Awareness is the process of deepening your understanding of the broader system in which your problem is embedded. Most of us only see parts of the system we interact with – so establishing a view of the entire system is vital. It can help you uncover parts of the system that would otherwise be missed, identify potential barriers that might hinder action, pinpoint enablers capable of removing barriers or scaling actions, and spark new ideas that could address the problem.
What is a Systems Map?
A systems map is a visual tool that illustrates the key elements, actors, and interactions within a complex system. It reveals how different parts of the system connect and influence each other, highlighting barriers, opportunities, and leverage points. By mapping the system, you gain a more holistic view of the dynamics at play, making it easier to target interventions that address the root causes of issues, not just their symptoms.
Why Map Systems?
There are several reasons why mapping a system can help deepen your awareness:
- Diverse Perspectives: Different actors see different parts of a system (Stacey et al., 2000). Mapping brings these perspectives together, creating a comprehensive view and revealing unseen connections and interdependencies.
- Identify Barriers: Maps help uncover barriers, frictions, and pain points that might not be visible without a visual representation, guiding where interventions are needed.
- Understand Dynamics: Visualization exposes system dynamics, such as feedback loops, delays, and nonlinear relationships, making it easier to understand complex interactions (Meadows, 2008; Sastry, 1997; Sterman, 2001).
- Pause for Insight: The mapping process encourages slowing down to fully grasp the system before moving into ideation, ensuring solutions target underlying causes, not just symptoms.
- Reveal Leverage Points: Small changes at critical points can lead to significant impacts (Meadows, 1999), helping you target strategic, effective interventions for sustainable change.
Mapping Principles
Innovation North has developed a process for systems mapping that draws inspiration from causal-loop diagrams, stock-and-flow diagrams, and other models (Lannon, n.d.; Sterman, 2001). You can learn about or try our approach in the Compass worksheets.
While you are welcome to try our approach, other mapping methods still have value and we encourage you to use the process that you are most comfortable with. Below is a list of best practices for systems mapping that can be considered regardless of method:
- Focus on interactions, not root causes. Rather than seeking direct causal relationships, try to emphasize how actors and activities influence each other within the system. In complex systems, direct cause-and-effect is rare, so focus on understanding the broader structure.
- Process over outcome. Mapping is a sense-making activity, so the process is more important than the final map. The map is a living document, continuously evolving as new information emerges. Elements are continuously added and subtracted to ensure that the awareness map remains useful and actionable. This iterative approach supports learning and adaptation.
- Simple but not too simple. The goal of mapping is to build an understanding of the whole system at a manageable level of complexity (Simon, 1976). Maps should be simple enough to make the system understandable, but complex enough to include all the important aspects relevant to your problem. Mapping requires us to both add information and subtract unnecessary or redundant information (Klotz, 2021) as we go to achieve an appropriate level of simplicity.
- Focus on actors and their activities. By recognizing the roles and activities of different stakeholders, the mapping process can inform underlying motivations and incentives that drive behaviours within the system. This insight is crucial for designing interventions that are both effective and aligned with the interests and capacities of those involved.
- Identify frictions. A resilient, well-functioning system involves a series of flows – products, money, information, or even social relationships (Meadows, 2008). Sometimes, these flows are blocked causing problems and should ultimately be reduced or removed; other times, blockages actually function positively—where more friction leads to a better outcome.
Perspective-Taking and Deep Listening
Mapping systems requires gathering insights from various actors, especially those deeply embedded in the system and those with whom we do not regularly engage. The number and diversity of actors are also important, as it is only by bringing multiple perspectives together that a holistic understanding of the system emerges (Whiteman & Cooper, 2000, 2001; Stacey et al., 2000).
To really grasp another’s perspective (Galinsky, Massux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Johnson, 1975), you must engage in deep listening. This requires being fully present and asking good questions (Brooks & John, 2018; Kluger & Itzchakov, 2022). Deep listening also requires the listener to let go of preconceived notions that may be outdated because systems are dynamic and are in a constant state of change (Holling, 2001). When engaging in deep listening, listen for signals related to the emerging future (Scharmer & Kaeufer, 2010).
References
- Brooks, A. W., & John, L. K. (2018). The surprising power of questions. Harvard Business Review, 96 (3), 60-67.
- Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384.
- Holling, C. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4, 390–405.
- Johnson, D. W. (1975). Cooperativeness and social perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 241.
- Klotz, L. (2021). Subtract: The untapped science of less. Flatiron Books.
- Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The power of listening at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 121-146.
- Lannon, C. (no date) Causal Loop Construction: The Basics.
- Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system.
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
- Sastry, M. A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 237-275.
- Scharmer, C., & Kaeufer, K. (2010). In front of the blank canvas: sensing emerging futures. Journal of Business Strategy, 31 (4), 21-29.
- Simon, H. A. (1976). How complex are complex systems? In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1976, No. 2, pp. 507-522). Cambridge University Press.
- Stacey, Ralph D., Griffin, Douglas, & Shaw, Patricia. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.
- Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8-25.
- Whiteman, G. & Cooper, W. H. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1265-1282.
- Whiteman, G. & Cooper, W. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 889-911.
Further Reading: Mapping Principles
Further Reading: Perspective-taking and Deep Listening
- Goodchild, M. (2021). Relational systems thinking: That’s how change is going to come, from our earth mother. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1(1), 75-103.
- Kaiser, A., & Peschl, M. F. (2020). The role of self-transcending knowledge in Senge’s understanding of learning organizations towards an interdisciplinary taxonomy of self-transcending knowledge. The Learning Organization, 27(6), 527-539.
Ready to build awareness? Click below to open the worksheet and checklist for the Awareness space of the Compass.
