Some thoughts on systems coaching

When I entered the world of funding and systems and complexity in 2013 by joining a charitable foundation in the newly created role of Director of Systems Change, the experience was daunting and overwhelming. The job title was confusing, expectations were high, and no one – let alone the new director – knew where to begin. But the experience was also delightfully humbling and enabled me to learn from and become inspired by a wonderful array of systems thinkers, coaches, and other wonderful folk.

During that time, my colleagues and I worked alongside a diverse range of actors in our corner of systems and complexity and multiple disadvantage, from those doing the work on the ground with lived experience of homelessness, mental health challenges, or addictions, through to the work of the Centre for Right Relationships on organisational and relationship systems coaching.  We gleaned insights from systems thinkers like Jean Bolton, Barry Johnson, and Margaret Wheatley, and from those who combined systems thinking and Processwork, such as Myrna Lewis. I learnt so much from my ex-colleagues, in particular one who I now see as a friend Habiba Nabatu, as well as those who challenged the world of systems thinking by focusing instead on movements, design thinking, activism and community development. It was such a joy and privilege to work alongside and learn from them. 

The learning from that time and these people continues today as I’ve transitioned to different roles within the wider world. The other day, I was asked to share my learnings on what I think of as systems coaching– one of many tools one can deploy when seeking change. I see systems coaching as being about the art and practice of coaching an entity – a team, or a collaboration between teams or across organisations. I came to systems coaching as one approach because I couldn’t see in many of the other ways people think and act systemically, an approach that worked with emotions, with relationships, and with the loss and joy of change.

I have had a very enjoyable first attempt at articulating what I think I've learnt about navigating complexity from the past eight years – the things that inform my systems coaching practice today. And in writing it down, I immediately start to wonder what have I missed? Where might I be wrong? And whose work am I not acknowledging in sharing this? Still, the exercise left me feeling that these thoughts are good enough to share. What isn’t explicit in this list, and what I underpins everything I do, is a focus on social justice, equity, and belonging. As you read this, please join me in holding all of what comes lightly. I'd be delighted to hear your reflections. 

Systems are naturally creative and intelligent. 

When I'm coaching a system, I think it, by that I mean the people within it, has the capabilities and wisdom to find a path forward. Those working within that particular system have the capacity to do this, but they might not be very skilful about it. As a systems coach, a role we might play is to help by providing tools, asking questions, and surfacing the subconscious bits that are not being noticed so that they can find out their solution.

Systems coaches have an eye for the space or relationships between things rather than the things themselves.

As a coach, I don’t know the system that you’re working with. All I can do is see things and mirror patterns or reflections. Often, it will be a tiny voice that comes in as a weak signal that totally shifts our focus for the better. As a coach, I’m holding space for that.

To hold space for whoever at that point in time forms the system — the cross-organizational relationships and team — I’ve noticed is really powerful. This drives the principle above about teams being both shaped by and shaping. It also applies at a higher level to the relationships between the team, the organisation, and collaborators because it’s what passes between these parts that creates the whole. In other words, as a coach, I believe it is systems that produce outcomes rather than individual parts, which is why we need to focus our attention on multiple parts at once.

To deepen this a bit more I’m not just looking at the horizontal space between things, but also the vertical space. Navigating between the levels of I, we and it is one way I’ve found to achieve this. Often you can see patterns reflected across all these levels.

Everyone is right, but only partially.

Often when we talk about multiple perspectives, we make someone else wrong. I’d argue that everyone is right because they have a view, albeit a partial view. None of us can see a whole system. Think of the system as a pie where each of us has a slice – many perspectives together can help us see more than we can on our own. This pie, of course, includes perspectives we don't like. And I know this knowledge may not be desired or welcome by people who have experienced deep harm caused by those who hold perspectives that they don’t like. For this reason, I have learnt to hold this approach very carefully. I do not ask that every person take this on, but I hope they will be open to others doing that work, which is where systems coaches can help.

I love sitting in the perspective of those reviled in different circles (insert any politician who is currently reviled by you) and considering which parts of them are me, and how I agree with those aspects of them. There is certainly some truth in what they say in opposition to what I might say from the other side. What is the wisdom that I can take from that which disturbs me? It is not comfortable but engaging with other people’s realities, and seeing my own in them, brings me closer to understanding the work I need to do.

There are some unsolvable tensions we live with; working out whether to notice, dance, and live with them can help. 

We're hardwired to find one strong answer to our problems and throw all our energy into driving towards that answer. Within systems, we can't easily get to one perfect answer as we are constantly navigating tensions. For example, in an organization, someone might say, “We should centralise everything”, in order to increase our efficiency and reduce confusion. Then, as soon as we embrace this as the way forward, someone else might point out: "Oh no, now we're not hearing the voices from everyone in the regions. Let's rather decentralise."

These are paradoxes to be navigated and managed through. It's not possible to find the perfect answer to the conundrum of centralise and decentralise. A systems coach helps people to see some of these as tensions, to navigate through them, and then to find the beautiful path that integrates both sides, perhaps at different stages in the journey or in different areas of work. And this is a path that needs to be re-trod again and again. 

Spending time loving the problem and looking at it from different angles can reveal surprising ways forward. 

At the speed we’re operating in the world of work, we can often be solving for the wrong thing. In the complexity of social problems, there is no one way of defining what needs to be resolved. This means that sometimes, time and effort is expended on solving for that which doesn't need to be resolved. But, if you can take a breath, sometimes you will notice that the problem that is shouting the loudest may not actually be the problem that needs attention. Think of this like a leak in the ceiling – you can fix the leak and then discover the water is coming in elsewhere in the roof.  

In other cases, spending time dwelling and looking at a problem can leave you quite surprised. But perhaps it's best if I ask this question: When last did you think you knew with certainty what the answer was, only to discover you were wrong? Multiple perspectives can help here as often, different people will describe the ‘problem’ very differently. As can asking yourself again and again, “What different ways could I see or describe this challenge?”

We can see analogues to this idea in our most intimate relationships. Marriage counsellor John Gottman has had a significant influence on my practice. He says that 69% of problems in most marriages are unsolvable. You can't change the problem, what you can change is your relationship to the problem. I find this to be true with teams. We often say it’s 'them out there’ who limit the capacity for change. But if you can't change what's going on ‘out there’, can you change the nature of your relationship to the problem instead? How about your approach? 

Holding the ability to be surprised and curious, while understanding how to sense, probe, and act your way into knowing, makes all the difference.

To be able to love a problem and to be able to adapt and respond to what emerges, requires us to be surprised and curious. It also requires us to stay in ‘learning mode’ rather than shifting to ‘expert mode’. Of course, there are times when being an expert helps – I don’t want my doctor to not bring in what they know about the human body, nor do I want my bank to be surprised and curious when I simply want to pay for something. However, when working in complexity, it helps to stay curious and pay attention to weak signals about what’s happening.

Being surprised and being able to adapt and respond to information as it arises can help us stay agile and nimble. There often isn’t a perfect plan with clear steps on how to get from A to B that emerges. And if there is a perfect plan, it rarely is perfect in execution. Supporting teams and collaborations to learn from these moments of realisation, to step back and notice, and to then adjust is critical. It’s often a process marred with self-criticism and a sense of failure by those involved. To me those feelings are not bad things; they are just signals that the course needs to be adjusted. But we can only perceive them this way if we are able to be surprised.

Every member of the relationship system is a voice of the system, even those whose voices can be hard to hear.

Every voice of the system matters whether we like what that voice has to say or not, whether they’re saying it skillfully or unskillfully. Often in social change we talk about the ‘bad guys’ that we’re fighting to create change. The shift in thinking here is to begin seeing that the 'bad guys’ are a part of the system, and part of what we’re trying to change. And to go even further to realise that I and we are all part of the problem we’re trying to change.

How might we embrace those different voices? How can we try to stand in that difference in a way that feels safe? How can we do it in a way that helps others get there too? This work takes time. And how do you embrace voices that create dissonance with your own world view – especially if, historically, that kind of voice has caused harm? And how do you create the space for others to hear your voice?

A second point to make here is about the importance of hearing all voices, including those that tend to be ignored, marginalised, and excluded. Including voices that represent the excluded can require a different design, perhaps starting with coaching from those who represent marginalised perspective so that they are central, rather than invited in at the last minute. This requires providing support to others who might need to adjust how they show up. I’m thinking of what I've learnt personally about how I need to adjust my behaviour. 

Systems are constantly in flux, and this affects our understanding of the system.

The truth only exists between the people in the room. When they leave, new information or new voices enter. In this way, the system is always in a state of flux. This can feel both liberating and deeply dispiriting for people who want to have a discussion, make decisions and get on with the action. Coming back to revisit and learn from what’s been done, what’s happened as a result and how things need to adapt is part of the process of systems coaching.  How can we deal with the fact that we come to something, and then have to move on to something else? Can we coach the system to shift and adapt? Can we avoid the feeling of being static or fixed? How does working with this understanding not result in a constant search for THE answer and perfect analysis of the problem.

Given the constant flux, and the discomfort that can come with change and not knowing, we need to build our inner capacity to stay and be with discomfort and not knowing.

When we think about systems, how is our experience a fractal of the wider system? There’s something to looking inside and thinking about where the feeling might be present elsewhere. If I’m feeling nervous, I might ask who else is feeling nervous, or where the nervousness exists in the system and how it might be present. We are the system. I can use what I’m feeling in my body as a signal, but also need to hold it lightly because it might not exist elsewhere. Sometimes it is just my own rubbish that shows up, and I need to go and work on that. 

Additionally, doing inner work can help us to identify our own responses to the challenges of the world such that we can stay and work with these challenges, rather than receive them like arrows to our heart. Some of these challenges to ourselves and our triggers can be fixed, others are things we must learn to love about ourselves.

You and/or your team are both shaping and being shaped by the culture and context you're working in. 

Within teams, different roles are needed: the enthusiast, the caretaker, the challenger, etc. Our personal histories and preferences will drive us to pick up those roles. You may notice that you play different roles on different teams.

We need the voice of the person who says what’s difficult, though it’s easy to scapegoat them when they do. A team may say: “This person always says difficult things and we don’t want to hear it. She’s what’s wrong, not the issue.” They then get rid of this person, bring in someone else to step into the role, and the pattern repeats. The cycle reveals how the team goes about having difficult conversations. When a team makes the problem about ‘them’ and not ‘us’, they're trying to fix everyone else instead of their processes. As a result, the rest of the organisation isn't able to change in the way it needs to.

How might they take the focus away from the individual subject and onto the object instead? When we shift our thinking in this way make, it increases the visibility of the ‘how’ (rather than the ‘who’), and creates space to think about what is in our locus of control. This doesn't mean we will necessarily resolve it, but it opens up an opportunity. And because teams are part of a wider system, when teams start to change how they show up, it makes the rest of the system curious for the better. 

***

A huge thanks to everyone and everything that has and continues to be a teach to me - and whose work helps me to articulate what I've written above. I have missed things for example, power, privilege, and participation underpin my assumptions and yet I haven’t explored or discussed them here. To me, systems coaching is something that most people working to make change already embody in so many different ways; it is not the preserve of certified coaches or those who give themselves the label of systems coach. I would love to hear your thoughts, your questions, your challenges, and how these might be useful for your practice.