes in the network, our behaviours, decisions, and assumptions help sustain the very issues we wish to address. For instance, a leader advocating for workplace wellness might unintentionally perpetuate stress by setting unrealistic deadlines or failing to model self-care. Recognising our contribution to systemic problems is not about self-blame but about accountability. It allows us to identify leverage points where we can change our own behaviour to influence the system more positively.

Reflexivity as a Practice

Reflexivity is not a one-time exercise; it is a continual practice of examining our role in the system. It involves asking questions like:

• What assumptions am I making about this system and its problems?
• How do my perspectives, training, or experiences shape my understanding of this issue?
• What are my motivations for proposing change, and how might they influence my approach?
• What behaviours or decisions of mine are contributing to the problem I seek to solve?

By asking these questions, we cultivate a deeper awareness of our positionality and begin to see ourselves as part of the system’s dynamics.

References

1. Baddeley, S. & James, K. T. (1987). Owl, fox, donkey, or sheep: Political skills for managers. Management Education and Development, 18(1).
2. Grey, A. (2019). Will Cricket Australia ever regain the public’s trust? Australian Institute of Company Directors. October 1.
3. Joyner, K. (2025) Systems thinking for leaders. A practical guide to engaging with complex problems. Queensland University of Technology. https://qut.pressbooks.pub/systemcraft-systems-thinking/
4. Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change: a practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. Chelsea Green Publishing.
5. Wallace, D. F. (2009). This is water: some thoughts, delivered on a significant occasion, about living a compassionate life (1st ed.). Little, Brown.