Designing Future Systems: Institutions & Paradigm Shifts

Systems thinking falls into two main lines of inquiry regarding how the term “system” is defined. Both perspectives have important applications in the management of complexity. The first is an ontological perspective, and the second is an epistemological approach. The difference between these two lines concerns whether systems are viewed as real-world phenomena something that can be objectively studied, for example, the idea that our planet is a single entity composed of complex interactions between humans, and non-human entities - or whether systems are used as an epistemological tool to address a particular matter of concern.

 

The ontological perspective suggests that meaningful change cannot be achieved through a narrow approach; rather, it requires influencing the appropriate leverage points within a system. Meadows, an American systems scientist, identified twelve leverage points for intervening in complex systems. These range from “shallow” leverage points- - namely places where interventions are relatively easy to implement but lead to only small changes in the overall functioning of the system - to “deep” leverage points, which are more difficult to change but can result in transformational outcomes. According to Meadows, the deepest leverage points are the mindsets, paradigms, and worldviews that shape the overall trajectory of a complex system. 

 

Leverage points fall into four categories that affect the trajectory of systems in different ways, ranging from the shallowest to the deepest: parameters, feedbacks, design, and intent. The latter – intent - is related to the norms, values, and goals embodied within a system. According to Abson, changes in intent are difficult, highly context-dependent, and the result of multiple interacting forces. For example, the Iranian struggle for freedom can be understood as the emergent intent of complex socio-economic, political, and cultural forces that have shaped the dominant trajectory of Iranian society from the past to the present, resulting in an organic uprising for regime change.

 

The point is that “shallow” leverage points are important and may generate positive outcomes, but they are unlikely to produce lasting impacts. For example, in the present situation in Iran, certain groups of leftists advocate compromise with regime forces, others rely on renewed sanctions, and some support diplomacy with its proxies. I argue that such interventions, when they do not target the deeper aspects of the system, lack the necessary potential for meaningful change. They remain shallow insofar as they primarily affect material flows (such as financial resources) or buffer structures (e.g., oil distribution), rather than addressing underlying causes. Transformative change at a deeper cultural level requires questioning both formal and informal institutions and confronting the ideological motives of a highly totalitarian system.

 

The ongoing conflict has primarily stimulated the first dimension: changes in the institutions through which the regime has legitimized the oppression of citizens, such as military infrastructures and security forces. Nevertheless, societies also organize themselves through informal structures. These include customs, taboos, codes of conduct, and sacred values.

 

In my view, in the weeks ahead greater attention must be given to the latter - the political, ideological, and cultural forces that have been instrumentalized through the regime’s soft structures, actors, and proxies, both locally and internationally. These networks have enabled the circulation and dissemination of the regime’s propaganda.

 

Crises such as the one Iranians are currently facing present a unique opportunity to dismantle such problematic institutions. At the same time, the success of such processes largely depends on how well the transition is managed.

 

Social systems typically respond to external pressures through self-organization. However, the effectiveness of such responses depends both on the system’s openness to transform and on how intentionally unsustainable institutions are challenged. That said, intentional conflicts carries considerable risks and must therefore be approached with great care.

 

To preserve continuity and maintain Iran as a unified nation, it is essential to protect critical resources, including the production of knowledge, social networks, and the ability of key actors to mobilize. After the conflict, once an institutional void emerges, these elements may play a crucial role in shaping the success of Iran’s struggle for political change.

 

References

M. Nedaei (2024), Framing of Conflicts, Designing for Systems
D.J., Abson,. J,Fischer,. J, Leventon, et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation (2017). Ambio 46, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y