April 8, 2025 • 35 mins
Join us as we discuss the world of systems thinking with Beth Sawin author of "Multisolving: Creating Systems Change in a Fractured World." Far from being an abstract academic concept, multisolving offers a practical framework that reveals how seemingly separate challenges—from climate change to public health to economic development—can be addressed simultaneously with thoughtfully designed interventions.
Beth takes complex systems theories and makes them accessible through everyday examples. She explains how filling a bathtub helps us understand housing shortages, and how our body's response to thirst demonstrates the power of balancing feedback loops. These relatable analogies unlock a powerful way of seeing the world that planners, community leaders, and change-makers can immediately apply to their work.
Whether you're a seasoned systems thinker or completely new to these concepts, this episode will transform how you approach complex problems and help you discover multisolving opportunities hiding in plain sight.
Show Notes:
- To help support the show, pick up a copy of the book through our Amazon Affiliates page at https://amzn.to/4i0SwIV or even better, get a copy through your local bookstore!
- Further Reading:
- Learn more at The Multisolving Institute where Beth works
- To view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com/
Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanning
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanning
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stephanie Rouse (00:00):
This episode is brought to you by Marvin
Planning Consultants.
Marvin Planning Consultants,established in 2009, is
committed to their clients andprofessional organizations.
Their team of planners hasserved on chapter division and
national committees, includingas the Nebraska Chapter
President.
In addition, they are committedto supporting their chapter in
various APA divisions.
You're listening to the Bookedon Planning podcast, a project
(00:32):
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode, we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Welcome back, bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
(00:55):
Planning.
In this episode, we talk withBeth Sawin about her book
Multisolving Creating SystemsChange in a Fractured World.
One big takeaway for listenersis that we are all working with
systems and they impact ourdaily lives.
Most of us just probablyhaven't stopped to think about
them or how we could beinfluencing them.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:12):
I can certainly say that I hadn't heard of
systems thinking and never gaveit a thought, that the majority
of my day was filled up withmulti-solving.
But now that I'm more aware,I've been seeing systems
thinking and their balancingmechanisms everywhere.
Stephanie Rouse (01:24):
The book is written in a new way from most
systems thinking approaches,which tend to be diagram heavy.
Here Beth is trying to open thelanguage up to a new audience
by using examples of systemsfrom our everyday lives like
filling or draining a bathtub,or how we drink water to
rehydrate after we work hard andget thirsty.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:43):
I really appreciated Beth noting that the
entire body is made up of abunch of systems which of course
we learn about in middle school, but I really haven't thought
about since middle school.
But it really helpedconceptualize what she was
talking about.
So let's get into ourconversation with author Beth
Sawin about her bookMultisolving Creating Systems
Change in a Fractured World.
Stephanie Rouse (02:03):
Beth, welcome to the Booked On Planning
podcast.
We're happy to have you on totalk about your book
Multisolving creating systemschange in a fractured world.
Yeah, thanks so much for havingme.
So, to kick things off, can yougive us an overview of the
concept of stocks and howunderstanding them supports a
multisolving approach to work?
Beth Sawin (02:23):
Yeah, and maybe we should even give at least a one
sentence nod to whatmulti-solving is, because that
will help stocks make more sense.
So multi-solving is the idea ofany kind of project or
investment or policy thatcreates multiple benefits or
meets multiple needs for thatone investment.
And I opened the book bytalking about stocks because
(02:45):
they you're right, they are apart of multi-solving.
So stocks is a term that comesfrom systems thinking and it
describes all the places in theworld where things accumulate
for a short time or a long time.
So water in a lake is a stock,kids in a school is a stock,
bushels of corn in a grainelevator is a stock.
So when you look in a grainelevator is a stock.
So when you look around theworld and you see these places
(03:08):
of accumulation, you're lookingat stocks, and stocks matter
because they're often the mostvisible parts of systems.
Although not all stocks areconcrete like those examples.
You can also have stocks oftrust, stocks of knowledge,
stocks of well-being, so theycan be kind of qualitative
things as well as real,measurable, countable things.
(03:31):
And all the dynamics in systemsinfluence stocks, make them go
up or make them go down, andwhen critical stocks change
their levels.
That can create change insystems and sometimes make them
work better.
If the stock is food availablefor the school lunch program and
that increases, that could be agood thing.
If the stock is number ofpeople with a new virus
(03:54):
circulating in a community, thenthat stock is a dangerous thing
.
So stocks aren't good or bad,but noticing them sometimes
gives us opportunities tointervene in systems, including
finding these ways to createmultiple benefits from the
interventions that we do.
Jennifer Hiatt (04:10):
Long live stocks can create stagnation if
they're not encouraged to turnover.
Folks in Nebraska, where we are, would be familiar with corn
and elevators catching on fireif they sit in there for too
long.
So what are some of the waysthat we can create that turnover
and how would that help oursystem work better?
Beth Sawin (04:27):
Yeah, well and again .
Sometimes, of course, you mightwant a stock to be long lived.
If the stock is carbon thatwe've sequestered to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, thehope is, or greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere, the hope is that that stock
would be long lived.
But other times stocks can, asyou say, create stagnation if
(04:49):
they become sort of too steady,and so I'm thinking of an
example of that might be thestock of people in power in a
government, and if that stock isthe same decision makers for
decades, then the system mightbe robbed of creativity and new
ideas.
And so turnover in a stock ofelected officials.
(05:09):
In a democracy, that turnoverwould be the result of elections
, and that's why in some cases,you know, voting rights and
civil rights are so importantbecause that's a regulation,
regulatory point in a system tochange some of those stocks if
they're not serving all thepeople in the system.
Other stocks that we might wishwould turn over could be stocks
(05:32):
of polluting capital, likeautomobiles with low fuel
efficiency.
If we're trying to improve thefuel efficiency of the entire
fleet but there's inefficientgas guzzlers that are just
hanging on for years or decades,then that makes the stock as a
whole less efficient than thegoals of the people in the
system might be.
(05:52):
So there governments caninstitute policies.
One that's pretty famous iscash for clunkers.
Right, it's a way to take aninvestment and get those
vehicles off the road and allowthe stock to get replenished
with new or more efficientvehicles.
Stephanie Rouse (06:07):
So another important concept that goes
along with stocks is flowsprocesses that move, that are
measured in units of stuff perunit of time.
Can you explain what the threelaws of flows are and where you
developed those or where youcame up with those concepts?
Beth Sawin (06:21):
Yeah, stocks don't make very much sense without
flows.
So flows are, as you said, themovement of material between
stocks.
And so, if we stick with theautomobile fleet, there's a
stock of newly manufacturedvehicles and those would move
into a stock called vehicles onthe road when they're purchased
(06:41):
and put into use, and then theywould leave the vehicles on the
road program at the end of theirlifetime or with accelerated
retirement, like with cash forclunkers.
So an inflow is anything thatfills a stock.
So in that example, the inflowwould be purchasing cars and the
outflow is anything that drainsa stock, so in that case the
outflow would be retiringvehicles at the end of their
(07:03):
life.
One of the easiest ways to thinkabout stocks and flows is to
think about a really familiarone that we all have a lot of
experience with, and so lots ofpeople who teach systems
thinking use the example of abathtub.
So a bathtub is a stock ofwater.
The inflow is the faucet thatyou open to fill the tub and the
outflow is the drain thatempties water from the tub.
(07:24):
And the three laws of stocksthat you mentioned.
If you ever need to rememberthem, all you have to do is
think about a bathtub.
So the first rule of stocks isthat if the inflow is higher or
faster than the outflow, theneventually the stock will
overflow or the stock will rise,right?
So if you're adding a gallon aminute and you're only removing
(07:45):
half a gallon per minute, thewater in the tub will rise and
rise.
If, on the other hand, theinflow is smaller than the
outflow, then over time thestock will drain.
So if you're dribbling in waterbut draining it out really fast
, then the level in the bathtubwill go down.
And that points to the thirdrule of flows, which is there's
only one way to keep the levelconstant, and that's to have the
(08:08):
inflow and the outflow be equal.
And for all of these, it'simportant to say that some
stocks have more than one inflowor more than one outflow, and
so to apply this rule of stocksand flows, you need to take the
sum of all the inflows and makethat equal to the sum of all the
outflows if you want the levelto stay the same.
And all this matters becausethe only way to change the level
(08:31):
of a stock is to change flows.
So if there's a stock that'sproblematic for a system, either
too low, you know, not enoughnative pollinators or too high,
too much of a certain pollutant.
You have to think about theinflows and the outflows to
change the level of a stock.
Stephanie Rouse (08:47):
And then, when thinking about changes in
systems, there's two types offeedback loops that you discuss
in the book balancing andreinforcing and different types
of systems have one or the other, or you want to influence one
or the other.
What's the difference betweenthem, and can a system have both
a balancing and reinforcingfeedback loop?
Beth Sawin (09:06):
So part of what makes systems so interesting and
so complex and honestly so ableto serve us is that there is
more going on than just stocksand flows, and that's this idea
of feedbacks.
So feedback loops are wheneverthe level in a stock feeds back
in some way to change its ownlevel.
And a great example of thatthat we're all familiar with is
(09:29):
to think about if you have asavings account.
So the level of the stock atany time is your savings, but
your bank is probably going topay you interest every month,
and the interest is an inflowthat will increase the stock,
you know, maybe by a few pennies, maybe by a lot, depending on
how big your savings balance is.
And here's why it's a feedbackloop the larger your savings,
(09:49):
the more interest you get, andso a change in your savings and
interest payment means nextmonth, if all else stays equal,
you're going to get an evenbigger interest payment.
So that's an example of areinforcing feedback loop where
change in one direction makingyour savings bigger leads to
even more change in that samedirection.
And there's lots of things inthe world that move that way.
(10:11):
If you have a population oforganisms in an ecosystem and
they don't have predators.
You know, picture the morerabbits you have, the more baby
rabbits you have, the morerabbits you have.
All of these reinforcingfeedback loops give a behavior
on a graph that is calledexponential growth.
So it looks like small changethat feeds upon itself.
So that's one type of feedbackand what it tends to do is drive
(10:34):
systems into sort of newterrain either explosive growth
or sometimes explosive declineor rapid decline.
And of course, if that were theonly force in systems then we
would be always in theseextremes, because reinforcing
feedback drives toward extremes.
So, luckily, systems alwaystend to have a second kind of
(10:55):
feedback loop that moderateschange, that balances it.
So that's called the balancingfeedback loop.
Our bodies, if we think abouthomeostasis, all of those
processes are balancing feedbackloops.
So, for instance, I go joggingand I sweat a lot, then the
hydration level of my body goesdown and I detect that as the
(11:18):
sense of thirst and I go andhave a nice glass of cold water.
My hydration level will go up.
So that's a case where changein one direction getting
dehydrated leads to change inthe opposite direction getting
rehydrated and we hold our bloodsugar constant, we keep our
temperature constant by allthose kinds of processes and, in
communities, similar things.
(11:38):
We have goals for, maybe howour community looks like a
certain amount of trash on thestreets and beyond that, people
feel like this isn't right andthey organize.
I tell them they call it greenup day on the first day of May.
So that's a balancing feedbackloop that sees a change in one
direction more and more trashand organizes a response for a
(11:59):
change in the opposite directioncleaning it up.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:01):
So this was actually the first time probably
, unfortunately, but that I'dreally thought about multi
solving and so, if any of ourlisteners are really kind of
nervous about getting into alarger systems thinking, your
book has so many examples likethis and you break it down so
well and I really appreciatedthat aspect and I loved the
poems at the start of each ofyour chapters because it really
got you to start thinking aboutthat system, even though you
(12:23):
weren't even realizing that youwere thinking about systems.
So really appreciate that,thank you.
Beth Sawin (12:28):
Yeah, yeah, thanks for saying that it was a little
bit of an experiment and thebook is an experiment in one
other way to lots of books thatare emphasizing systems thinking
, are pretty heavy on diagramsand charts, which I happen to
love.
My brain works that way.
But for teaching systemsthinking for many years, one
thing I noticed was about onethird of people kind of light up
(12:48):
at those graphs and charts andit really makes sense to them,
and two thirds not so much.
It just doesn't communicate.
So my book is a bit of anexperiment to talk about systems
by telling stories about themlike we've been doing right,
Like cars on the road or whathappens when you're thirsty,
like we've been doing right,Like cars on the road or what
happens when you're thirsty,because we all know a lot more
about systems than we think.
We may not know that the formallanguage for it, but we are
(13:11):
systems made of systems,participating in systems.
So we have a lot of intuitionabout systems and I really
encourage people to tap that andbe their own authority, if that
makes sense.
Stephanie Rouse (13:22):
Yeah, and another thing I appreciated
about the book.
So there were all these greatexamples, and especially when
you applied it to like the humanbody, I think is a great
example of a system and how itreally works.
But then you challenge thereader at the end of every
chapter with the reflections totry and apply what you've just
learned into your own daily lifeand your own daily work.
Because that next step, I thinkcan be a little challenging and
(13:48):
it was for me a little bit,going through all the
reflections of trying to takewhat you had talked about in
that chapter and then takesomething in my daily work and
apply the systems, thinking themulti solving approach, and
think of how can I betterinfluence the work that I'm
doing or the systems that I dealwith day in and day out, which
is housing and issues withhomelessness, and how can I make
an impact using this approach.
So I thought that was helpful.
Beth Sawin (14:06):
Yeah, no, I'm glad.
I'm glad.
The world is obviously really,really complicated and can get
really overwhelming.
And one thing about systemsthat I think is helpful is that
once you start to see them, yousee certain patterns and you can
often extrapolate from a systemyou're familiar with and
realize, oh, that's the samebehavior, right.
(14:30):
And so we talked about thebathtub.
If you're working onhomelessness and housing, like
there's a bathtub of housingstock in your system, in your
city, If you're going to thinkabout the bathtub, well, the
only way to really change thatis either to increase the rate
at which housing is built orslow down the rate at which
housing is decommissioned, youknow, maybe by retrofitting and
repairing.
And so then you can talk withyour team and your stakeholders
(14:50):
and investors like, yeah, theseare our two strategies.
Do we want both?
Which one's most important inour case?
But you know all about thatbecause you know about bathtubs.
Jennifer Hiatt (15:00):
Great way to think about it, and you
mentioned when it comes toreinforcing feedback loops.
The wait and see method isalmost always the wrong thing to
do, so can you explain why thatis?
Beth Sawin (15:10):
Yeah, so remember the reinforcing feedback loop.
That's the one where changefeeds upon itself.
I live in in Vermont, so wealways are thinking about snow
and snowballs here, right?
So if you've ever done this andyou're at the top of a hill and
you make a little tiny snowballand you just give it a push,
each time it rolls down the hillit gathers more and more snow
to itself, right?
(15:30):
That's the kind of change we'retalking about.
Or a forest fire, where there'sa tiny spark and then it grows
out of control as more and morematerial gets brought into the
fire.
Or you have a small infectionand you put off going to the
doctor.
That's a virus doingreinforcing feedback, right,
more and more of your cells areinfected.
So in the everyday exampleswe're pretty familiar with the
(15:54):
idea that it's important tointerrupt these processes
quickly.
You know like your parent takesyou to the doctor when you
start to be sick, and that'sgoing to be likely a better
outcome.
Where it's harder, I think, forpeople to apply that same logic
is on some of our morecomplicated systems that are
bigger than our personal lives,and all of us can look back with
(16:15):
pretty direct experience.
Now to the early days of theCOVID-19 pandemic.
I was really struck early Marchso March 2020, by a public
health official who was sayingyou know, it looks like our
response is extreme right now,like we're this is early days
and like we're really buildingawareness.
We're investing so much moneyand that's because there was, at
(16:36):
that time, the potential toblock or reinforcing feedback
loop before it got full steam.
We now know, you know, thevirus got out of that any kind
of containment.
It did affect the whole world,but that feeling of like, why
are they responding so strongly?
It's just a few people who aresick.
That's the idea of getting outahead of a reinforcing feedback
loop.
Jennifer Hiatt (16:56):
Actually, on my Facebook it just popped up five
years ago, yesterday.
Yeah, I shared a little postthat was, like you know, two
weeks to crush the curve, orwhatever.
The saying was Wow.
Five years ago Exactly, and so,as I was reading about the
balancing of feedback loops, Ikept thinking about goals and
conflict.
(17:16):
So many what I would say areprogressive goals seem to be in
direct conflict with the statusquo.
So how do we go about combatingsystems that are, in fact,
actually keeping you from beingable to reduce that gap in your
goal?
Beth Sawin (17:29):
Yeah.
So the goals of systems arereally important and they are
often sources of conflict orcontention.
So we were talking about theexample of litter on a street in
a community.
So there's a goal.
It may not be explicit, no onehas probably written.
You know, two beer cans areokay and 15 is too many, but the
sense of the community as awhole probably has some level.
(17:51):
That's kind of acceptable andin that case systems operate
pretty well, the goal isn'treally being argued about and
the feedback loops can keepthings steady around the goal.
But in other cases there reallyare different visions for what
the goal should be.
One, honestly, is the amount ofcarbon pollution in the
atmosphere right?
Climate advocates are like itshouldn't be higher than 350
(18:15):
parts per million, but you know,of course, we're already well
above 400.
On the other hand, theproponents of the fossil fuel
industry are like, oh, that goalis way too stringent, like that
would be terrible for theeconomy, and they may not name a
number, but they're saying youknow there's a different goal
and all the policies flow out of, to some extent, what that goal
(18:35):
is.
And so in the case of climatechange, we have mass movements,
we have education, we havepeople building coalitions.
All of those things are ways totry to build the power, to set
a goal of a system where peoplethink it should be.
Where multi-solving comes in isthat often we find ourselves
really wanting a goal that wecan't seem to accomplish because
(18:57):
of power somewhere else in asystem, in this case, Bill
McKibben says the fossil fuelindustry is the wealthiest
industry in the history ofhumanity.
So you know those of us worryingabout our children's climate
future we're up against realpower.
The thing about multisolving isthat there may be other
interests in addition to climatethat would also benefit from
(19:18):
some of the same policies, andone really important one is
health, because if the worldwere burning less fossil fuels,
there'd be less air pollution,and with less air pollution
there'd be less illnesses likeasthma, respiratory illnesses,
cardiovascular disease.
So people who manage healthsystems, you know, actually
would be rooting for a similargoal of low CO2 emissions.
(19:41):
Parents of kids who are proneto asthma would be in line for
those same goals.
But often we find ourselveskind of separated from one
another, maybe not understandingthat there's a certain policy
or an opportunity that wouldmeet multiple needs, and so it's
often that careful tending ofboth helping people see how
issues are connected and helpingthem come to know each other as
(20:03):
people and as collaboratorsthat can actually help shift
where the goal of a system endsup being.
Stephanie Rouse (20:09):
And we've talked a little bit already
about the range and size ofsystems.
There can be some smaller onesthat impact our daily lives, or
some larger ones that are alittle more challenging to kind
of wrap our minds around or tointerject solutions and make
change.
Can you give a few examples andtalk about how understanding
the system helps with amulti-solving approach?
Beth Sawin (20:30):
So one important idea that my teachers of systems
thinking really emphasize isthe idea of boundaries in
systems.
So the reality is, of course,everything is connected to
everything else.
You know it's one planet.
At the end of the day we're onehuman species.
But none of us could doanything in our day actually if
we had to consider every linkagebetween me and you, and me in
(20:53):
the atmosphere, and me in ariver, and it would be
paralyzing.
So what we do is createboundaries and we say, within
this boundary I'll pay attention, it will influence my decisions
, and beyond that boundary I'mgoing to not consider that very
much.
But it's really consequentialwhere we set those boundaries
and sometimes I believe they'retoo narrow, which leads to some
(21:16):
of the challenges we face.
So it can be narrow in space,like I'm going to really care
about my immediate family, butI'm not going to really take too
much responsibility for otherpeople in my city, and that can
work for a while.
But systems with too muchinequity or too poor of a social
safety net you know thosefeedback loops exist even though
(21:37):
we don't pay attention to them,right?
So maybe I'm going to send mychild to a school but the tax
base is so low because peopleare not caring about other
people's children.
Right, that would be an exampleof a feedback loop and probably
a system boundary that I'dargue is too narrow.
The other thing that happens isjust to make our organizations
work, we draw these boundariesand we say there's a public
(21:59):
health department and it'sseparate from the public works
department, which is separatefrom the transportation agency,
and maybe those departments allexist in different buildings.
People don't particularly knoweach other.
They probably studied slightlydifferent professional paths and
use slightly different language.
Each of their budgets iscalculated separately, and what
(22:20):
happens when you've drawnboundaries either too rigidly or
too narrowly is you miss a lotof the opportunities for
multi-solving, for instance,active transportation.
So people being able to getaround walking and cycling is a
great climate solution.
It reduces emissions fromtransportation, but more than
that, it's an amazing publichealth intervention.
(22:41):
It reduces chronic illnessbecause people get more safe
physical activity, and it's aneconomic intervention.
People who move through theirneighborhoods on foot or on bike
are more likely to wander intoa small local business and make
a purchase.
So when it comes time to say,can we invest in more active
transportation, ideally you'dhave health advocates and
(23:02):
economic development advocatesat the table and not treat that
just as a transportation policy.
But to do that you have toloosen some of those boundaries
or stretch across them in someway.
So a lot of multi-solving isabout challenging the boundaries
that have been drawn and askingif it might serve to expand
them or think of themdifferently.
Jennifer Hiatt (23:22):
How would you encourage people who are just
getting into systems thinking,that are overwhelmed by the
complexity and challenges of amulti-solving approach?
Beth Sawin (23:30):
One beautiful thing about multi-solving is that it
provides this opportunity foreveryone to do something, but no
one to do everything, and so Ireally encourage people to
choose the issue that mattersthe most to them or where they
have expertise, but then engagewith and actively look for the
(23:51):
people that that issue touches.
So we often talk in multisolving about bundling problems,
about asking how can thesolution to this problem that
keeps me awake at night be asolution to a problem that keeps
you awake at night, and sothat's, you know, the connection
between the Children's AsthmaCoalition and the river
advocates and the climateadvocates.
(24:11):
Things like greening a citywith more green roofs and more
vegetation would actually liftall of those goals.
And you don't have to have, youknow, a primary goal and
secondary goals.
You can say all of these canadvance together, but you can,
within that, continue youradvocacy for kids asthma.
You know if that's, if that'syour passion.
Really, the only change is thatyou're listening and connecting
(24:34):
with people sort of adjacentwho touched that same issue.
Stephanie Rouse (24:38):
You know, what I found interesting is like
reading through this book.
It was new to me.
Jennifer said at the beginningof the episode multiselfing was
new to her is new to me.
I think it's a concept thatplanners should be paying a lot
more attention to, because wekind of do it by default.
We tend to be generalists, weknow a little bit about
everything.
We try and make the connections.
We're looking at comprehensiveplans that have all these
elements and are tying themtogether, but it's not a concept
(25:00):
that's really part ofcurriculum or in our daily work.
We're like working in systemswithout realizing it and I think
there's so much more potentialfor more cognizant of the
systems and how they'reoperating and things like the
feedback loops and balancing andtrying to more intentionally
influence some of this.
Beth Sawin (25:20):
Yeah, it's pretty common for me to meet someone
who will say I've been multisolving my whole career but I
didn't know it was a thing or Ididn't know other people were
doing this.
We figured it out here by trialand error.
So we never at my organization,multi-solving Institute, feel
as though it's something weinvented.
I much more think we hold up amirror and show people what they
(25:43):
are accomplishing and offerpeople kind of a sense of being
part of a community who'slearning more every day about
how to operate in this way.
And of course it's very ancientIf you think of indigenous
societies or wisdom traditions.
The whole system perspective isvery prominent there.
And the other place we reallysee multisolving and I think
(26:04):
this isn't that surprising arein marginalized communities,
places where people don't havemuch resources and maybe haven't
for a long time and have to bereally creative about how to
make things happen.
And sometimes we also say themulti-slammed are the
multisolvers.
So marginalized communitiesoften are feeling the impact of
multiple parts of a system, likethey have air pollution and
(26:27):
also disinvestment and alsoflooding, and so it's not as
mysterious that all these thingsfit together because it's part
of daily experience.
Stephanie Rouse (26:35):
World views is another topic that you touch on
in the book, and there's twomain world views web of
relationships and collection ofobjects.
I feel like we were trendingtowards the former, but recently
have regressed towards thelatter, in the last month very
quickly.
What are ways that we cancontinue to push back and get to
a more equitable andsustainable worldview in the
(26:56):
current climate that we're nowfacing?
Beth Sawin (26:58):
So those two sets of words are phrases that I ended
up using in the book to describetwo things that I felt like
have been two forces really inopposition for centuries.
One of them, the web ofrelationships, starts with this
idea that we're allinterconnected and
interdependent, that mywell-being is tied up with your
well-being, that no one's freeuntil everyone's free.
(27:21):
And the other worldview I callthe collection of objects
worldview which I actuallyborrowed that phrase from Thomas
Berry that eco-theologian, andthat's more the idea that we're
more like billiard balls whokind of bounce off of each other
, that one of us can be safe atthe expense of another and that
might also mean that an economycan be thriving while the
(27:43):
ecosystem isn't.
That's sort of another featureof the collection of objects
worldview.
And I do agree with you thatfor most of my life it felt like
there was more and moredecisions being made from that
worldview of a web ofrelationships, if you think
about increasing civil rights,increasing the rights of women
or moving toward racial justice.
(28:04):
At the same time, I think weknow that that other worldview
didn't really go away.
Worldviews don't go away quiteas easily as that and there's
ebbs and flows, of sort of wheresociety is aligned and it does
feel like for a time, thatbalance has shifted, and I think
that's one reason whymultisolving is so important.
(28:27):
Right now.
Multisolving is actually onlypossible within the web of
relationship worldview becauseit depends on as we've been
talking about this reachingacross boundaries and silos to
care about the issues thatimpact someone else.
That's a web of relationshipway of seeing the world.
And even if it feels small, youknow it's a community scale
(28:49):
project.
Maybe it only affects one park,but the people there are
listening to each other, they'recaring about each other's well
being.
I see that as building a kindof muscle memory from which this
worldview of web ofrelationship can find new seeds
and, you know, keep going intothe future.
The other thing that people whostudy worldviews say is that
(29:12):
they rise into prominence whenthey solve problems, when
they're useful, and so that'sthe other, like the very
practical side of multisolving.
If it's feeding people, if it'skeeping them sheltered, if it's
protecting waterways and airquality, that attracts more
energy and more support, andthat's another.
We've been talking aboutreinforcing feedback.
(29:33):
Where change builds upon itself, that's another reinforcing
feedback loop.
Our small successes bring otherlike-minded people to our
causes and we get to do moreexperiments and hopefully with
more successes.
And so I really caution people,especially now when it's easy
to be discouraged, to focus moreon how well you're embodying
(29:55):
that web of relationshipsworldview, if that's the one
that sounds right to you, howhigh is your fidelity to it,
rather than how big is yourproject or how large is your
budget.
So it's a different way ofthinking of things, but a lot of
how systems change supportsthat, because of the way that
small changes can ripple andexpand.
Jennifer Hiatt (30:16):
There is really no denying that we are living in
some tumultuous times wherechange is kind of occurring.
So, to that end, what advicewould you give people who are
trying to be multi-solvers whenit feels like there is no
stability in the system at thispoint, different than being
overwhelmed by all.
Of you could do withmultisolving, but just there's
no stability, it's hard to keepgoing.
Beth Sawin (30:38):
Well, over the years , and really now for almost 15
years, we've had a few projectswhere we've been asked to scan
for examples of multisolvingaround the world, and one thing
we realized was how many ofthose examples were actually a
response to our crisis.
I'll just maybe tell you acouple.
We looked at a project in NewZealand called Warm Up New
Zealand, and it was a responseto the 2008 financial crisis.
(31:01):
There was a downturn inconstruction, people in that
sector were out of work,no-transcript impacts of people
(31:32):
living in those buildings, andthey found that there was
reduced medication expenses andfewer visits to the emergency
department because the housinghad improved.
And, in fact, on a dollar perdollar basis, some of those
health savings were larger thanthe energy savings.
So a project that started inresponse to a crisis in the
economy without much connectionto health broadened to where
(31:54):
public health became involved inthe second round of the project
and doctors could referpatients for an energy upgrade.
So not that we should celebratecrisis.
Of course, no one wants to dothat.
We know innocent people aresuffering right now, but we
should also remember in crisis,innovation often happens and we
can be part of that.
So that's one thing I would sayabout tumultuous times.
(32:16):
The other thing that I talkabout in the book is about the
no regrets actions, things thatwe can do even if we don't know
what's going to happen next.
Bets actions, things that we cando even if we don't know what's
going to happen next that areprobably pretty good bets, and
the way I explain that is to say, if I told you that tomorrow
was going to be a reallydifficult day for you, but I
didn't tell you why like maybeyou're going to have to take a
(32:38):
really hard math test, or maybeyour car is going to break down
and you're going to be late toget your kid from school you
don't know which it's going tobe there's still things you
could do today that could helpthe outcome of that.
Like, what might you do?
You might decide to get areally good night's sleep, you
might try to eat a healthybreakfast, you might spend time
(32:59):
doing something you love, withpeople you love, so that your
batteries are charged up, and sothose are things that I think
we should pay even moreattention to because of the
uncertainty, and it appliesbeyond just our individual
systems.
We can make our watershedshealthier, and that's gonna help
whether drought comes orflooding comes right.
Both would pay off.
So when you start thinking thatway, you'll find all kinds of
(33:19):
things that are worth doing,even if you don't know exactly
what's gonna happen next.
Jennifer Hiatt (33:24):
On that hopeful note, this is booked on planning
.
So always our last question iswhat books would you recommend
to our readers that they shouldcheck out?
Beth Sawin (33:33):
Yeah, I'm so glad you asked because I have two
that I'm one I read a while agoand one I'm reading right now.
So the older one is called Fromwhat Is to what If, and it's by
Rob Hopkins, who's based in theUK, and the subtitle is
unleashing the power ofimagination to create the future
we want, and it really looks atwhat our communities might be
(33:54):
if we really allowed ourselvesto imagine what we really want
to see, and it's full of hopefulexamples.
The one I'm just partwaythrough is called the equitably
resilient city.
It's by Zachary Lamb andLawrence Vale and I think the
title does a great job.
It showcases examples fromaround the world of people
prioritizing two goals.
(34:15):
So this is really multi-solvingright Of improving equity while
also making our cities moreresilient to the different
shocks and forces that we knoware here now or coming soon in
the future.
Stephanie Rouse (34:28):
Both great books We'll have to add to our
recommended reading list.
Beth, thank you so much forjoining us on the show to talk
about your book MultisolvingCreating Systems Change in a
Fractured World.
Beth Sawin (34:39):
Yeah, I really enjoyed the conversation.
Thanks for having me.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:43):
We hope you enjoyed this conversation with
Beth Selwyn about her bookMultisolving Creating Systems
Change in a Fractured World.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at Island
Press, or click the link in theshow notes below to take you
directly to our affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts and please rate, reviewand share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(35:04):
Booked, on Planning you.
This episode is brought to you by Marvin
Planning Consultants.
Marvin Planning Consultants,established in 2009, is
committed to their clients andprofessional organizations.
Their team of planners hasserved on chapter division and
national committees, includingas the Nebraska Chapter
President.
In addition, they are committedto supporting their chapter in
various APA divisions.
You're listening to the Bookedon Planning podcast, a project
(00:32):
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode, we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Welcome back, bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
(00:55):
Planning.
In this episode, we talk withBeth Sawin about her book
Multisolving Creating SystemsChange in a Fractured World.
One big takeaway for listenersis that we are all working with
systems and they impact ourdaily lives.
Most of us just probablyhaven't stopped to think about
them or how we could beinfluencing them.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:12):
I can certainly say that I hadn't heard of
systems thinking and never gaveit a thought, that the majority
of my day was filled up withmulti-solving.
But now that I'm more aware,I've been seeing systems
thinking and their balancingmechanisms everywhere.
Stephanie Rouse (01:24):
The book is written in a new way from most
systems thinking approaches,which tend to be diagram heavy.
Here Beth is trying to open thelanguage up to a new audience
by using examples of systemsfrom our everyday lives like
filling or draining a bathtub,or how we drink water to
rehydrate after we work hard andget thirsty.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:43):
I really appreciated Beth noting that the
entire body is made up of abunch of systems which of course
we learn about in middle school, but I really haven't thought
about since middle school.
But it really helpedconceptualize what she was
talking about.
So let's get into ourconversation with author Beth
Sawin about her bookMultisolving Creating Systems
Change in a Fractured World.
Stephanie Rouse (02:03):
Beth, welcome to the Booked On Planning
podcast.
We're happy to have you on totalk about your book
Multisolving creating systemschange in a fractured world.
Yeah, thanks so much for havingme.
So, to kick things off, can yougive us an overview of the
concept of stocks and howunderstanding them supports a
multisolving approach to work?
Beth Sawin (02:23):
Yeah, and maybe we should even give at least a one
sentence nod to whatmulti-solving is, because that
will help stocks make more sense.
So multi-solving is the idea ofany kind of project or
investment or policy thatcreates multiple benefits or
meets multiple needs for thatone investment.
And I opened the book bytalking about stocks because
(02:45):
they you're right, they are apart of multi-solving.
So stocks is a term that comesfrom systems thinking and it
describes all the places in theworld where things accumulate
for a short time or a long time.
So water in a lake is a stock,kids in a school is a stock,
bushels of corn in a grainelevator is a stock.
So when you look in a grainelevator is a stock.
So when you look around theworld and you see these places
(03:08):
of accumulation, you're lookingat stocks, and stocks matter
because they're often the mostvisible parts of systems.
Although not all stocks areconcrete like those examples.
You can also have stocks oftrust, stocks of knowledge,
stocks of well-being, so theycan be kind of qualitative
things as well as real,measurable, countable things.
(03:31):
And all the dynamics in systemsinfluence stocks, make them go
up or make them go down, andwhen critical stocks change
their levels.
That can create change insystems and sometimes make them
work better.
If the stock is food availablefor the school lunch program and
that increases, that could be agood thing.
If the stock is number ofpeople with a new virus
(03:54):
circulating in a community, thenthat stock is a dangerous thing
.
So stocks aren't good or bad,but noticing them sometimes
gives us opportunities tointervene in systems, including
finding these ways to createmultiple benefits from the
interventions that we do.
Jennifer Hiatt (04:10):
Long live stocks can create stagnation if
they're not encouraged to turnover.
Folks in Nebraska, where we are, would be familiar with corn
and elevators catching on fireif they sit in there for too
long.
So what are some of the waysthat we can create that turnover
and how would that help oursystem work better?
Beth Sawin (04:27):
Yeah, well and again .
Sometimes, of course, you mightwant a stock to be long lived.
If the stock is carbon thatwe've sequestered to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, thehope is, or greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere, the hope is that that stock
would be long lived.
But other times stocks can, asyou say, create stagnation if
(04:49):
they become sort of too steady,and so I'm thinking of an
example of that might be thestock of people in power in a
government, and if that stock isthe same decision makers for
decades, then the system mightbe robbed of creativity and new
ideas.
And so turnover in a stock ofelected officials.
(05:09):
In a democracy, that turnoverwould be the result of elections
, and that's why in some cases,you know, voting rights and
civil rights are so importantbecause that's a regulation,
regulatory point in a system tochange some of those stocks if
they're not serving all thepeople in the system.
Other stocks that we might wishwould turn over could be stocks
(05:32):
of polluting capital, likeautomobiles with low fuel
efficiency.
If we're trying to improve thefuel efficiency of the entire
fleet but there's inefficientgas guzzlers that are just
hanging on for years or decades,then that makes the stock as a
whole less efficient than thegoals of the people in the
system might be.
(05:52):
So there governments caninstitute policies.
One that's pretty famous iscash for clunkers.
Right, it's a way to take aninvestment and get those
vehicles off the road and allowthe stock to get replenished
with new or more efficientvehicles.
Stephanie Rouse (06:07):
So another important concept that goes
along with stocks is flowsprocesses that move, that are
measured in units of stuff perunit of time.
Can you explain what the threelaws of flows are and where you
developed those or where youcame up with those concepts?
Beth Sawin (06:21):
Yeah, stocks don't make very much sense without
flows.
So flows are, as you said, themovement of material between
stocks.
And so, if we stick with theautomobile fleet, there's a
stock of newly manufacturedvehicles and those would move
into a stock called vehicles onthe road when they're purchased
(06:41):
and put into use, and then theywould leave the vehicles on the
road program at the end of theirlifetime or with accelerated
retirement, like with cash forclunkers.
So an inflow is anything thatfills a stock.
So in that example, the inflowwould be purchasing cars and the
outflow is anything that drainsa stock, so in that case the
outflow would be retiringvehicles at the end of their
(07:03):
life.
One of the easiest ways to thinkabout stocks and flows is to
think about a really familiarone that we all have a lot of
experience with, and so lots ofpeople who teach systems
thinking use the example of abathtub.
So a bathtub is a stock ofwater.
The inflow is the faucet thatyou open to fill the tub and the
outflow is the drain thatempties water from the tub.
(07:24):
And the three laws of stocksthat you mentioned.
If you ever need to rememberthem, all you have to do is
think about a bathtub.
So the first rule of stocks isthat if the inflow is higher or
faster than the outflow, theneventually the stock will
overflow or the stock will rise,right?
So if you're adding a gallon aminute and you're only removing
(07:45):
half a gallon per minute, thewater in the tub will rise and
rise.
If, on the other hand, theinflow is smaller than the
outflow, then over time thestock will drain.
So if you're dribbling in waterbut draining it out really fast
, then the level in the bathtubwill go down.
And that points to the thirdrule of flows, which is there's
only one way to keep the levelconstant, and that's to have the
(08:08):
inflow and the outflow be equal.
And for all of these, it'simportant to say that some
stocks have more than one inflowor more than one outflow, and
so to apply this rule of stocksand flows, you need to take the
sum of all the inflows and makethat equal to the sum of all the
outflows if you want the levelto stay the same.
And all this matters becausethe only way to change the level
(08:31):
of a stock is to change flows.
So if there's a stock that'sproblematic for a system, either
too low, you know, not enoughnative pollinators or too high,
too much of a certain pollutant.
You have to think about theinflows and the outflows to
change the level of a stock.
Stephanie Rouse (08:47):
And then, when thinking about changes in
systems, there's two types offeedback loops that you discuss
in the book balancing andreinforcing and different types
of systems have one or the other, or you want to influence one
or the other.
What's the difference betweenthem, and can a system have both
a balancing and reinforcingfeedback loop?
Beth Sawin (09:06):
So part of what makes systems so interesting and
so complex and honestly so ableto serve us is that there is
more going on than just stocksand flows, and that's this idea
of feedbacks.
So feedback loops are wheneverthe level in a stock feeds back
in some way to change its ownlevel.
And a great example of thatthat we're all familiar with is
(09:29):
to think about if you have asavings account.
So the level of the stock atany time is your savings, but
your bank is probably going topay you interest every month,
and the interest is an inflowthat will increase the stock,
you know, maybe by a few pennies, maybe by a lot, depending on
how big your savings balance is.
And here's why it's a feedbackloop the larger your savings,
(09:49):
the more interest you get, andso a change in your savings and
interest payment means nextmonth, if all else stays equal,
you're going to get an evenbigger interest payment.
So that's an example of areinforcing feedback loop where
change in one direction makingyour savings bigger leads to
even more change in that samedirection.
And there's lots of things inthe world that move that way.
(10:11):
If you have a population oforganisms in an ecosystem and
they don't have predators.
You know, picture the morerabbits you have, the more baby
rabbits you have, the morerabbits you have.
All of these reinforcingfeedback loops give a behavior
on a graph that is calledexponential growth.
So it looks like small changethat feeds upon itself.
So that's one type of feedbackand what it tends to do is drive
(10:34):
systems into sort of newterrain either explosive growth
or sometimes explosive declineor rapid decline.
And of course, if that were theonly force in systems then we
would be always in theseextremes, because reinforcing
feedback drives toward extremes.
So, luckily, systems alwaystend to have a second kind of
(10:55):
feedback loop that moderateschange, that balances it.
So that's called the balancingfeedback loop.
Our bodies, if we think abouthomeostasis, all of those
processes are balancing feedbackloops.
So, for instance, I go joggingand I sweat a lot, then the
hydration level of my body goesdown and I detect that as the
(11:18):
sense of thirst and I go andhave a nice glass of cold water.
My hydration level will go up.
So that's a case where changein one direction getting
dehydrated leads to change inthe opposite direction getting
rehydrated and we hold our bloodsugar constant, we keep our
temperature constant by allthose kinds of processes and, in
communities, similar things.
(11:38):
We have goals for, maybe howour community looks like a
certain amount of trash on thestreets and beyond that, people
feel like this isn't right andthey organize.
I tell them they call it greenup day on the first day of May.
So that's a balancing feedbackloop that sees a change in one
direction more and more trashand organizes a response for a
(11:59):
change in the opposite directioncleaning it up.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:01):
So this was actually the first time probably
, unfortunately, but that I'dreally thought about multi
solving and so, if any of ourlisteners are really kind of
nervous about getting into alarger systems thinking, your
book has so many examples likethis and you break it down so
well and I really appreciatedthat aspect and I loved the
poems at the start of each ofyour chapters because it really
got you to start thinking aboutthat system, even though you
(12:23):
weren't even realizing that youwere thinking about systems.
So really appreciate that,thank you.
Beth Sawin (12:28):
Yeah, yeah, thanks for saying that it was a little
bit of an experiment and thebook is an experiment in one
other way to lots of books thatare emphasizing systems thinking
, are pretty heavy on diagramsand charts, which I happen to
love.
My brain works that way.
But for teaching systemsthinking for many years, one
thing I noticed was about onethird of people kind of light up
(12:48):
at those graphs and charts andit really makes sense to them,
and two thirds not so much.
It just doesn't communicate.
So my book is a bit of anexperiment to talk about systems
by telling stories about themlike we've been doing right,
Like cars on the road or whathappens when you're thirsty,
like we've been doing right,Like cars on the road or what
happens when you're thirsty,because we all know a lot more
about systems than we think.
We may not know that the formallanguage for it, but we are
(13:11):
systems made of systems,participating in systems.
So we have a lot of intuitionabout systems and I really
encourage people to tap that andbe their own authority, if that
makes sense.
Stephanie Rouse (13:22):
Yeah, and another thing I appreciated
about the book.
So there were all these greatexamples, and especially when
you applied it to like the humanbody, I think is a great
example of a system and how itreally works.
But then you challenge thereader at the end of every
chapter with the reflections totry and apply what you've just
learned into your own daily lifeand your own daily work.
Because that next step, I thinkcan be a little challenging and
(13:48):
it was for me a little bit,going through all the
reflections of trying to takewhat you had talked about in
that chapter and then takesomething in my daily work and
apply the systems, thinking themulti solving approach, and
think of how can I betterinfluence the work that I'm
doing or the systems that I dealwith day in and day out, which
is housing and issues withhomelessness, and how can I make
an impact using this approach.
So I thought that was helpful.
Beth Sawin (14:06):
Yeah, no, I'm glad.
I'm glad.
The world is obviously really,really complicated and can get
really overwhelming.
And one thing about systemsthat I think is helpful is that
once you start to see them, yousee certain patterns and you can
often extrapolate from a systemyou're familiar with and
realize, oh, that's the samebehavior, right.
(14:30):
And so we talked about thebathtub.
If you're working onhomelessness and housing, like
there's a bathtub of housingstock in your system, in your
city, If you're going to thinkabout the bathtub, well, the
only way to really change thatis either to increase the rate
at which housing is built orslow down the rate at which
housing is decommissioned, youknow, maybe by retrofitting and
repairing.
And so then you can talk withyour team and your stakeholders
(14:50):
and investors like, yeah, theseare our two strategies.
Do we want both?
Which one's most important inour case?
But you know all about thatbecause you know about bathtubs.
Jennifer Hiatt (15:00):
Great way to think about it, and you
mentioned when it comes toreinforcing feedback loops.
The wait and see method isalmost always the wrong thing to
do, so can you explain why thatis?
Beth Sawin (15:10):
Yeah, so remember the reinforcing feedback loop.
That's the one where changefeeds upon itself.
I live in in Vermont, so wealways are thinking about snow
and snowballs here, right?
So if you've ever done this andyou're at the top of a hill and
you make a little tiny snowballand you just give it a push,
each time it rolls down the hillit gathers more and more snow
to itself, right?
(15:30):
That's the kind of change we'retalking about.
Or a forest fire, where there'sa tiny spark and then it grows
out of control as more and morematerial gets brought into the
fire.
Or you have a small infectionand you put off going to the
doctor.
That's a virus doingreinforcing feedback, right,
more and more of your cells areinfected.
So in the everyday exampleswe're pretty familiar with the
(15:54):
idea that it's important tointerrupt these processes
quickly.
You know like your parent takesyou to the doctor when you
start to be sick, and that'sgoing to be likely a better
outcome.
Where it's harder, I think, forpeople to apply that same logic
is on some of our morecomplicated systems that are
bigger than our personal lives,and all of us can look back with
(16:15):
pretty direct experience.
Now to the early days of theCOVID-19 pandemic.
I was really struck early Marchso March 2020, by a public
health official who was sayingyou know, it looks like our
response is extreme right now,like we're this is early days
and like we're really buildingawareness.
We're investing so much moneyand that's because there was, at
(16:36):
that time, the potential toblock or reinforcing feedback
loop before it got full steam.
We now know, you know, thevirus got out of that any kind
of containment.
It did affect the whole world,but that feeling of like, why
are they responding so strongly?
It's just a few people who aresick.
That's the idea of getting outahead of a reinforcing feedback
loop.
Jennifer Hiatt (16:56):
Actually, on my Facebook it just popped up five
years ago, yesterday.
Yeah, I shared a little postthat was, like you know, two
weeks to crush the curve, orwhatever.
The saying was Wow.
Five years ago Exactly, and so,as I was reading about the
balancing of feedback loops, Ikept thinking about goals and
conflict.
(17:16):
So many what I would say areprogressive goals seem to be in
direct conflict with the statusquo.
So how do we go about combatingsystems that are, in fact,
actually keeping you from beingable to reduce that gap in your
goal?
Beth Sawin (17:29):
Yeah.
So the goals of systems arereally important and they are
often sources of conflict orcontention.
So we were talking about theexample of litter on a street in
a community.
So there's a goal.
It may not be explicit, no onehas probably written.
You know, two beer cans areokay and 15 is too many, but the
sense of the community as awhole probably has some level.
(17:51):
That's kind of acceptable andin that case systems operate
pretty well, the goal isn'treally being argued about and
the feedback loops can keepthings steady around the goal.
But in other cases there reallyare different visions for what
the goal should be.
One, honestly, is the amount ofcarbon pollution in the
atmosphere right?
Climate advocates are like itshouldn't be higher than 350
(18:15):
parts per million, but you know,of course, we're already well
above 400.
On the other hand, theproponents of the fossil fuel
industry are like, oh, that goalis way too stringent, like that
would be terrible for theeconomy, and they may not name a
number, but they're saying youknow there's a different goal
and all the policies flow out of, to some extent, what that goal
(18:35):
is.
And so in the case of climatechange, we have mass movements,
we have education, we havepeople building coalitions.
All of those things are ways totry to build the power, to set
a goal of a system where peoplethink it should be.
Where multi-solving comes in isthat often we find ourselves
really wanting a goal that wecan't seem to accomplish because
(18:57):
of power somewhere else in asystem, in this case, Bill
McKibben says the fossil fuelindustry is the wealthiest
industry in the history ofhumanity.
So you know those of us worryingabout our children's climate
future we're up against realpower.
The thing about multisolving isthat there may be other
interests in addition to climatethat would also benefit from
(19:18):
some of the same policies, andone really important one is
health, because if the worldwere burning less fossil fuels,
there'd be less air pollution,and with less air pollution
there'd be less illnesses likeasthma, respiratory illnesses,
cardiovascular disease.
So people who manage healthsystems, you know, actually
would be rooting for a similargoal of low CO2 emissions.
(19:41):
Parents of kids who are proneto asthma would be in line for
those same goals.
But often we find ourselveskind of separated from one
another, maybe not understandingthat there's a certain policy
or an opportunity that wouldmeet multiple needs, and so it's
often that careful tending ofboth helping people see how
issues are connected and helpingthem come to know each other as
(20:03):
people and as collaboratorsthat can actually help shift
where the goal of a system endsup being.
Stephanie Rouse (20:09):
And we've talked a little bit already
about the range and size ofsystems.
There can be some smaller onesthat impact our daily lives, or
some larger ones that are alittle more challenging to kind
of wrap our minds around or tointerject solutions and make
change.
Can you give a few examples andtalk about how understanding
the system helps with amulti-solving approach?
Beth Sawin (20:30):
So one important idea that my teachers of systems
thinking really emphasize isthe idea of boundaries in
systems.
So the reality is, of course,everything is connected to
everything else.
You know it's one planet.
At the end of the day we're onehuman species.
But none of us could doanything in our day actually if
we had to consider every linkagebetween me and you, and me in
(20:53):
the atmosphere, and me in ariver, and it would be
paralyzing.
So what we do is createboundaries and we say, within
this boundary I'll pay attention, it will influence my decisions
, and beyond that boundary I'mgoing to not consider that very
much.
But it's really consequentialwhere we set those boundaries
and sometimes I believe they'retoo narrow, which leads to some
(21:16):
of the challenges we face.
So it can be narrow in space,like I'm going to really care
about my immediate family, butI'm not going to really take too
much responsibility for otherpeople in my city, and that can
work for a while.
But systems with too muchinequity or too poor of a social
safety net you know thosefeedback loops exist even though
(21:37):
we don't pay attention to them,right?
So maybe I'm going to send mychild to a school but the tax
base is so low because peopleare not caring about other
people's children.
Right, that would be an exampleof a feedback loop and probably
a system boundary that I'dargue is too narrow.
The other thing that happens isjust to make our organizations
work, we draw these boundariesand we say there's a public
(21:59):
health department and it'sseparate from the public works
department, which is separatefrom the transportation agency,
and maybe those departments allexist in different buildings.
People don't particularly knoweach other.
They probably studied slightlydifferent professional paths and
use slightly different language.
Each of their budgets iscalculated separately, and what
(22:20):
happens when you've drawnboundaries either too rigidly or
too narrowly is you miss a lotof the opportunities for
multi-solving, for instance,active transportation.
So people being able to getaround walking and cycling is a
great climate solution.
It reduces emissions fromtransportation, but more than
that, it's an amazing publichealth intervention.
(22:41):
It reduces chronic illnessbecause people get more safe
physical activity, and it's aneconomic intervention.
People who move through theirneighborhoods on foot or on bike
are more likely to wander intoa small local business and make
a purchase.
So when it comes time to say,can we invest in more active
transportation, ideally you'dhave health advocates and
(23:02):
economic development advocatesat the table and not treat that
just as a transportation policy.
But to do that you have toloosen some of those boundaries
or stretch across them in someway.
So a lot of multi-solving isabout challenging the boundaries
that have been drawn and askingif it might serve to expand
them or think of themdifferently.
Jennifer Hiatt (23:22):
How would you encourage people who are just
getting into systems thinking,that are overwhelmed by the
complexity and challenges of amulti-solving approach?
Beth Sawin (23:30):
One beautiful thing about multi-solving is that it
provides this opportunity foreveryone to do something, but no
one to do everything, and so Ireally encourage people to
choose the issue that mattersthe most to them or where they
have expertise, but then engagewith and actively look for the
(23:51):
people that that issue touches.
So we often talk in multisolving about bundling problems,
about asking how can thesolution to this problem that
keeps me awake at night be asolution to a problem that keeps
you awake at night, and sothat's, you know, the connection
between the Children's AsthmaCoalition and the river
advocates and the climateadvocates.
(24:11):
Things like greening a citywith more green roofs and more
vegetation would actually liftall of those goals.
And you don't have to have, youknow, a primary goal and
secondary goals.
You can say all of these canadvance together, but you can,
within that, continue youradvocacy for kids asthma.
You know if that's, if that'syour passion.
Really, the only change is thatyou're listening and connecting
(24:34):
with people sort of adjacentwho touched that same issue.
Stephanie Rouse (24:38):
You know, what I found interesting is like
reading through this book.
It was new to me.
Jennifer said at the beginningof the episode multiselfing was
new to her is new to me.
I think it's a concept thatplanners should be paying a lot
more attention to, because wekind of do it by default.
We tend to be generalists, weknow a little bit about
everything.
We try and make the connections.
We're looking at comprehensiveplans that have all these
elements and are tying themtogether, but it's not a concept
(25:00):
that's really part ofcurriculum or in our daily work.
We're like working in systemswithout realizing it and I think
there's so much more potentialfor more cognizant of the
systems and how they'reoperating and things like the
feedback loops and balancing andtrying to more intentionally
influence some of this.
Beth Sawin (25:20):
Yeah, it's pretty common for me to meet someone
who will say I've been multisolving my whole career but I
didn't know it was a thing or Ididn't know other people were
doing this.
We figured it out here by trialand error.
So we never at my organization,multi-solving Institute, feel
as though it's something weinvented.
I much more think we hold up amirror and show people what they
(25:43):
are accomplishing and offerpeople kind of a sense of being
part of a community who'slearning more every day about
how to operate in this way.
And of course it's very ancientIf you think of indigenous
societies or wisdom traditions.
The whole system perspective isvery prominent there.
And the other place we reallysee multisolving and I think
(26:04):
this isn't that surprising arein marginalized communities,
places where people don't havemuch resources and maybe haven't
for a long time and have to bereally creative about how to
make things happen.
And sometimes we also say themulti-slammed are the
multisolvers.
So marginalized communitiesoften are feeling the impact of
multiple parts of a system, likethey have air pollution and
(26:27):
also disinvestment and alsoflooding, and so it's not as
mysterious that all these thingsfit together because it's part
of daily experience.
Stephanie Rouse (26:35):
World views is another topic that you touch on
in the book, and there's twomain world views web of
relationships and collection ofobjects.
I feel like we were trendingtowards the former, but recently
have regressed towards thelatter, in the last month very
quickly.
What are ways that we cancontinue to push back and get to
a more equitable andsustainable worldview in the
(26:56):
current climate that we're nowfacing?
Beth Sawin (26:58):
So those two sets of words are phrases that I ended
up using in the book to describetwo things that I felt like
have been two forces really inopposition for centuries.
One of them, the web ofrelationships, starts with this
idea that we're allinterconnected and
interdependent, that mywell-being is tied up with your
well-being, that no one's freeuntil everyone's free.
(27:21):
And the other worldview I callthe collection of objects
worldview which I actuallyborrowed that phrase from Thomas
Berry that eco-theologian, andthat's more the idea that we're
more like billiard balls whokind of bounce off of each other
, that one of us can be safe atthe expense of another and that
might also mean that an economycan be thriving while the
(27:43):
ecosystem isn't.
That's sort of another featureof the collection of objects
worldview.
And I do agree with you thatfor most of my life it felt like
there was more and moredecisions being made from that
worldview of a web ofrelationships, if you think
about increasing civil rights,increasing the rights of women
or moving toward racial justice.
(28:04):
At the same time, I think weknow that that other worldview
didn't really go away.
Worldviews don't go away quiteas easily as that and there's
ebbs and flows, of sort of wheresociety is aligned and it does
feel like for a time, thatbalance has shifted, and I think
that's one reason whymultisolving is so important.
(28:27):
Right now.
Multisolving is actually onlypossible within the web of
relationship worldview becauseit depends on as we've been
talking about this reachingacross boundaries and silos to
care about the issues thatimpact someone else.
That's a web of relationshipway of seeing the world.
And even if it feels small, youknow it's a community scale
(28:49):
project.
Maybe it only affects one park,but the people there are
listening to each other, they'recaring about each other's well
being.
I see that as building a kindof muscle memory from which this
worldview of web ofrelationship can find new seeds
and, you know, keep going intothe future.
The other thing that people whostudy worldviews say is that
(29:12):
they rise into prominence whenthey solve problems, when
they're useful, and so that'sthe other, like the very
practical side of multisolving.
If it's feeding people, if it'skeeping them sheltered, if it's
protecting waterways and airquality, that attracts more
energy and more support, andthat's another.
We've been talking aboutreinforcing feedback.
(29:33):
Where change builds upon itself, that's another reinforcing
feedback loop.
Our small successes bring otherlike-minded people to our
causes and we get to do moreexperiments and hopefully with
more successes.
And so I really caution people,especially now when it's easy
to be discouraged, to focus moreon how well you're embodying
(29:55):
that web of relationshipsworldview, if that's the one
that sounds right to you, howhigh is your fidelity to it,
rather than how big is yourproject or how large is your
budget.
So it's a different way ofthinking of things, but a lot of
how systems change supportsthat, because of the way that
small changes can ripple andexpand.
Jennifer Hiatt (30:16):
There is really no denying that we are living in
some tumultuous times wherechange is kind of occurring.
So, to that end, what advicewould you give people who are
trying to be multi-solvers whenit feels like there is no
stability in the system at thispoint, different than being
overwhelmed by all.
Of you could do withmultisolving, but just there's
no stability, it's hard to keepgoing.
Beth Sawin (30:38):
Well, over the years , and really now for almost 15
years, we've had a few projectswhere we've been asked to scan
for examples of multisolvingaround the world, and one thing
we realized was how many ofthose examples were actually a
response to our crisis.
I'll just maybe tell you acouple.
We looked at a project in NewZealand called Warm Up New
Zealand, and it was a responseto the 2008 financial crisis.
(31:01):
There was a downturn inconstruction, people in that
sector were out of work,no-transcript impacts of people
(31:32):
living in those buildings, andthey found that there was
reduced medication expenses andfewer visits to the emergency
department because the housinghad improved.
And, in fact, on a dollar perdollar basis, some of those
health savings were larger thanthe energy savings.
So a project that started inresponse to a crisis in the
economy without much connectionto health broadened to where
(31:54):
public health became involved inthe second round of the project
and doctors could referpatients for an energy upgrade.
So not that we should celebratecrisis.
Of course, no one wants to dothat.
We know innocent people aresuffering right now, but we
should also remember in crisis,innovation often happens and we
can be part of that.
So that's one thing I would sayabout tumultuous times.
(32:16):
The other thing that I talkabout in the book is about the
no regrets actions, things thatwe can do even if we don't know
what's going to happen next.
Bets actions, things that we cando even if we don't know what's
going to happen next that areprobably pretty good bets, and
the way I explain that is to say, if I told you that tomorrow
was going to be a reallydifficult day for you, but I
didn't tell you why like maybeyou're going to have to take a
(32:38):
really hard math test, or maybeyour car is going to break down
and you're going to be late toget your kid from school you
don't know which it's going tobe there's still things you
could do today that could helpthe outcome of that.
Like, what might you do?
You might decide to get areally good night's sleep, you
might try to eat a healthybreakfast, you might spend time
(32:59):
doing something you love, withpeople you love, so that your
batteries are charged up, and sothose are things that I think
we should pay even moreattention to because of the
uncertainty, and it appliesbeyond just our individual
systems.
We can make our watershedshealthier, and that's gonna help
whether drought comes orflooding comes right.
Both would pay off.
So when you start thinking thatway, you'll find all kinds of
(33:19):
things that are worth doing,even if you don't know exactly
what's gonna happen next.
Jennifer Hiatt (33:24):
On that hopeful note, this is booked on planning
.
So always our last question iswhat books would you recommend
to our readers that they shouldcheck out?
Beth Sawin (33:33):
Yeah, I'm so glad you asked because I have two
that I'm one I read a while agoand one I'm reading right now.
So the older one is called Fromwhat Is to what If, and it's by
Rob Hopkins, who's based in theUK, and the subtitle is
unleashing the power ofimagination to create the future
we want, and it really looks atwhat our communities might be
(33:54):
if we really allowed ourselvesto imagine what we really want
to see, and it's full of hopefulexamples.
The one I'm just partwaythrough is called the equitably
resilient city.
It's by Zachary Lamb andLawrence Vale and I think the
title does a great job.
It showcases examples fromaround the world of people
prioritizing two goals.
(34:15):
So this is really multi-solvingright Of improving equity while
also making our cities moreresilient to the different
shocks and forces that we knoware here now or coming soon in
the future.
Stephanie Rouse (34:28):
Both great books We'll have to add to our
recommended reading list.
Beth, thank you so much forjoining us on the show to talk
about your book MultisolvingCreating Systems Change in a
Fractured World.
Beth Sawin (34:39):
Yeah, I really enjoyed the conversation.
Thanks for having me.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:43):
We hope you enjoyed this conversation with
Beth Selwyn about her bookMultisolving Creating Systems
Change in a Fractured World.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at Island
Press, or click the link in theshow notes below to take you
directly to our affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts and please rate, reviewand share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(35:04):
Booked, on Planning you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.