Beyond the confines of conformity (Part 6 of Complexity, corruption and change)

An exploratory journey

Fuelled by connection, communication and learning, the journey I've been on over the last few months has been rich and rewarding. In the series of posts which this piece concludes, I’ve shared my journey through a number of conversations, reflections and insights that began with a simple premise: in complex social systems changes emerge through the communication, learning and adaptation that takes place in connections and relationships amongst different actors.

Building on this premise, the journey proceeded as follows:

• In stage 1, I argued that to be effective, approaches to engaging with complex social systems need to align with the emergent ways in which change happens in such systems, and, that sites of positive deviance - where behaviours and relationships are surprisingly good in otherwise dysfunctional systems - provide vital entry points for understanding and influencing those processes of change (Part 1).
• In stage 2, I outlined the SOAS-ACE approach to navigating the political economy of corruption. This is an approach which searches for sites of positive deviance in complex systems of corruption, in order to better understand how change happens, and to then inform the design of more effective policies to address corruption and enhance the workings of the system (Part 2).
• In stage 3 - inspired by my engagement with UNDP’s initiative on Taking Action Against Transnational Corruption - I explored whether the process of identifying entry points for engagement, learning, and impact in complex social systems might benefit from a more explicit theory about how change happens in such systems, and associated criteria for selecting suitable entry points (Part 3).
• In stage 4, I made connections with Dieter Zinnbauer’s thinking about a political opportunity approach to political economy analysis, and an earlier innovative and inspiring literature on identifying “islands of integrity” to understand the political dynamics of corruption and inform more effective approaches to addressing corruption (Part 4).
• In stage 5, I explored the potential value of bringing together approaches that focus on the role that relationships, communication and learning play in the dynamics of complex social systems - for instance, in my work on reflective relational practice - with approaches that focus on the role of power, incentives and institutions in shaping - via the behaviour of various actors - those dynamics (Part 5).

Through this exploration, I've learned a lot about the political economy of positive deviance and the value of understanding how positively deviant behaviours and relationships emerge at particular sites in social systems where the configuration of power, incentives, institutions, and relational dynamics creates conditions that allow and encourage them to flourish. And then, using that understanding to inform policies to amplify, encourage and extend such deviance.

There has also been a significant evolution in my thinking: building a bridge between perspectives that focus on power, incentives, and institutions and those that focus on relationships, communication and learning. Both matter. The landscape of power, incentives and institutions shapes actors' behaviours (and is in turn shaped by those patterns of behaviour), while the quality of relationships enables collaborative learning and sensemaking, knitting social systems together and enhancing their adaptive capacities. Together, they reshape the context for future rounds of action and create possibilities for positive change.

Next steps in collaboration

The journey I've been on opens up a rich field of possibilities for exploring and engaging, collaboratively.

I look forward to continued engagement with the SOAS-ACE team, building on their sophisticated methodology for understanding how actors' behaviours are shaped by power, incentives and institutions (see Chapter six of navigating the political economy of corruption for a discussion of possibilities for future action, learning and impact). I'm eager for further engagement with Søren Haldrup and colleagues on transnational systems of corruption, and with Dieter Zinnbauer and colleagues on developing more action-orientated approaches to political economy analysis.

I’m also excited to continue my explorations with Jen Briselli about applying Cynefin's estuarine mapping process to understanding and engaging with complex systems of corruption. As Jen puts it, estuarine mapping "helps teams navigate complex change not by charting ideal end states, but by identifying what's possible given the current conditions. It's a way to understand where change might happen, where it likely won't, and which actions might shift the system in a desirable direction." This - an idea that has been germinating for me for a number of years - seems like a good fit, and a great complement, to the SOAS-ACE approach to understanding actors’ behaviours and identifying realistic opportunities for effective action, in a landscape of power, incentives and institutions.

I'm also looking forward to continued conversations: with Basma Albanna about Data-Powered Positive Deviance; with Luis Osorio-Cortes and colleagues about political economy, positive deviance and policy change in market systems development; with Toby Lowe and colleagues about governance, power and accountability in human learning systems; with Andrew (Drew) Koleros about how increased attention to relationships and learning might further enrich Actor-Based Change approaches to navigating complexity.

These conversations and collaborations - alongside others focused on exploring how change happens in complex social systems and how it might be nurtured - provide a range of opportunities to develop and test approaches to engaging in complex social systems that learn from the political economy of positive deviance, while also factoring in the role of relationships, communication and learning amongst actors in the systems of interest.

Identifying entry points for engagement, learning and impact, and using evidence to "reveal a field of intervention possibilities" and understand "the evolutionary potential of the present," as Dave Snowden and the developers of the estuarine mapping process put it, is an essential element of effective approaches to nurturing change in complex social systems (watch this space over the coming months, for more on the various elements). As Jen Briselli emphasizes, this is not about finding the answer or charting the roadmap. Instead it's about "identifying realistic, context-sensitive actions that can actually move things in the right direction in a sustainable and adaptive manner."

An invitation to connect

I'm excited to continue exploring and iteratively developing an approach to understanding and engaging in complex social systems that centres on the political economy of positive deviance and the role that relationships, learning and adaptation play in shaping the evolution of such systems. If this sounds interesting - or if you have stories to share about your experience with identifying entry points, understanding behaviours, and leveraging that learning - please drop me a line. As Rachel Leeds (the lead author of USAID's wonderful Local Systems Position Paper - my review here) noted in recent correspondence with me: "We need more examples of how systems change initiatives have gone about identifying leverage points and potential sites for engagement. Collating and comparing such examples, to support collaborative learning about how people have gone about selecting where and how to engage, and how that has worked out, could be a very useful contribution to the field."

In Donella Meadows' classic piece on leverage points she emphasizes that "magical leverage points are not easily accessible, even if we know where they are and in which direction to push on them." But focusing on the political economy of positive deviance offers a path to navigating complexity and shaping its dynamics more effectively. There’s a lot to learn, and a lot to do, and doing that collaboratively, with other positive deviants, beyond the confines of conformity, is definitely the way to go. Through continued exploration, collaboration and cycles of learning and action, we can contribute to the emergence of more effective ways of understanding and engaging with the dynamics of complex social systems - including systems of corruption.

If you want to dive more deeply into the issues covered in this series of blogposts, there's a full list of references and a richly annotated bibliography for you to explore.

If you would like to be in the loop for occasional updates about my explorations, feel free to sign up here. Or, drop me a line if you'd like to chat about ways in which we might collaborate to explore, develop, apply and test approaches to engaging with the dynamics of complex social systems in ways that are aligned with the emergent ways in which change happens in such systems.