The iceberg model
What is the goal of social innovation? In general terms, as explored in the first blogpost of this series, the goal is to address the complex social and environmental challenges that humanity is facing (e.g. those contained in the SDGs). But more granularly, it depends on the focus of the specific social innovator(s). To better understand different levels of intervention in change-work, it helps to have a look at the good old iceberg model.
Basically, above the water line is everything that can readily be observed and naturally draws most of our attention: behaviours, decisions, results or outcomes. Below the water line lie the structures, processes, rules and norms that produce these visible results. Further below are the power distribution and relationships that underlie these structures. And at the deepest level, the mindsets, values, beliefs and paradigms that give rise to all of the above. Or in other words, in which all of the above are anchored.
Any social or environmental challenge can be reflected upon through the lens of the iceberg model. What is the visible problem, how does it manifest? What deeper issues are these the symptoms of? What structures or laws logically lead to this type of visible problem? And what paradigms or mindsets underlie, ‘justify’ or contextualise these issues?
To give a simple example, take the issue of plastic pollution in our oceans. That is the obvious part of the problem: the fact that tons and tons of plastic are currently floating in the oceans, causing all sorts of damage, including biodiversity loss, killing wildlife and microplastics. More and more projects seek to fix this (visible) part of the problem by cleaning the plastic out of the water with different technologies. Oftentimes, these then repurpose the plastic to produce sneakers, yoga pants or another type of product. Certainly, cleaning up the oceans is necessary, and this type of change work is called direct service. At the same time, it doesn’t take much thinking to realise that as long as we don’t stop putting plastic into the ocean, we can keep ourselves busy ‘cleaning’ the oceans for the next 100 years and won’t have solved the problem. So how do we move beyond fighting the symptoms? How do we learn from the Titanic, and avoid driving straight into the iceberg because we were too fast and focused only on the visible part of it?
Using the iceberg model, we would go look at the laws, structures and norms that lead to plastic being created, used and discarded. For example, single-use plastics could simply be banned, as some nations are moving towards. Social innovation efforts focusing on this level are aiming at creating structural change.
On another level, we could consider the power distribution around who has designed the current system and decides to keep it in place, such as elected or corporate leaders in companies such as Coca-Cola. The power distributions along capital and colonialism quickly become visible when looking at who suffers the most from plastic pollution and who benefits from it. Some social innovators focus their efforts on personal transformation, oftentimes of key stakeholders or decision-makers, to shift these dynamics.
Fundamentally, truly solving the problem of plastic pollution in the oceans requires a shift away from a linear economy, to a circular one where the concept of waste is eliminated, and/or away from an extraction and petrol-based economy to a regenerative one. These are examples of a paradigm-level shift, i.e. a systems change that by definition changes the power distribution, structures and results. It is worth noting that such a profound shift would lead to resolving a whole host of problems, not just that of plastic pollution. Conversely, remaining in the paradigm of a linear and petrol-based economy keeps in place a variety of problems, no matter how much symptom fighting we engage in. Social innovators seeking to contribute to such a paradigm shift may intentionally build strategies targeting the other levels, with this deeper intention in mind.
This is what systems change means. Beyond addressing the symptoms, this type of social innovation aims at a change so profound it transforms the reality of everyone. In academic speak, to “alter the conditions that generate the characteristics of social problems” (Mair and Seelos, 2021, p.1). This is what systems change workers work towards: a reality not just for a few people lucky enough to get access to some type of direct service, but an altered system based on new values, getting it right for everyone.
The point of this article is not to say that direct service needs to stop and that everyone suddenly needs to start working on systems change. Many ‘symptom-fighting’ efforts are needed and important, and must continue until we are able to sustainably fix the problem. The point here is that it is helpful to understand what maintains the problem in place, and how we might address it at a more fundamental level in order to transform it. There are also arguments to be made that excessive focus on direct service (which is easier, quicker, measurable, often more attractive and better understood) diverts attention and resources from the real issue, hence contributing to maintaining it in place. Hence, my argument would be that whilst we need to support more people to work on systems change (which is a major part of collaboratio helvetica’s mission), it is helpful for all social innovators to understand the different levels of intervention and make a conscious decision about which to focus on. Being able to contextualise one’s own social innovation efforts in this way also allows us to collaborate and gradually contribute to a deeper level of change no matter the specific intervention. If you’re a social innovator, you can use the iceberg tool as described here as a reflection tool: what are your goals, and what type of intervention suits these goals?
The context for this conversation is that ‘tried and tested’ solutions proposed by different sectors have failed to address the complex challenges humanity is facing (Nicholls and Murdock, 2012). In search of new approaches, a growing movement spanning practice and academia calls for collaborative work focused on large-scale change, i.e., systems change. In the next blogpost of this series, I will explore different types and strategies of systems change work.
Sources & further reading
Mair, J. and Seelos, C. (2021) ‘Organizations, Social Problems, and System Change: Invigorating the Third Mandate of Organizational Research’, Organization Theory, 2(4), p. 1–22.
Cambridge Judge Business School, www.appliedsystemsthinking.com
Nicholls, A. and Murdock, A. (2012) ‘The nature of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds) Social Innovation Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–30.
This blogpost was written by Nora Wilhelm and originally published on the blog of collaboratio helvetica
