Responding to our findings

JustSystems | Responding to findings

Purpose

To strengthen the supportive infrastructure for leaders in government and civil society to make public systems more effective (at delivering outcomes), inclusive (in who benefits and decides) and dignity affirming (how people experience government), at scale.

Rationale

At core, JustSystems is about people. Significant progress has been made over recent decades in improving the human condition, with millions of people moving out of poverty and able to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. Still, this progress is insufficient because too many government activities do not translate into meaningful outcomes (e.g., kids go to school but do not learn) and systems are rife with exclusion and discrimination (e.g., girls and women are harassed at school, work and on public transport). Moreover, the relationship between government and citizens is often tense, fraught with suspicion and disdain, which both harms people’s experience of public systems and undermines their confidence in and commitment to the democratic compact.

To care about people requires us to care about systems. Public systems largely determine how well people do by regulating access and opportunity in health, education, security, livelihoods, and community voice and freedoms that enable people to thrive. We also focus on public systems because they have the legal mandate, staff, physical infrastructure, funds and reach that are vastly larger and likely to last much longer than what NGOs and funders can ever provide. By strengthening public systems, limited external resources can leverage a more powerful impact than if these funds were used in parallel projects.

Systems are made and run by people. We believe that people – those responsible for public wellbeing as well as those who are representative of constituencies – can make public systems work better. But systems change is extremely difficult, and people responsible for them inside government lack the support they need to do a good job. The rules and culture of bureaucracies often stifle motivation, initiative and common sense; multiple demands and activities create noise that favors transactionalism over prioritization and deep work; and it can be difficult to sort through the sea of ideas, evidence, and tools while navigating the political economy of cultivating allies to advance reform.

On the other hand many civil society organizations, having come to appreciate the limits of conventional accountability/watchdog work or running their own projects in terms of attaining sustainable impact at the scale of the need, are struggling to shift their approaches to systems change. They too face similar challenges to government leaders, and need support to develop the mindsets, muscles and relationships (especially with people inside government and others who exercise influence) that are critical to effective systems change.

For some, working with governments that appear uncaring or may have caused harm can be especially hard, including subjecting them to criticism from their own peers. In seeking to do a better job, both government and civil society leaders have a real opportunity to reinvigorate public governance and accountability – such as community meetings, budget making and feedback mechanisms – so that ordinary people can feel invited, heard and a sense of agency in relation to their government, and people in government get their sense of fulfillment from the extent to which they help make life better for people.

Missing Support

The lack of adequate support infrastructure for leaders engaging with public systems adds up to a colossal waste:

• Motivation and the will to find joint pathways to big change are low, inside and outside government

• People and talent that could solve problems and create change are not used well

• Resources used by governments and others have lower impact

• Windows of opportunity for transformative change are squandered

• Ideas, evidence, innovations and lived insights that could make a huge difference are not deployed at scale

As a result, over time, hope and trust in public institutions working for people, the democratic social compact, is eroded.

So, what would make a difference?

A marketplace of consultants, capacity builders, technical advisers and the like offers varied support to government and civil society leaders, but our research (see separate note) showed that there is a big gap between what leaders would find truly useful and what is on offer. The following examples illustrate the challenge:

• While getting the technical aspects right (e.g., which pedagogy improves literacy) is important, the major constraints to reform are political and institutional rather than technical. They require a deeply rooted understanding of the socio-political-cultural context and of how power works in practice and the different forces that can make an effort swim or sink. This sort of support is hard to get.

• Good design and planning are crucial to success, but effective implementation over the long term makes all the difference. What does it take to have 300,000 or 3 million teachers wake up every day and do the right thing? Current business models of support often fetishize strategy and planning over developing a keen understanding of what it will take a bureaucracy to deliver (e.g., clean water and sanitation or free and fair elections).

• The number one takeaway from our research was that trust and relationships are the currency of change, usually far above expertise, evidence, credentials and money. Most leaders told us that they often feel isolated/lonely, and are more likely to turn to the individuals they trust (e.g., ‘batchmates’ from school or former colleagues) when they want to share concerns or make important decisions. Existing support infrastructure is unable to establish this sort of trust.

These lessons highlight the central role of government capability in delivering effective and inclusive outcomes that we care about. Our ability to attain progress on specific issues (e.g., reducing maternal mortality, improving access to eyeglasses) or constituencies (e.g., improving working conditions for waste pickers, advancing women in leadership) goes beyond the need for evidence and sound policy, to additionally require buy-in, motivation and ownership by government as well as its capability to plan, budget, execute, monitor, learn and adapt.

Finally, it's not only about deliverology. At the heart of this endeavor is reimagining government in practice, how it works and how it is experienced by people. It is about helping government and civic leaders figure out how government can be more open, responsive and work better for people and how people can engage effectively with government. Our approach is outcomes oriented (a meaningful difference in people’s lives) and collaborative (working together to solve problems and get things done), in contrast to an adversarial vision where government exercises coercive authority over citizens, or civic bodies solely point to the failures of government, with little empathy for civil servants or politicians. Because public systems are the foundation of public wellbeing, we lose when government is sidelined or ‘othered’ from people. The alternative is to see government as the expression of how people and public servants work together to achieve collective wellbeing (‘government is us’). It involves fostering what Dan Honig calls “relational accountability” where trust, relationships, mutual respect and agency characterize both how government functions internally and how it relates with citizens and civil society organizations.

Core Capabilities

What sort of support infrastructure would fill these gaps and be helpful to leaders to advance relational accountability? Distilling lessons from studying 53 initiatives and consultations with 130+ leaders, we have identified the need to strengthen three essential functions or capabilities:

Strategic accompaniment to leaders in government and civil society. In contrast to time bound expert support for specific needs (e.g., improving board governance, strengthening evaluation skills), this involves long-term accompaniment (e.g., 3-5 years) to help leaders navigate the political economy of a system – understand barriers, manage risks and trade-offs; build winning coalitions; widen the pool of leaders, motivation and ownership; and make judgments about when to stay the course, adapt and pivot, or abandon an idea. At the heart of this is helping leaders cut out the noise of long to-do lists, determine and prioritize what’s core, and get the entire organization to focus on it.

People who are able to play this accompaniment role can vary widely in background and qualifications – what matters is that they bring the right set of sensibilities (see box below). People who have straddled different worlds, such as having worked in civil society, academia and government, can bring a particular versatility. Significantly, people with integrity also seems to be important, with the effect of deepening the work by connecting it to purpose, values and ultimate accountability to people.

Building bridges/convening across difference for shared purpose. In today’s diverse and hyperpolarized world, it is difficult for like minded people alone to achieve deep change. One needs to build bridges across difference – by demographics, background, ideologies, and power – to establish a coalition that is broad and strong enough to make change happen and sustain it over time. This is much more difficult where there are no shared goals, language, history, affinities, and trust that can easily connect people; at times different actors may even see each other as adversaries. The default then is that different actors, comfortable in their stereotypes of the other, are unwilling to take initiative to advance progress that is within their power.

We seek to contribute to a process and practice of convening allies and adversaries to come together around a common purpose. Here we are looking to strengthen two related capabilities, i) the availability of convenors with foresight to see what is possible, and sufficient standing to convene a diversity of actors to pay attention to a specific issue, and ii) the availability of skilled facilitators who can help different actors come to a consensus on a shared goal and how to move forward on it, and do so in a manner that builds better understanding and relationships across difference that will be essential to sustain change over time. We hope to contribute to strengthening the capacity to convene thoughtful and creative processes where unusual actors (government and civil society, young and old, feminists and establishment elites) come together to step back from the fray, connect as human beings, craft a sense of shared purpose, and build momentum for action, usually around a specific objective.

The facilitators will likely need the same set of seven sensibilities outlined above, with particular skill in emotional intelligence, conflict management and trust building.

Reimagining the people-government compact. Systems change is made even harder because public conceptions of the purpose and role of government run negative across the political spectrum. Government is commonly viewed as corrupt, bureaucratic, lacking in innovation and incapable, which can have the insidious effect of civic groups giving up on the very institution that is necessary for popular wellbeing. Prevailing neoliberal infused conceptions of government make it less possible to imagine how we can achieve public well-being at scale. And the public project is inhibited by our inability to interrogate and re-envision fundamental ideas about government, and our own agency and responsibility in relation to it.

In turn stereotypes about civil society as unfair, trouble-making, ill willed and having ulterior agendas also run rife among many government actors, and it's net effect can be for government to close its eyes to insights, ideas and innovations about what is going on and what needs to be done that can bolster its effectiveness and legitimacy. Both sides can treat the other as monolithic and fail to show curiosity and empathy, and in so doing undermine the democratic promise of government.

Building on the two capabilities outlined above, through concrete examples and case studies as well as conceptual reframing, we will seek to demonstrate and document how government can be different in how it views and engages with people, and vice versa. We will work with others to contribute to a narrative of a government that listens and works with people and of civic engagement where people appreciate the central role of government in advancing collective wellbeing and have the confidence to engage with it.

This includes intellectual work involving academic and influential journals, engagement with popular media, and case studies based on actual work. At the same time, a word of caution. As with the work on reimagining the economy (e.g. see here), shifting mindsets takes time. This is a slow, long term endeavor that will take several decades to bear fruit, but ultimately has the possibility of radically shifting norms around government and people.

These three capabilities, while analytically distinct, in fact are synergistic and reinforce one another. By working on them together, over the course of 5 years (2025-2030 (we expect the following key achievements:

• 30 to 50 skilled and experienced people – working individually or through firms – will be actively providing reliable strategic engagement for systems change to government and CSO leaders across at least 5 of the 6 countries. Organizations and leaders using the support will provide information about the usefulness of this support, and what changed as a result.

• There is greater readiness and organization to convene across difference to achieve a shared purpose, including the power to convene and to facilitate a productive process. These convenings will have taken place in at least 4 countries, and participants will be able to share how these enabled them to drive change that otherwise would not have been possible.

• Modest but meaningful contributions showing how people and government can and do work together to achieve the common good.

Geographies

The work of strengthening the support infrastructure for leaders to make public systems work better is needed in many countries. But we propose to focus our work in six countries in the Global South: India and Indonesia (Asia), and South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana (Africa). This choice is based on a number of factors, including:

• Countries have relatively open democratic systems and civil society engagement (e.g., as determined by the Open Government Partnership eligibility criteria)

• Countries have relatively large populations and therefore the possibility of impacting many lives (their combined population is close to 2 billion people)

• Sufficient diversity across countries to make it interesting and allow cross-learning

• Historical engagement and experience with countries that Co-Impact, the Open Government Partnership and the JustSystems staff bring

• To limit the number of countries so as to not spread out the work too thin

• Initial interest expressed by country based partners

Platform of Country-led Partners

As is evident from the description above, systems change work requires deep rootedness and legitimacy in country contexts, a keen reading of the political economy (how power works), and a long term commitment to change, learning and adaptation. These features mean that country based individuals and organizations – who have the standing, relationships and track record – are best placed to lead, shape and execute the work.

JustSystems seeks to develop a nimble platform that enables country based partners to strengthen their approaches and impact, including by learning across the six countries,  and to influence work on systems change, government capability and philanthropic practice more generally.

Drawing on the research we conducted over the past 8 months, as well the experience of Co-Impact and the OGP over the past 6-10 years, JustSystems has identified a set of 3-5 organizations in each country as potential anchor partners. The list continues to evolve through continued engagement and evolution of our concept.

These partners are already doing some or many of the aspects of work outlined above, and would bring tremendous experience and credibility. They would continue to lead, determine and do their work in their own name, but now with an opportunity to strengthen it through support from JustSystems where needed and relevant, including learning across the other countries and potential global partners (see below) that are part of the platform. Since the platform is primarily of and for them, these country partners will also play a lead role in co- creating how the platform should be set up and work in practice.

To reinforce the idea that this work needs to be country led and implemented – with both intellectual leadership and action coming from organizations and individuals based in the Global South, we have prioritized country based partnerships in the development of the JustSystems idea. That said, the nature of the problem and ideas are global in nature, and many global organizations bring an enormous wealth of theoretical and practical knowledge as well as, in some cases, significant experience in leadership support. Linking country based work with global entities can provide meaningful opportunities for learning, enhancing one’s credibility at home, and influencing global thinking. At the same time, linking with powerful country level thinking and work can also usefully ground the work of global organizations, and create a more balanced field of how global knowledge is produced and disseminated.

We have engaged with many global actors and found significant resonance among many. The nature of these global organizations varies and the nature of partnership will also likely vary, from deep collaboration/joint work to light sharing of information and lessons. We are in conversation with a number of potential global partners and will firm up this list in consultation with country based actors.

Value Addition

The core proposition of JustSystems is to put wind behind the sails of, and weave connective tissue between, the work of anchor partners. The aim is to create an organic, lightly structured and thoughtfully curated community of people grappling with making public systems work better for and with people. The community would support country partners to strengthen their work and increase the chances of shaping global thinking, including philanthropic practice. We will make dedicated, focused time available to partners for thought partnership, feedback, aggregating and curating knowledge and other services that may be of use. Specifically, we envisage that the JustSystems platform will:

• Bring and refresh a framework, methodology and toolbox – a set of principles and a practice around systems change and reimagining government that can enhance what anchor partners are already doing.

• Cultivate cross-learning – enabling partners and countries to learn from each other and other initiatives outside of the platform. For example India is a leader in leveraging technology for reach at scale whereas South Africa brings sharp experience on equity and inclusion.

• Curate and share insights, lessons, examples to build a knowledge bank on how change happens with and through government. This will showcase the work of the anchor organizations and their partners and demonstrate how it can be done, as well as strengthen the conceptual and intellectual underpinnings that shape global development.

• Influence what and how philanthropy funds to enable long term systems change. Support partners who need it to identify and access sources of potential funds, and negotiate terms of funding that are more enabling of systems change.

Resourcing

Each country partner is responsible for raising and managing their own funds, where needed and helpful, the JustSystems platform will support partners in this effort – ideally funds would go directly to country partners (rather than being funneled through the hub. The hub will seek to raise resources for its own costs – including remuneration for a small team of 3-5 people, travel and convening, developing and sharing knowledge and advocacy. Budget frameworks will be developed in the next phase once partners have landed the core idea, roles, scope of work and need.

Platform Governance and Functioning

We are mindful that platforms and networks often start with a bang and then struggle to

maintain attention and momentum. These issues are being discussed and co-created with potential country and global partners, many who bring significant experience in this area. We expect to deploy creative design principles and simple ways of working focused on a clear and shared sense of purpose.

Timeline

Research: We have completed the research and consultation phase; over the next 8 months (September 2024 to May 2025) we will be writing up and sharing lessons, insights and knowledge products. Instead of our own channel, our thinking is to share these through other platforms that already draw an audience.

Ongoing support: JustSystems continues to engage directly with 10-15 program partners working on systems change through mentoring, coaching and thought partnership. We also engage with several communities of practice and coaches, providing feedback and suggestions on their thinking and practice. This engagement also allows us to learn and evolve our thinking.

Platform development: We completed working sessions with potential partners in South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya in July 2024, expect to do the same with India and Indonesia in August 2024, and Ghana in October 2024. We expect to have a global convening in Q1 2025 that will bring together all 6 country partners and some global partners to finalize how the platform learns and supports work across countries, as well as governance arrangements.

Proposal and budget: The idea is to have one proposal, one budget and one set of reports so as to maintain strategic coherence, provide a comprehensive picture to all, and reduce transaction costs. We expect to develop a draft by October 2024, and use it to share and further refine ideas with global partners and funders over a few months, as well as raise commitments. The proposal is expected to be finalized by March 2025, and adequate funding secured by June 2025.

Governance: We will continue to work on this between October 2024 and June 2025. This includes a decision on the legal structure of JustSystems in Q4 of 2024, including whether it continues to be housed at the OGP but work in a more integrated manner; seek a more concerted link with Co-Impact, or something else.

Team: The hub team is expected to be between 3 and 5 people, depending on the scope of work and division of responsibilities. By late September 2024 Rakesh will have relocated his principle base from New York to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania so as to be more proximate to the geographies and partners of our work. Risha continues to be the main staff partner on this effort. Once new staffing positions are developed and funding secured, staff will be recruited by Q4 2025.