Informing strategy development and change management in an evidence-based way

Earth system science is one of the cornerstones of our methodological foundation. It entails the comprehensive study of our planet as a whole, intricate and complex system. An ecology bound by natural laws operating through a circular economy and evolving over time. A natural regenerative process towards species and systems-level health that we have effectively interrupted in modernity as we have increasingly expanded human civilization through extensive technology and resource exploitation. Technologies have been designed, used, and scaled largely uncritically, with a narrow focus on profit and utility gains. This has led to huge amounts of waste, pollution, emissions and ecosystem destruction.

The result is a range of unwanted negative impacts that are right now unfolding exponentially. This is due to the limits of the Earth’s carrying capacity as an ecosystem. Equally, there are limits to what destabilising processes of pollution and destruction the Earth can endure without subsystems of the ecosphere destabilising and potentially collapsing. Particularly the climate system which is connected to and affects all other subsystems of the biosphere—especially the ocean and water systems. We have known about these processes since the Club of Rome initiated their work on “The Limits to Growth on a Finite Planet”, which is the title of a book published in 1972 leading to The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm that same year initiating what is now known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), happening annually at the Conference of the Parties (COP). So far with little progress. There are many reasons for this. One of the central ones has been 40+ years of “successful” misleading lobbying campaigns from fossil-based industries, trying to sow doubt about whether climate change in our time is caused by human activity, whether it is a political issue and whether we should do something about it. This has effectively hindered climate action, which only gets more inevitable and expensive as time goes by and more climate-related catastrophes become a reality, with severe costs to individuals, species, ecosystems, communities and nations.

The systems view of life

We have failed to understand the Earth as an integrated ecosystem—a sphere of interconnected and interdependent life. From the subsoil to the stratosphere. The sphere, where life exists, is known as the biosphere. We can think of the biosphere as being made up of three subsystems.

It is this whole systems perspective and approach that Earth System Science, as a field of research and practice, builds upon. This approach allows us to frame the problem and solutions appropriately, providing an integrated view that can lead to holistic and adequate solutions.

Combined, we can think of the sociosphere and the technosphere as the anthroposphere—the domain of humanity (anthropos)—including everything we have created. And what we have created is immense. The mass of all functional elements of global human civilization now outweighs the entire biomass on our planet. The natural order of the subsystems is being turned on its head, as the technosphere is quite literally taking over the biosphere.

The anthropocene & the sustainability challenge

A key dynamic of our time is the escalating demand for and consumption of natural resources and ecosystem services at quantities and rates that exceed Earth’s carrying capacity.

The regenerative capacity cannot keep up to replenish all these resources in time. Consequently, not only are resources dwindling, but entire ecosystem services are collapsing and disappearing. As a human race, we are out of balance in our relationship with nature, comparable to overspending relative to income for a household economy. As a result, as a planetary civilization, we are moving into a funnel of increasing constraints, with diminishing resources stretched across a growing population and expanding industrial consumption. This dynamic has led to a number of concurrent negative exponential developments.

Collectively, these developments are referred to as The Great Acceleration in the Anthropocene. And the fact that the trends are exponential should be very concerning. The data above is from 2015, and while most factors have continued further in a negative direction, some are flattening out. Human population growth to name one. Fish catch to name another. The latter, however, is not due to less fishing, but less fish. Fish populations have peaked and are now being depleted, hence fewer fish are caught. CO2 emissions are also flattening out, but not at a fast enough rate. We have yet to break the trend of increasing emissions at a total system level, which is what counts as related to climate change.

In fact, there is approximately a 100-year breakdown period for CO2 in the atmosphere, meaning that we are currently dealing with the effects of current and historical emissions dating back a century. For the next hundred years, future generations will struggle with the consequences of our current emissions and whatever follows from here. Considering this delay, it’s evident that climate change will remain an issue for at least 150 years, given that it will likely take around 50 years to achieve climate neutrality.

And who knows what irreversible damage will occur in the meantime, further destabilising the Earth’s system and the social system of human civilization out of balance. Within this century, we can anticipate a multitude of challenges, including climate catastrophes, soil erosion, desertification, mass migrations, conflicts over resources, erosion of societal trust, proliferation of misinformation, escalating climate-related costs, widening inequality, climate injustice, deforestation, ocean acidification, ecosystem collapse, loss of biodiversity, pollution and more—constituting a socio-environmental sustainability crisis. We like to think of it as the sustainability design challenge. More on that further below…

Sustainability principles as boundary conditions and universal definition of sustainability

A central aspect for our general failure to make substantial progress on the sustainability challenge is the absence of a shared understanding and aim for what constitutes the concept of success for the system as a whole, for Earth as a planet. Instead, we accepted vague political and philosophical declarations of intent such as the one from the Brundtland report:

While it is a fine declaration of intent, it is just that—not a definition of sustainability and not operational, because it is not specific enough. Meanwhile, there is huge latency in the global political system. Finally in 2015 (about 30 years later), we got a more operational framework with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. The Sustainable Development Goals are fine, but they are just that—a set of goals. Not random, but arbitrary in a scientific sense. They are informed by science, but not scientific. They are what politicians could agree on, and some of the goals are somewhat contradictory. As such, they too do not work as a definition for sustainability and if we were to attempt a goal-based definition of sustainability, we would likely find the list to be nearly endless.

“The more efficient you are at doing the wrong thing, the wronger you become. It is much better to do the right thing wronger than the wrong thing righter. If you do the right thing wrong and correct it, you get better.”

Russell Ackoff

It is crucial that we get the definition of sustainability right because without it, we can not progress towards it collectively - and not doing so could prove catastrophic. The lack of widespread application of a rigorous, operational, scientific, systemic, adequate, strategic and not least universal definition of sustainability is causing us to run in different directions and bears the risk of us working against each other, rather than towards a truly sustainable shared goal that is better for all.

While sustainable development should be approached as a scientific matter, it has instead been politicised and subjectivized, allowing different businesses and sectors to more or less come up with their own definitions and standards. As noted in the first IPCC report on our ability to transition towards sustainability, this has led to what is called maladaptation - meaning we are either doing the wrong things or not doing the right things in the right way or to a sufficient extent.

Fortunately, scientists have come together across disciplines and done the research over more than 30 years now to develop a tried and tested Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD), which is a complete methodological and theoretical framework for working with sustainable development in a practical and strategic way that is in accordance with how nature works. The foundation of this approach is a systems perspective where and at the core is a principle-based definition of sustainability that is indeed rigorous, operational, scientific, systemic, adequate, strategic and not least universal - meaning that it is applicable across sectors and domains and it is scalable across the different nested subsystems of the biosphere - from a product, to your household to a business to society to ecosystems, to human civilization. It offers the only evidence-based definition of sustainability that is operational, systemic and universal. Meaning that it can and should work as our shared definition of success for our one shared planet Earth.

The definition is derived from an understanding of how ecosystems and social systems work and what they need to be regenerative and resilient over time - how to hold the adaptive capacity of complex adaptive systems in integrity over time. This is in essence the scientific definition of what sustainability means. It turns out that there are just 8 ways, that we can contribute to undermine that, and this insight is what makes it operational. From understanding what in human activity that causes unsustainability in ecosystems and social systems we can derive 8 principles of what NOT to do, which then in turn informs what to do to be sustainable. The definition of sustainability then is a system condition in which none of the 8 sustainability principles are being violated. Respecting each sustainability principle means not systematically doing the action that leads to unsustainability. As such it is a negative definition which turns out to be the most precise og succinct, as there are only 8 things to not do in order to be sustainable, while there is a near infinite number of possible things to do. This approach then advocates for us to focus on a few things to not do - rules that frame the playing field of the game of living on Earth in a healthy and safe manner.

Absolute vs. relative sustainability

Most of the work being done on sustainability these days takes a reductionist and suboptimal approach. What is often the case is that leaders want to simplify and rationalise the issue of sustainability to save mental capacity, organisational resources, business costs and be able to control messages - both when it comes to internal and external communication. And they like to feel like, look like and act like they are on top of things. So what tends to happen is that sustainability gets reduced to climate change and climate change gets reduced to being about CO2 emissions. Many organisations are not only primarily, but often exclusively concerned with being able to show a strategy for decarbonization. If it proves (which it often does) to be difficult or expensive to accomplish any substantial decarbonisation in operations then investments (which are really bets on possible future effects) in compensation schemes is often the way it goes. A simple indulgence. A simple cop out. Kicking the can down the road. Because compensation is not a strategy - it is compensation for not having a future proof strategy and business model. This is a reductionist approach to “sustainable development”, where the goal is not to be sustainable in absolute terms, but to be a little less bad in relative terms - on specific parameters.

The paradox is that when we oversimplify something that is complex we actually do not end up with simplicity, no, we create additional complexity. The only way to deal with complexity is to handle it as complexity with approaches appropriate for dealing with complexity.

“...everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler” - Paraphrase from 1933 lecture by Einstein

The FSSD and particularly the 8 sustainability principles represents an approach that can deal with the complexity of sustainability as it is. simplifying it, but without reductionism. Aside from it being universal and evidence-based, one of it's finest attributes is that it is systemic - meaning that it is a sufficient set of principles to account for the full scope of socio-environmental sustainability.

There are 3 environmental sustainability principles and 5 social sustainability principles and when assessing the sustainability of anything in the anthroposphere these 8 principles are meant to be used together as an integrated systemic framework for getting 360 degrees around all relevant issues and facets of sustainability as a phenomenon and concept. No cherry picking. They work collectively to define the boundary conditions for the safe operating space for humanity within which business can produce value indefinitely and humans can unfold there lives freely and fully for as long as the Earth is shun upon by our sun.

In other words working with the 8 sustainability principles as boundary conditions and adopting it as an operational definition of sustainability is a way of working absolute sustainability - meaning that all relevant issues, topics and fats of sustainability as a phenomenon can be considered and dealt with through the appropriate strategic application of this framework. This approach stands in stark contrast to the common way of working with sustainability as described above in the intro to this section. Aside from it being the only universal, strategic and operational definition of sustainability that there is, what sets the 8 Sustainability Principles of the FSSD apart as a framework is that is is the only way to work with absolute sustainability. Even though the planetary boundaries framework represent very important research and knowledge and has helped nuance and qualify our understanding of the sustainability crisis - not even this framework get all the way around all the relevant issues of sustainability and as such can not be said to work as means to work with absolute sustainability. And we absolutely need to work towards absolute sustainability. Relative will not do. Nature does not negotiate. Natural laws can not be broken. Our planet is most definitely a whole and absolute entity - not a relative one. We need an understanding, definition and approach that correspond with that reality. We need to aim for and work for absolute sustainability. Because less bad is still bad and that is not good enough.

Driving values-based and purpose-oriented leadership development towards right action in accordance with nature’s ways

Earth Wisdom is one of the cornerstones of our theoretical foundation. Earth Wisdom is a general approach to life as well as a leadership philosophy that dates far back and draws on various traditions from indigenous peoples living close to, with and from nature. It is a wisdom practice where generations have passed down knowledge and wisdom through myths, stories, and medicine wheels to ensure survival and organise circularly and sustainably. The people who have passed on their knowledge have all lived closely with nature, viewing nature as a teacher and a great resource for learning and understanding life. Earth Wisdom offers a regenerative perspective on leadership, followership and organisation and includes a toolbox based on the elements, patterns and organising principles of nature. We work in and with nature, creating a new type of leadership that is wise and ancient and more relevant than ever.

Philosophical Inquiry

We also draw on the greek philosophical tradition in our work. Especially when coaching and doing leadership training. Specifically we lean on the socratic inquiry, which is a dialogical open-ended exploratory investigation into the the known and unknown concerning topics, concepts and matters of vital importance to human existence - often with an ethical and by implication relational element to it. Always about making meaning of the human experience. But it could also be about how the world hangs together in the broadest sense or how we come to understand, learn and think as individuals and/or collectives. We draw upon the concept of telos and the virtues from the Nichomacean Ethics of Aristotle. We also draw on the teachings and insights from the Stoics as well as Daoism. This combination is particularly powerful and useful in cultivating a good character that is in integrity along with sound situational judgement - both are vital elements to good decision making and good leadership. Philosophical inquiry is not a method, but a stance and practice of wholehearted curiosity and openness. There are a number of ways, principles and mantras to honour, but it is in essence a kind of dance with life - a dance of learning. About that which matters most. About how to take life sufficiently seriously.

“The unexamined life is not worth living”

- Socrates

Ethics in Leadership, Business & Organisational Life

Drawing on wisdom traditions and working with ethics in our services is important because the world calls for and needs better leadership that is wiser and more ethical in kind. Many business leaders in particular seem to have lost connection to wisdom and ethics while short term profit gains are often fetishised and pursued at any cost in a single minded manner. We need more leadership that can handle the complexity of life's biggest issues. Leaders who understand true economy of the biosphere. How money works, but also how real value, energy and capitals work at the system level. And how it all hangs together. Leadership that can deal with tough decisions between meaningful trade offs. Including the social aspects. Leaders that know what matters most and know how to prioritise it effectively. Leadership that knows what right action is - interpersonally, organisationally as well as strategically and in relation to society, nature and future generations. Leadership who can expand its circles of concern, care and compassion. Leadership that has the courage to stand for something that matters. For everything that matters. Leadership that can connect with what is true and good and can do the right thing - in integrity with one self, one's community and nature - our shared home.

Driving innovation of business and solutions as the world needs

Circular Regenerative Economy

Time has run out for the exploitative linear neoliberal economic ideology in the mold of take-make-waste. It has lead to pollution of ecosystems, depletion of ecosystems services and natural resources, biodiversity loss along with great suffering and burn-out of human beings and other living beings. Effectively it has brought life on Earth to the brink and it has brought human civilization to a fork in the road. This is The Anthropocene. The future of the planet and its beings is now largely up to us and we must make a collective choice. Regeneration towards sustainability and thriveability of the biosphere or degradation towards collapse of the biosphere. It is a battle between interests. Between destructive forces and interests and regenerative forces and interests. The collective choice will not be unanimous, but a result of what forces and interests win out on the bottom line. Either way there is no business as usual any more. There is only business as the world needs or business as the corrupt (or confused) wants. Either way there will be systems transformations within the century to an extent never seen before. At the core of success for life on Earth lies the transformation of the economic system. Fortunately change is happening from purpose-driven entrepreneurs, communities, social innovators, investors, economists and engineers all over. New and better business models are being developed and invested in and grown every day. What we need to scale are businesses, infrastructures, legislation, subsidies, leadership practices, management decisions, strategies and investments that support and promote a circular regenerative economy. An economy where ambitions are raised greatly on behalf of all living beings and future generations. An economy, where biobased materials are being effectively regenerated in harmony with eco-systems. An economy where finite resources are being recycled, repurposed or reused effectively. An economy where the use and material value of products are being maintained and prolonged for as long as possible. An economy that eliminates waste and leakage of pollutants to the environment and keeps it in closed loops integral to production and the business model. Where the level of responsibility and innovation in business is much higher, and the levels of health, diversity and thriveability in society and ecosystems are much higher as a result.

Systemic design & circular design

Achieving this calls for a circular design practice that is much more systemic, cross-disciplinary and holistic in kind. Designers in the future can no longer simply be product or service designers, but must become systemic designers - designing whole production systems along with their products and services. They must also become strategists because these product systems can not be developed and realized overnight, but requires transition. Effectively designers, entrepreneurs, politicians, citizens and business leaders must all start thinking, creating and acting in accordance with how nature works and collectively build products, systems, business models, infrastructures, value loops and eventually an entire economy that operates within the carrying capacity of the planet and in alignment with nature's processes, principles and laws.

Life-oriented design & biomimicry

Creating a circular regenerative biobased economy by adopting systemic design along with patterns and principles from nature is biomimicry. Mimicking nature and the genius of life. Specifically mimicking ecosystems as an economy. Ecosystems and the ecology as a whole represent the original economy. The etymological root of the word “Eco” means house or home. Ecology is the logic of the home (understanding of the house). Economy is the management of the home (householding). The house of course refers to nature itself. It is time we bring the economy home where it belongs. In the house of nature. Here nature is an ongoing exchange of resources. Which is in essence what an economy is. These processes flow in endless regenerative cycles of creative destruction - life, death and new life. But never does the natural economy of ecosystems produce waste or pollution or unsustainability - only slow evolutionary change through reproduction with variance in a vast complex, adaptive, self-referencing and self-organised system of life.

Understanding the biosphere as a whole, observing what makes its ecosystems work and undertaking the transfer of the natural laws, principles, solutions, patterns to the business world is circular design. Using circular design to create a circular economy is mimicking ecosystems. This process of observing nature, learning from nature and adopting the solutions of nature is known as biomimicry. In biomimicry we can mimic materials, structures, and systems as we recognize the genius of life. It is an approach to design, problem-solving and engineering where nature is the starting point. Where one looks to nature for answers first. The biosphere and biology is understood and seen as a database of tried-and-tested solutions that works to support and enable life on Earth. Solutions that have been proven to work and be safe for the biosphere over time. Over 3.8 billion years of iterative evolutionary cycles. Nature then is a database stored in DNA which can be decoded through observations and measurements. Biomimicry is an approach that starts in a different place. With humility rather than the arrogant assumption that we humans can always make a better solution through synthetic processes. This is rarely the case. Biology only employs a subset of the elements available in the world, while we humans use all them recklessly creating a cocktail effect dangerous to life on Earth.

Our historical approach to innovation and societal development has been about exploiting natural resources, scientific knowledge and all elements of the periodic table to maximize human utility value and human convenience and human comfort - no holds barred. At all costs. At the cost of the environment and other living beings. At the costs of social cohesion and societal integrity. At the cost of our health and the future prospects for future generations. Now we see that the costs of our unnatural growth have been much greater than we ever imagined. We must now transition to do human civilization in a natural way. This does not mean going back to the stone age, but to expand our circles of concern through time and space, study and learn from nature and commit to design and do business in ways that promote health and diversity and resilience. In ways that restores the regenerative capacity of ecosystems and social systems. The anthropocentric worldview can not take us further. We must shift to a biocentric worldview that encompasses the entire biosphere and has healthy life at its heart.

“Designers have become a dangerous breed”

Victor Papanek

As change agents, designers and business people this entails taking a different stance and approach where we ask different questions. The human-centric design philosophy has made us very good at coming up with solutions to the question; “how do we serve the individual (consumer)”. It is time we move out of the dark ages of individualism and get good at finding solutions to the question; “how do we serve the community and human civilization at large?” - and we must even go further than that and ask ourselves; - “how do we serve life on Earth?” and if you are responsible for a product or service and you find that this product or service you have created and brought to the world does not in fact serve life on Earth, well then you are part of the problem regarding the sustainability crisis and it is time for you to find out if you want to be part of the solution? - if so it is time to redesign at the system level and create something that does in fact serve life on Earth. It is time to engage in purpose-driven life-oriented design. To no longer innovate for the sake of innovation or novelty or consumerism. To no longer merely be creating desires for things no one really needs, but to contribute positively by creating real solutions to real needs in the world.

Creating system value

Historically since the industrialization we have been largely operating according to an economic paradigm of shareholder value, where profit gains has been paramount and people have been looked upon as “human resources” that can be used and replaced while nature has been looked upon as “natural resources” understood to be there for the taking and endlessly exploitable. Everything outside of this has simply been called externalities and gone largely unaccounted for. This is still the prevailing business paradigm.

Since the 90s a triple bottom line logic has been emerging in parallel. In this economic paradigm actors recognize that the business does not exist in isolation - that it affects and relies upon stakeholders and an environment. Effects that the business has to account for and domains the business has to give back to in order to uphold a licence to operate and to maintain a foundation to operate on with reliable supply and value chains. This is where the CSR (corporate social responsibility) movement has come from. From this mindset there has been a further development around recognizing that there is an opportunity for business to actually create value beyond the business model of the production line itself - or to reimagine the business model as including the environment and the stakeholders. By thinking value creation of the business in broader terms, better alliances and better stories and a better business environment can be forged and in doing so the business can in fact create a strategic advantage relative to competition that operates in a more narrow fashion. This has been dubbed Creating Shared Value - or CSV by Michael Porter.

We are convinced that there is not only an opportunity for business to go further than this, but that there is an increasing imperative to do so and that those businesses who manage to broaden their value creation even further to the system level are the ones that will in fact win competitive advantage and become not only market leading, but part of the future market. Whereas those businesses that do not succeed in reimagining and realizing their value creation at the system level will become obsolete or outcompeted. We are rapidly moving into a future of increasing supply constraints, regulations, consumer demands that is putting pressure on business to transform and do better as they do more. Do better for more. For more people, communities, non-human beings and ecosystems alike.

“The economy can be a good servant, but is always a bad master!...”

Roberto Mangabera Unger

This means operating within the carrying capacity of the Earth and adopting an understanding of the natural nested order of The Earth as a system. A natural order, where the economy springs out of and is nested in society as part of the technosphere. An order where the economy serves society and society does not outgrow the carrying capacity of an ecology in balance. This is the paradigm towards which business needs to move. This is CSV 2.0 (or CSV 3.8 if you will) and what we mean when we say CSV - Creating System Value. To us that is the name of the game. That is the business of business in the 21st century. And the synergistic benefits and return of investment when choosing this path as a strategy and commitment are multiple. They won't all show up on the bottom line right away, but eventually they will.

Design for systems transitions

Getting to a point where business actually creates net positive value at the system level without negative spillover effects and operates within the boundary conditions of a safe operating space for humanity and life on this planet - that is not going to happen overnight. But at least business must have a transition roadmap for how to get there. Not only as an ethical obligation to society and humanity and nature, but in order to have a plan for how to be part of the future. If a business can not show meaningful and substantial steps towards effectively transitioning towards sustainability and without a viable, desirable, strategic, feasible and evidence-based plan for how to get there - well then there is no way that business is going to be part of the future.

“If you fail to plan you are planning to fail!...”

Benjamin Franklin

While the world does not need more tools and models, it does need better ones, and we have the best of them. The meta-tool that can organize all other tools. An integrated, evidence-based roadmapping framework for how to design the future from the future by approaching sustainable development as strategic futures design and roadmapping through an iterative backcasting process. It turns out that backcasting from a sustainable vision cast in a scientific frame is a difference that makes a difference. Not only does it actually lead towards real sustainability it also produces much greater innovation levels and yields a strategic position of greater competitive advantage.

This model frames the overall process for our approach to helping our clients realize sustainable development strategically and scientifically. Get more insight into what this process can involve by having a look at our services here.

Design for Sustainability

Design for Sustainability (D4S or DfS) can be thought of as any creative effort that leads closer to sustainability. But D4S is also a research and practice field that includes a number of method, tools and schools of practice.

At Estuary, we approach the sustainability crisis as a design challenge, because unsustainability is a design flaw. It is a product of badly designed human made systems. Nature does not produce unsustainability. Nature does not produce pollution. Nature does not produce waste. Nature recycles everything perfectly. No resource goes to waste. The good news then is that we can redo. Because we have done it. We can and we must redesign everything and do so in a away where the unsustainability elements are designed out.

Design can be thought of as a manifestation of intention. So anyone occupied with or involved in creating a better version of anything is a designer - whether as a strategist, engineer, designer or developer. We all must find ways to become part of the solution to the sustainability crisis. To be a relevant worker in the 21st century one should know how to design for sustainability. We are specialists in Design for Sustainability and have contributed to advance the field. We have integrated systemic thinking, biomimicry, circular economy and the sustainability science into the design process and developed a toolbox that makes it easy to operationalize and practice. Read more about design for sustainability and how you can get trained in it here.

Driving dialogic organisational development

Systemic thinking forms the foundation and backdrop of our entire theoretical standpoint, and we crystallise it in one of our cornerstones. The systemic understanding serves as the basis for our approach to organisational development and coaching. This means that we take an irreverent and curious approach to the task and the problems at hand, knowing that to create new meaning and collective action, it is necessary to unfold all perspectives, introduce appropriate disruptions and offer a dialogic and investigative practice in order to reach the goal as a whole.

David Bohm refers to dialogue as a conversation with a centre - and no sides. In dialogue, we are constantly focused on creating shared meaning and new insights - and bringing together what is common, without being concerned with being right or getting it right. We shift our focus from the differences and diversity of voices that may arise in a dialogue towards a common centre where the new can emerge. The new meaning does not arise from opinions and positions. Instead, it arises from what he refers to as "the movement from the silent or tacit level." We find ourselves in a new, undiscovered territory where none of the dialogue partners have been before, and by being curious, inquisitive, and reflective together, the new shared meaning emerges and is articulated in a co-creative and collective process.

In contrast to dialogue is discussion and debate, which are also forms of conversation. Discussion ends with "-cussion," like the words percussion (drum) and concussion (brain injury), which are about splitting and breaking up.

“Real dialogue is where two or more people become willing to suspend their certainty in each other's presence.”

David Bohm

Systemic Organisational Development & Coaching

Systemic organisational development (OD) is an approach where the organisation is viewed as a system. So is organisational life. The system is understood to be a set of actors and relationships and what makes up the organisation are the communicative processes of speech acts and interpretation that goes on.Here the individual actor is also understood to be a meaning making system of self-referencing. Thus also admitting of social constructionism (read more about this below) and recognising that we humans are inherently meaning-making creatures who live and tell stories and that human cognition is itself a system of meaning, just like an organisation of humans is a collective system of meaning.

The systemic process consultant uses mental cybernetics and shifting perspectives to zoom in and out of these systems and their relationships. It is a practice of suspending judgement where the organisational life is observed and investigated through a range of practices - often anthropological. Intended to yield an objective view. Then analysed from an approximated neutral position achieved through theoretical backing, supervision and sparring with colleagues as well as the practice of irreverence. The analysis leads to hypothesis about patterns and issues and potentials in the organisation. In its culture, capacities and relationships. These hypothesis are shared and tested with the client through various dialogical processes of mirroring and response. This is in itself an intervention. Following this a set of interventions are chosen in a process that is designed to generatively work with and overcome the issues that are holding the organisation back from collectively succeeding with their goals, ambitions and intentions about either their performance or their culture or both. A fair and transparent process of involving all relevant stakeholders is key. The success of the process comes down to a) the openness, contributions, engagement, good will and genuine demeanour of the participants and b) the abilities of the systemic process consultant to facilitate the process effectively, judge the situations objectively and apply right (speech) actions at the right time with appropriate disturbance to the system.

In systemic coaching these systemic insights and practices along with a set of specific coaching approaches are used to help individuals or teams (be they formal leaders or not) to help move them along towards their desired goals of performance, human growth or being.

The systemic approach to coaching and OD is a powerful tool for change that allows social systems to explore, create and act on new shared meaning in ways that open up to novel and better opportunities. Transformational work of organisation or teams that enable them to effectively transition towards sustainability is the greatest change process any organisation is likely to go through. It is the most boundary spanning of challenges calling for the highest degree of collaboration. It can only be done successfully through involvement of and engagement of all stakeholders as their contributions, alignment and support is crucial to success. The systemic approach to coaching and OD is excellent to facilitate these participatory processes of spreading and scaling engagement and impact towards shared end goals.

Social constructionism

This is a theory, world view, practice and approach where the foundational tenet is the idea that everything could be different. And it´s an important caveat here, that everything is not everything as such, but everything in the human made world (technosphere) the social world (sociosphere) except that which is a biological necessity by the nature of us being animals. The limits of social construction are exactly there. We can not construct our way out of biology and physics. Nature does not negotiate as the saying goes. But humans do, and that is very important since the major problems in the world are caused by humans. Unsustainability is our doing. So is war, economic crisis etc. – The promise then is that we can choose to do things differently. Human creations and behaviours - even our thoughts and experiences are not given, but at least partially constructed and working in with a social constructionist approach and admitting to social constructionism means embracing the potentiality and possibilities and agency that follows and committing to explore and manifest better alternatives. It means engaging in social processes of communication and exchange of knowledge and ideas and perspectives in constructive ways that open up to negotiations, renegotiations and decision making processes that enable manifestations of new and better constructions - be they experiential, behavioural or physical. As such social constructionism is at the heart of design thinking and any meaningful design practice.

In consultancy, the implications of social constructionism is the recognition that we all hold part of the truth about reality through our unique experience of the world and any situation. This means that truth is not a given or something that can be dictated from above or from any single point, but something we can approximate and together through communication and sharing of knowledge, perspectives, interpretations, datapoints and experiences. Differing experiences and opinions are valid and a welcome contribution to co-creating an approximation of a shared understanding or truth, to the extent that is possible at all.

As systemic process consultants this insight calls us to be aware of how we judge the experiences, viewpoints and speech acts of others and how we position ourselves in relation to them. It means that we need to suspend judgement and try to approximate neutrality in our position as we facilitate, mediate and/or coach. It also calls us to be aware of our own thinking and experience. Our biases and self-referencing. Therefore we must practise irreverence and reflection to be able to facilitate, mediate or coach from a position as close to neutrality and reality as possible, where fairness and impartiality is optimised as collective intelligence is realised through dialogical processes.

In Estuary, we are not always showing up as systemic process consultants. Only when that is what is called for. As experts on sustainability science, design thinking, strategic management, earth wisdom and how to combine it all for strategic sustainable development we are just as often in the subject matter expert advisor position. We navigate the shifting of this roles and positions relative to our clients fluidly and more often than not we also engage with them in a co-creating collaborative capacity when that is what is needed. We do not believe in subscribing to any doctrines of only being in one position. This would also go against the very idea of social constructionism. Often though there are many consultants that subscribe to social constructionism religiously - to the extent where they become blind to the paradox in there own logic where it seems like everything is socially constructed - except social constructionism - that is the one and only truth. Convenient perhaps, but not our stance. We believe that taking social constructionism seriously means having the freedom to take the position that the context calls for and competencies allow for. A more pragmatic stance that necessitates great levels of situational judgement and the courage to offer once skills, perspectives and knowledge as part of the co-creative process of social construction.

Appreciative Inquiry / Appreciative approach

Appreciative Inquiry is a method for mobilising people, organisations and communities through the imagination (sense of possibility) and awareness of how to use language in a vital and life-giving way through articulate and powerful questions.The appreciative approach focuses on unique opportunities and dreams rather than problems and mistakes.

We believe that despite how difficult it is, it is possible to find a crack or a glimpse that can be the first step towards sustainable transformation. By focusing on the unique exceptions of the past (rather than evaluating the mistakes), we create hope and agency that enable us to face the future appreciatively and as a realm of possibility where we don't lose our agency. From this position, we are now able to (re)design the desired future.

The 5F model is a process model that mobilises the entire system and unleashes collective agency towards sustainable transformation.

Relational capacity & collaborative efficacy

It is a key insight in systemic practice that everything is already entangled. No entity - especially not a human being exists in isolation - nor is the entity primary - the relationship comes first. Out of the relationship come individuals along with new relationships and all the potential that is nestled in them. In organisations in particular the magic always happens in relationships - in interpersonal processes of communication and knowledge sharing. Our ability to communicate appropriately for the context and do so in efficient ways is in combination with our ability to scrutinise and curate the content for the recipient(s) determining factors for the value creation that can take place at the workplace and in organisational life. In our projects we always have a keen eye for the relationships in play that need to work optimally for the success of the project. This not only allows us to conduct thorough stakeholder analysis and facilitate meaningful involvement and engagement of key actors - it is also a starting point for cultivating the collaborative efficacy and relational capacity needed to enable the flow of co-creation and communication that the project calls for. We do this through dialogical processes and approaches described above, and in addition we are experienced and specialised in relational coordination, relational leadership and relational capacity as methods and research fields. This is particularly relevant in sustainable development and regenerative transformations of systems as this calls for unprecedented degrees of creativity and cross boundary collaboration as the global sustainability crisis is inherently boundary spanning and cross-disciplinary and as such the sustainability challenge also represents the greatest challenge of coordination and collaboration ever. Even cross cultures.

Leadership as ontology

Oftentimes leadership gets talked about as this abstract, exalted and exclusive practice associated only with the highest paid individuals who has the descriptor leader or manager in their title. As if leadership is only for the few while the rest of us can lean back and wait for someone who can manage to lead us. This conception of leadership is not very helpful and makes it hard for the formal leader to succeed while it decreases the collective leadership capacity in the organisation. Instead it is much more meaningful and helpful to think of leadership as an ontology - as a phenomenon that exists in the world and can spread and scale to various degrees depending on the quantity and quality of leadership practice that is realised in the given context. This way leadership is not something that comes with someone in particular, but something we can all contribute to co-produce. It is also something we can observe and evaluate - whether it has been produced and to what extent. And how then do we do that? - Well, we must understand what makes up the phenomenon - what are in essence the constituent elements that make up leadership as a phenomenon. Here we can look at the work of Wilfred Drath et. al. - they describe leadership as being the result of processes that produce direction, alignment and commitment in the organisation or in a team. If any of those has not been produced or not been produced adequately, well then leadership has not been produced adequately. Contrary if all three are present in the team or organisation to a satisfactory extent where the direction is clear to everyone, everyone are aligned around the direction, constituent tasks and challenges and their roles and contribution and finally everyone involved are committed to do their part - well then leadership has been produced successfully - whether a formal leader has been present or not. In that way this approach opens up to leadership as a collective process and practice that everyone can and should contribute to in a combination between formal and informal leadership and a dance between leadership and followership. Thus greatly increasing the potential collective leadership capacity, organisational drive and effectiveness.

The mindset and outlook that connects us and unites our disciplines and approaches

Back in the 1960s, two Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francis Varela were interested in how to take the logics and patterns of nature and apply them to people and organisations. As opposed to the linear and analytical way of approaching problems, where you divide the problem into parts and analyse them to arrive at a solution, the two biologists were interested in how to see people, projects, teams and organisations, societies and nature as "systems". Systems with their own logic and how this system could be disrupted from the outside with an impact that caused the system to change. This was essentially biomimicry, emphasised by the metaphor in the title of their seminal book on these insights, Tree of Knowledge. They observed nature, animals and ecosystems and learned from them to infer general insights about biology and life. They applied this to human psychology and the human social world. Specifically, organisational life. What they explored and to which many multidisciplinary systemic thinkers have since contributed further is what Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi called "The systems view of life" in their landmark book of the same name. A unifying perspective that deals with the interconnectedness of everything. An ancient insight also shared by Buddhists and many indigenous tribal cultures. Nothing comes from nothing. The relation comes first. Everything affects everything in the sense that if we move one part, it affects another part and the whole moves as well.

This realisation calls our attention to avoid quick-fix solutions, which will tend to lead to unwanted side effects. In this sense systemic thinking is the opposite of reductionism. Reductionism oversimplifies and while this can be a tempting heuristic this can be catastrophic when dealing with vital complex issue like sustainability and the health of people, communities and ecosystems. What happens if we oversimplify complex issues is that we do not grasp the true scope of issue and that renders us incapable of creating adequate solutions. Instead we create sub-optimal “solutions”, which are not really solutions, but initiatives that now create new problems and add to the original problem and its complexity. Like treating side-effects of medicin with new medicin that creates new side-effects. A degenerative spiral or a negative reinforcing loop that can spin out of control. Instead we real solutions to real problems. Solutions that satisfy real human needs and preferable in a synergistic and exponential manner where multiple needs are satisfied in a reinforcing positive loop. This is what we call systemic solutions or holistic solutions.

What often happens for human beings is that we spend a lot of resources and energy on creating local order through insular solutions that through lack of awareness and/or concern affect other parts of society or nature in negative ways. We pass the problem on in a way where we create more problems. When we people are under pressure, we tend to throw on the blinders and don't have the capacity to care about the whole. We care about only what is near. Let's say you have a stain on your white shirt for example. This represents local disorder or chaos. You want to restore order, so you treat the stain with chemicals and wash the shirt in your washing machine with detergent. Now you have a clean shirt, but you have released nutrients, dirt, grime and chemicals into the waterways that now have to be cleaned. And you have spent energy in the process. This does not only cost you money, but it costs society money and it brings a toll on ecosystems. So in our pursuit to create local order we contribute to creating global disorder. Life is lived locally and so it should and will be. But when we act locally with good intent, we need to act in ways that take the environment and the rest of society into concern. We need to think globally and act locally. In ways that not only improves the local situation, but they contribute to improve the global condition as well. At least in a way that does not cause harm elsewhere. We need to honour the no harm principle of liberalism and take care of the commons that we all draw value from and rely on. This is glocal thinking in a nutshell - think globally when you act locally.

Systemic thinking and glocal thinking allows us to zoom out and understand these loops of cause and effect in systems and across systems and across layers of subsystems. That way we can create systemic solutions and interventions that actually transform the system in a regenerative way towards positive impact and sustainability. This is why we subscribe to "the systems view of life" and we practise it as more than a method, but a deep realisation and a way of being in the world.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think"

- Gregory Bateson

Basically, if we thought according to the principles of nature (circularity, thermodynamics, sustainability principles, system boundaries, scaling laws etc.) and designed accordingly, we wouldn't have unsustainability at all. Nature does not produce unsustainability.

At Estuary, we all work from a systemic basis and have many years of experience as systemic practitioners (coaches, process consultants, designers, leaders etc.) and this enables us to fundamentally speak the same language and collaborate and combine our different areas of professional expertise in ways that work together synergistically, creates holistic solutions and contributes regeneratively to transformations towards greater impact that supports our greater shared purpose of sustainability.

Working across sectors and disciplines

Our expertise lies within sustainability, strategy, systemic thinking, design practices, leadership and process facilitation. All of which are inherently interdisciplinary generalist fields. This affords us the unique position and opportunity to be able to work for and with pretty much every kind of business, institution or organization across sectors and industries. Our only criteria for collaboration is that there is a genuine intent to do better and that there is a willingness to at least explore a commitment to a strategic, evidence-based and systemic approach to sustainable development.

We live in an increasingly more complex and entangled world with high levels of interdependence, volatility and uncertainty. Because sustainability is inherently a complex, systemic, boundary spanning issue that knows no boarders it can only really be solved collaboratively in partnerships and alliances across sectors. Therefore we enjoy brining together actors across sectors, interest groups and disciplines to explore differences as well as synergies and interest overlaps with the aim of fostering the potential for collaboration and greater collective impact towards a higher purpose and shared ends. Sustainability is a collective matter that cuts across not only national boarders, species boundaries and generations through time and space. It is also of equal concern and relevance to actors in the private, public and civic sector. This is why we are occupied with fourth sector thinking and facilitating gatherings and collaborative efforts across sectors and industries.