Systemic change and leadership
~5 min read
Core Primitive
The leader's role in systemic change is to set direction, remove obstacles, and maintain commitment.
Leaders do not change systems through personal effort — they change systems by creating the conditions under which systems can be changed by the people who operate them. The systemic leader is an architect, not a builder: they design the change, assemble the coalition, provide the resources, and clear the path — but the actual change is implemented by the people closest to the system. This requires a different kind of leadership than the heroic model — patience rather than urgency, enabling rather than directing, and sustained commitment rather than dramatic intervention.
The leader as architect
The dominant model of change leadership is heroic: the visionary leader who personally drives transformation through charisma, determination, and relentless personal attention. This model is compelling — it makes for great narratives — but it is structurally unsound. Heroic leadership does not produce systemic change. It produces leader-dependent change that persists exactly as long as the hero persists.
Ronald Heifetz distinguished between "technical problems" (problems with known solutions that can be implemented by authorities) and "adaptive challenges" (problems that require learning and behavioral change by the people facing them). Systemic change is almost always an adaptive challenge — it requires the people who operate the system to learn new ways of working, develop new skills, and adopt new mental models. The leader cannot do this learning for them. The leader can only create the conditions under which the learning can occur (Heifetz, 1994).
The systemic leader is an architect, not a builder. An architect does not lay bricks — they design the building and create the conditions (plans, resources, coordination) under which builders can lay bricks effectively. A systemic leader does not change the system — they design the change and create the conditions (direction, obstacle removal, resources, commitment) under which the people who operate the system can change it effectively.
The three leadership functions
Systemic change leadership operates through three functions, each essential and each requiring different leadership skills.
Setting direction
Direction is the leader's answer to the question "Change to what?" Without clear direction, change efforts disperse — different parts of the organization move in different directions, producing fragmentation rather than transformation.
Effective direction is specific enough to guide behavior but flexible enough to accommodate learning. "We will become a customer-centric organization" is too vague — it does not tell anyone what to do differently tomorrow. "We will reorganize into product teams by Q3" is too specific — it prescribes the solution before the problem is fully understood. "Every team will have direct visibility into how their work affects customer outcomes, and we will redesign our systems to enable this visibility" is directional — it specifies the outcome without prescribing the method, creating space for the people closest to the system to design the specific changes.
James Collins and Jerry Porras distinguished between "core ideology" (what never changes) and "envisioned future" (what the organization is building toward). Effective change direction connects to both: the change serves the core ideology (this is who we are) by building toward the envisioned future (this is where we are going). Direction that contradicts core ideology triggers identity resistance (The system resists change). Direction that does not connect to an envisioned future fails to inspire the sustained effort that systemic change requires (Collins & Porras, 1994).
Removing obstacles
Obstacle removal is the leader's highest-leverage contribution to systemic change — because many obstacles can only be removed by someone with organizational authority.
Structural obstacles — policies, approval requirements, resource allocations, reporting lines — that prevent the system change. The leader can change policies, redirect resources, and restructure authorities that lower-level change agents cannot.
Political obstacles — powerful stakeholders who resist the change because it threatens their interests. The leader can negotiate with, reassign, or overrule resisters whose political power blocks the change at lower levels.
Resource obstacles — insufficient budget, time, or talent for the change effort. The leader can allocate dedicated resources, protect the change team from competing demands, and invest in the capabilities the change requires.
Attention obstacles — competing priorities that consume the organizational attention the change requires. The leader can elevate the change on the organizational agenda, defer competing initiatives, and create protected space for the change effort.
The obstacle removal function requires the leader to understand the change at the operational level — not just the strategic vision but the specific barriers that prevent the vision from becoming reality. This understanding requires direct engagement with the people doing the change work: listening, asking, observing, and acting on what they report.
Maintaining commitment
Systemic change takes years, not months. During those years, organizational attention naturally shifts — new crises emerge, new opportunities appear, new leaders arrive. The leader's commitment is the anchor that holds the change in place while the organizational currents shift around it.
Maintaining commitment is the most difficult leadership function because it requires sustained attention to something that is not new, not urgent, and not exciting. The change initiative was exciting when it launched. Two years in, it is ongoing — producing incremental improvements that are less visible than the next new initiative. The leader who shifts attention to the next shiny thing signals to the organization that the change is no longer a priority — and the organization responds by reallocating its own attention.
Sustained commitment is demonstrated through four leadership behaviors. Continued inquiry — the leader continues to ask about the change, review its progress, and engage with its challenges. Continued investment — the leader continues to allocate resources, time, and attention to the change. Continued advocacy — the leader continues to reference the change in communications, connect it to organizational priorities, and celebrate its milestones. Continued accountability — the leader continues to hold themselves and others accountable for the change's progress, not just its launch.
The paradox of systemic leadership
Effective systemic leadership is paradoxical: the leader's success is measured by the system's ability to function without the leader's intervention. The leader who must personally intervene to sustain the change has not achieved systemic change — they have achieved leader-dependent change.
The paradox resolves through the distinction between building and operating. The leader's role is to build the system change — to set the direction, remove the obstacles, assemble the coalition, and maintain the commitment. Once the change is built and embedded (Sustaining systemic change), the system operates it — the structures, incentives, feedback loops, and cultural infrastructure sustain the changed behavior without the leader's intervention. The leader is then free to turn attention to the next adaptive challenge — the next evolution that the organization's environment requires.
This is the connection to Culture as executable infrastructure means it runs the organization (culture as executable infrastructure): the systemic leader builds executable infrastructure. Once built, the infrastructure runs the organization. The leader's role shifts from building to maintaining and evolving — the continuous, low-intensity work of sensing environmental changes, anticipating future challenges, and guiding gradual system evolution.
The Third Brain
Your AI system can serve as a leadership reflection tool for systemic change. Describe the change you are leading and ask: "Assess my leadership approach across the three functions: direction (is my direction clear, specific enough to guide, and flexible enough to accommodate learning?), obstacle removal (what are the structural, political, resource, and attention obstacles that I should be addressing?), and commitment (what signals of sustained commitment am I sending, and what signals of waning attention might the organization be reading?). What is the single most important leadership action I should take this week to advance this systemic change?"
From leadership to evolution
Systemic change is not a one-time event — it is the ongoing practice through which organizations adapt to their changing environments. The next and final lesson of this phase, Systemic change is how organizations evolve, integrates the entire systemic change framework into the capstone insight: systemic change is how organizations evolve.
Sources:
- Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Harvard University Press.
- Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. HarperBusiness.
Put it into practice
Exercise
Assess your own leadership approach to systemic change using three questions: (1) Am I setting clear direction — have I articulated what the changed system looks like, why it matters, and how it differs from the current state? Direction is not a mandate; it is a vision that helps people understand what they are building toward. (2) Am I removing obstacles — have I identified the structural barriers (incentives, policies, resources, authorities) that prevent the people closest to the system from changing it? Obstacle removal is the leader's highest-value contribution because many obstacles can only be removed by someone with organizational authority. (3) Am I maintaining commitment — am I still actively supporting this change, or has my attention moved to the next initiative? Sustained commitment is the scarcest leadership resource because organizational attention naturally shifts to what is new and urgent. For each question, identify one specific action you can take this week.
More on putting it into practice
See it in action
A hospital network CEO, Dr. Amara Chen, wanted to transform the network's approach to patient care from episodic (treating illness events) to continuous (managing patient health over time). Previous CEOs had tried to mandate this transformation through top-down directives, new metrics, and reorganization — all of which failed because the systems that produced episodic care (billing, scheduling, provider incentives, patient expectations) remained unchanged. Dr. Chen took a different approach. She set direction by articulating a clear vision: 'Every patient has a health relationship, not just a series of health transactions.' She removed obstacles by renegotiating insurance contracts to include value-based care provisions (eliminating the financial penalty for spending more time with patients), investing in population health analytics (providing the information infrastructure for continuous care), and creating protected time for care teams to develop continuous care protocols (eliminating the workload barrier). She maintained commitment through quarterly reviews that tracked the transition, public celebration of teams that piloted continuous care models, and personal visits to pilot sites where she listened to frontline staff about what was working and what was not. The transformation took four years — but it was structural, not cosmetic. The system itself now produces continuous care as a default, not an exception.
Watch for the failure mode
Heroic leadership — the leader who personally drives every aspect of the change through force of will, personal attention, and direct intervention. Heroic leadership produces change that depends entirely on the leader: when the leader's attention shifts, the change stalls; when the leader departs, the change reverts. The antidote is systemic leadership — building the conditions, structures, and coalitions that sustain the change independently of any single individual. The irony of effective change leadership is that the leader becomes less visible as the change succeeds, because the system is doing the work rather than the leader.
Make it stick
This lesson connects the technical framework of systemic change (Systems create outcomes not individuals through Sustaining systemic change) to the human leadership required to implement it. Systems do not change themselves — they are changed by people. And the people who change systems need leadership: direction to know what to change, obstacle removal to enable the change, and sustained commitment to sustain the change through the inevitable resistance and setbacks. The connection to What leaders tolerate defines culture more than what they praise (what leaders tolerate defines culture) is foundational: leaders define culture through their behavior, and they define systemic change through their commitment. The connection to Systemic change and leadership and the broader leadership literature is clear: systemic change is the ultimate test of leadership because it requires all three leadership functions (direction, enablement, commitment) sustained over years, not months. Look forward to Systemic change is how organizations evolve, the phase capstone, which integrates the entire systemic change framework into the insight that systemic change is how organizations evolve.
Practice
Map Your Leadership System Change Role in Miro
Create a visual systems map in Miro that diagrams your current leadership approach to a specific systemic change initiative, identifying where you're setting direction, removing obstacles, and maintaining commitment—then mark specific improvement actions.
- 1Open Miro and create a new board titled 'Leadership System Change Assessment.' Create three large horizontal swim lanes labeled 'Setting Direction,' 'Removing Obstacles,' and 'Maintaining Commitment' using Miro's rectangle shapes and text tools.
- 2In the 'Setting Direction' lane, use Miro sticky notes to write down the current change initiative you're leading, then create connected cards showing: (1) your articulated vision, (2) why it matters, and (3) how it differs from current state. Use Miro's connector arrows to link these elements, then add a red star sticker where gaps exist.
- 3In the 'Removing Obstacles' lane, use Miro's mind map feature to identify all structural barriers (incentives, policies, resources, authorities) that prevent frontline people from implementing change. Circle the barriers in red that only you, as a leader with organizational authority, can remove, then use a green sticky note to mark one specific obstacle you'll address this week.
- 4In the 'Maintaining Commitment' lane, create a timeline in Miro using horizontal connector lines showing when this initiative started, key milestones, and where your attention has been over time. Add emoji reactions or color coding to indicate where your commitment has been strong (green) versus where it has wavered (yellow/red), then place a flag icon on today's date with one specific commitment action for this week.
- 5Step back and review your complete Miro board, using Miro's comment feature to note patterns—are you acting as architect or builder? Add a final text box at the top summarizing your shift from heroic to systemic leadership, listing the three specific weekly actions you identified for direction, obstacles, and commitment.