If LinkedIn is anything to go by, system change is all the rage. Fair enough given the need to change the system. But it isn’t always clear which system needs changing. Is it the global economic system, or perhaps a domestic plumbing system? There is clearly a need to change how the water collection, purification, delivery and waste system works. Though given how much water we used to use and how much we now use,  the root problem may be how much we now use.. But if we are worrying about that, it’s probably not so much how much we use at home, though that is part of the problem. It is also how much water is used to make all the things in our homes. So many possible systems and then lots of possible changes in any one of them. But is the water system the fundamental problem or is it the economic system?

So when we talk about system change, we need to be clear which system we should be changing? This may seem obvious to each of us, but  one person’s system change is another person’s moving the deck chairs around. And, even if we agree about the system we are changing, one person’s approach to changing that system means they think another person’s approach is also moving the deck chairs around but now under a sign saying ‘system change here’. Then there is the problem that people criticise your approach saying it is too radical, that we need to go step by step, but you think their step by step is going up completely the wrong hill. And whichever direction you are going, existing systems are very resilient to change. And things take longer than you think and the longer you take about changing it, the more time it will have to adapt and mysteriously leave nothing changed. Changing the global economic system is going to be difficult, it is very resilient to change, and it has proved very effective at taking the language of change and repackaging it. In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the ‘representatives’ of the animals, the pigs, end up looking exactly like the farmers.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig... but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

At least we agree that something has got to change. And that we need to move fast, but not too fast - given history’s list of successful revolutions, this means change but without society breaking down in conflict, but before society breaks down in conflict because we have done nothing to stop it. And if we can agree that system change is necessary, people want to know what the new system will look like. And this is tricky -  you might know what has  to change, but you can’t know what will happen afterwards. Or if you do, it won’t be system change it will be system tweak.  So there is a risk we end up talking about the right system but only changing things we can predict.

System change is power change

This might seem a bit harsh. But if the fundamental problem is a very rich world which is being destroyed, in which the majority of the population live on very low incomes with very little security in an atmosphere of violence, whether domestic, institutional or war – then we can try and find the root cause and change it. That would surely be the imbalance of power. Which means decisions are being made by a few, to benefit that few, without those affected getting a look in.

If we change this system then power would be more equitably shared, and there is just no saying what people will do when they have more power. But should stop saying system change and start saying power change. If that’s inconvenient or uncomfortable at least ask yourself who is going to have more power after your system change has been successful. And for most of us involved in these discussions, not all, but most, how much less power will we have. Will we be able to make the same choices we make now.

There is a great, incomplete but still great for the point it makes, sustainable development index that maps countries on a mix of Human Development Index indicators, carbon use and material footprint. Scandinavian countries do not come out on top. Countries like Costa Rica, Uruguay and Sri Lanka do. Countries that have a high life expectancy, good education systems, a reasonable standard of living income (based on GNI per capita) between $10,000 and $25000. Which would mean that a sustainable future will have feedback loops that stop runaway inequality.

We can point at the 1% that owns 50% of the wealth, but the next 10% of people own 50% of the remaining 50%, leaving 25% of the wealth for the remaining 89% of people, and so on and on. Changing the system that ends up with these extremes is going to be hard. Those with power will resist, in many ways. At one extreme they will fight. After all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This corruption means that decisions are made that benefit those with power, but where the disbenefits to others can be ignored, or hidden. Those with power extract value, not directly perhaps, but if you live in a system which has permitted value to be extracted, or stolen, from others, it is easy to find excuses for not changing quite yet, or not too fast or not in any systemic way. Any of us with a pension depend on decisions being made that will maintain our payments, decisions that come with ‘externalities’ , which is an excellent example of how those with power create language that hides reality.  Externalities, sustainability issues, negative impacts are all words used to hide harm being done to, or value being extracted from, others. And so we create ‘others’ in order to legitimate the result.

We are all  conflicted in conflict. And there will be many other ways to resist changing this, heading up the wrong hill, or the right hill but too slowly, developing approaches to systemic change that are simply neither systemic nor change. Or make it increasingly complex, confusing the debate, misdirecting efforts, competing for resources. Dealing with all these challenges and fighting for  power change means getting out of our comfort zones, doing things that are uncomfortable, perhaps even scary.   

Power Change in Practice: The reality of shifting power

The idea that system change is really about power feels right. But from experience, power does not shift simply because we name it.

Over the past eleven years the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency, in Aotearoa New Zealand, has been working on a commissioning model, Te Pou Matakana,  grounded in Māori concepts of whānau (family) wellbeing and collective responsibility. This is part of our ongoing attempt to move decision-making closer to whānau, to shift not just what services look like, but who gets to decide what matters. It sounds straightforward. It isn’t.

In practical terms, this has meant moving away from tightly specified service contracts toward commissioning for outcomes, creating space for providers and whānau to shape responses based on their own context. Funding has, at times, been applied more flexibly. Decisions have been made closer to communities. Relationships have carried more weight than compliance. These shifts do matter. You can see the difference in how support is experienced, less transactional, more responsive, more grounded in the realities of whānau lives. In some cases, this has meant whānau determining the mix of support they need, rather than fitting into predefined service categories.

But at the same time, the wider system does not stand still. Public Accountability Frameworks still require standardisation. Funding cycles still reinforce short-term horizons. Measures of success are often set at a distance from the communities they are intended to serve. Each of these pulls decision-making back toward the centre, even where there has been a deliberate effort to move it outward.

What we have seen is that the language of change travels faster than the change itself. Terms such as “whānau-centred”, “outcomes-focused”, or “wellbeing” are readily adopted but do not automatically come with a redistribution of authority. And so the system adapts. It takes in new language, reshapes it, and often continues to operate in familiar ways beneath it. Which means that shifting power is not a single reform or design choice. It is a continuous process, creating space for different decisions to be made, and then holding that space open against the system’s tendency to close it again.

At times, that space holds. At other times, it narrows. Those working within the system are often doing two things at once, enabling change while still operating within the very structures they are trying to shift. That tension is not a flaw in the model; it is a reflection of how deeply embedded existing systems of power are. Scaling this beyond a single commissioning model raises further challenges. At a national level, shifting power requires changes not just in programme design, but in how governments make decisions, allocate resources, and define accountability. Political cycles favour visibility and short-term results, while genuine power shifts often require longer timeframes and a tolerance for uncertainty.  

It also raises harder questions about where authority sits, between central government, communities and those delivering services and how much control institutions are willing to release. Without changes at this level, efforts to redistribute power locally will continue to operate within constraints set from the centre. The result is often progress at the edges, rather than transformation at scale. These dynamics are also shaped by changes in institutional arrangements over time. Structures can be reconfigured, responsibilities reassigned, and approaches reframed, sometimes retaining the language of previous models while altering how decisions are actually made in practice. This further reinforces how difficult it is to embed lasting shifts in power, particularly where authority ultimately remains contingent on central settings.

Which raises a harder question: not just whether power can shift, but what conditions are required,  politically and structurally for that shift to endure at scale.

In summary

Despite these challenges, the idea of system change becomes quite simple. It means:

• Those without power will have more
• Those with power will have less - and they will probably resist change
• You cannot predict what those currently with no or much less power will do with that power if they get it
• It will be a hard struggle, there will be temptations to head off down different paths, to make compromises, success is uncertain
• If we are in a group seeking change that does not have power, we may be taking risks but live with risk anyway. If we are part of the group seeking the same change but that has power, we will be taking risks when we don’t need to. We can be allies, but there is a risk that we become apologists.
  

Ultimately, system change is less about redesigning structures than redistributing power. Until those most affected by decisions hold genuine authority over them, systems may continue to absorb the language of change while preserving many of the underlying realities of control.


Awerangi Tamihere (MNZM) is internationally recognised for her pioneering leadership in building wellbeing economies and embedding social value into investment and service delivery. In Aotearoa, she has been instrumental in designing and advancing Whānau Ora, an Indigenous model that places whānau at the centre of creating their own pathways to wellbeing. Over the past decade, she has led more than 100 Indigenous service providers to work as a collective network, measuring impact and demonstrating how investment in outcomes creates lasting social and environmental value. Her work continues to shape innovative impact investment strategies in New Zealand and globally.

Jeremy Nicholls is the Chief Executive of Social Value UK and Social Value International, leading the development of global principles and standards for accounting for social and environmental value. A chartered accountant by training, Jeremy has worked across Africa, Central America, and the United Kingdom in finance, economic development, and social enterprise. He has held advisory roles with organisations including IRIS, the Social Stock Exchange, and the European Commission, and has lectured at institutions such as University of Oxford. He is widely regarded as one of the foremost global leaders in social impact measurement and Social Return on Investment (SROI).