Can Systems Learn to Change?
“Helping a system change is one achievement; helping it learn to change itself is another.”
Our investigation began with a puzzle: farmers could increase their productivity and income yet remain far from prosperity, while organizations could become more efficient without achieving their goals. We gradually recognized that some goals cannot be reached by improving individual components alone, but require changing how those components work together or organizing them into a larger system. To investigate whether these patterns also appeared outside human societies, we turned to physics, chemistry, and biology, gaining a deeper understanding of how Structure influences the emergence of new Capabilities. In the previous column, we brought these discoveries together through Directed Development, exploring how people can identify the Capabilities a system needs and deliberately create the conditions for their development.
Yet helping a system develop the Capabilities it needs today does not ensure that it will recognize what it needs next. As circumstances change, existing practices may become inadequate, while new opportunities may require different Capabilities or relationships. Could the system develop the ability to learn from experience and recognize when its own practices or Structure require reconsideration? More importantly, could it retain that ability, rather than depend on particular individuals to identify each new challenge and initiate the necessary investigation?
Beyond Individuals
At Biofeed management meetings, I encouraged colleagues to question proposals, express disagreements, and share observations that might improve our decisions. This allowed those around the table to learn from one another, but looking back, I recognize a limitation: colleagues who were absent could neither contribute their knowledge nor necessarily benefit from what we discovered. Even when we reached better decisions, the organization did not automatically retain the reasoning behind them or develop the ability to apply that Learning to future challenges.
To preserve what was learned, the reasoning behind decisions needed to become part of the organization's shared knowledge, procedures, and training, making it available to colleagues who had not participated in the discussion. This would allow the organization to benefit from discoveries made by individuals without depending on their continued presence.
Yet preserving knowledge is not the same as preserving the ability to learn, improve, and survive over time. Learning requires time, effort, and resources, but the cost of failing to learn may be far greater, especially when an organization repeats mistakes or continues relying on practices that no longer work. The organization therefore needs to recognize changing circumstances and investigate whether its established approaches remain appropriate. How can it make such questioning and investigation a continuing part of how it operates, rather than depending on particular individuals?
Institutionalizing Learning
During my PhD studies in insect ecology, our faculty held weekly journal reviews in which students presented published scientific papers for critical discussion. We examined their assumptions, evidence, and conclusions, questioning even the work of respected scientists. These meetings made critical examination an expected part of academic life rather than an occasional initiative.
In the Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko's rejection of established genetics gained political support, and in 1948 his views became official doctrine while mainstream genetics was suppressed. Scientists who challenged the doctrine faced dismissals and restrictions, while some suffered severe persecution. These scientists had not lost their knowledge or abilities, but the institutions in which they worked prevented them from freely questioning accepted explanations and pursuing new understanding.
At Toyota, workers who identify a production problem can request assistance from a team leader to investigate its cause and determine what needs to change. What they discover can lead to improved procedures, allowing others to benefit from what was learned. By making the identification and investigation of problems part of everyday responsibilities, Toyota enables Learning to become a continuing organizational activity rather than depend on occasional management interventions.
These examples demonstrate that knowledgeable people alone are insufficient; the organization's Structure also influences whether they can question established practices, investigate problems, and apply what they learn. Yet even when Learning becomes part of everyday activities, it may remain focused on improving existing practices without recognizing that changing circumstances require something different.
Improving Is Not Enough
Requirements imposed by importing authorities and supermarkets have become increasingly demanding, particularly concerning pesticide residues and quarantine pests. Growers may successfully protect their crops yet find that the treatments they use prevent their produce from meeting chemical residue limits, while reducing pesticide use does not eliminate phytosanitary risks. Maintaining access to premium markets therefore requires more than improving existing crop-protection practices; it requires recognizing when changing market requirements call for a different approach.
The global mango industry illustrates this challenge. India produces more than 40% of the world's mangoes, yet its exports to Europe remain modest, with fruit-fly risks among the barriers to reliable market access. Chile and Peru demonstrate another dimension of the problem: both have established national programs involving fruit-fly surveillance and coordinated responses, despite facing different pest conditions. These programs demonstrate how established responsibilities can help countries detect and respond to fruit-fly threats, although maintaining such a Capability is not the same as knowing when it must change.
Even recognizing that an established approach is no longer sufficient does not reveal what should replace it. Determining which changes deserve attention requires a clear Direction: an understanding of what the system ultimately seeks to achieve.
Learning to Change
A company supplying pesticides to mango growers may develop increasingly effective products and increase its sales, even as its customers struggle to export fruit that meets chemical residue and phytosanitary requirements. Chemical treatments can remain valuable, but controlling pests is not the same as ensuring market access. The company may therefore become increasingly successful at what it does without learning what needs to change to help its customers succeed.
If the pesticide company's Direction were to help growers succeed in premium markets, it would need to investigate more than how to kill pests effectively. Its Learning would extend to alternative technologies and services that help growers meet market requirements and achieve greater profitability. Yet successful exports also depend on packinghouses, transporters, and exporters, whose activities must work together. Although their commercial interests may differ, they need a shared Direction that connects their activities to the reliable, profitable delivery of compliant produce. This broader Direction provides a basis for identifying which improvements and new Capabilities matter across the value chain.
Accepted shipments, repeat orders, and profits indicate whether the value chain is achieving its commercial objectives, but they do not necessarily reveal its ability to learn. That requires recognizing new challenges, investigating their causes and possible solutions, and applying what was learned to future decisions. An unsuccessful experiment may strengthen the organization's Learning Capability, while a profitable season may reveal little about its ability to adapt when circumstances change.
When a supermarket tightens its pesticide residue requirements, the exporter may learn about the change first, while the knowledge needed to respond is distributed among growers, crop-protection suppliers, and laboratories. Established responsibilities must ensure that this information reaches the relevant participants, alternatives are investigated, necessary changes are implemented, and the results inform future decisions. By connecting knowledge to investigation, action, and retention, these arrangements make Learning part of how the value chain operates rather than something dependent on individual initiative.
But who questions the assumptions behind those arrangements, the measures used to evaluate success, and even the organization's Direction? In a mature company, one possibility is to appoint a Chief Challenge Officer, responsible for investigating evidence that challenges established thinking and ensuring that important findings reach those authorized to act. This role would require sufficient independence to question even the CEO and access to the board when necessary. Yet a Chief Challenge Officer cannot make an organization learn if its leadership refuses to question its own decisions. Even the Structure through which the organization learns must remain open to reconsideration.
Our wider investigation showed that achieving a goal may require identifying a missing Capability, the Level at which it is needed, and the Type of change required to develop it. Through Directed Development, we explored how people can deliberately create the conditions for developing those Capabilities in pursuit of a chosen Direction. The present column takes this understanding further by examining how the ability to identify and pursue new Capabilities can become an enduring part of the system's own Structure.
Knowledgeable individuals do not automatically create an organization capable of Learning. That requires a Structure through which knowledge can be questioned, shared, tested, and retained, allowing Learning to become a continuing organizational activity. Yet Learning to improve existing practices is insufficient when changing circumstances require something different. Direction helps determine which changes matter, while the organization must remain capable of questioning even the Structure through which it learns. The deeper achievement is a system that can continue discovering what it must change to pursue its Direction.
Looking ahead: How did the ability to learn emerge and develop across the universe's evolutionary layers? We will explore this question in a future column.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=
I value your feedback. Please press what best reflects your feelings about this column:
* I strive to stay true to the facts and the reality they reveal. If you find an error or see a need for clarification, your insights are welcome.
See you soon,
Nimrod
Dr. Nimrod Israely writes on the structural foundations of prosperity and human systems, and is the CEO and Founder of Dream Valley and Biofeed.
P.S. If your organization has the people, resources, and motivation but still struggles to move forward, message me and we can set up an introductory call.
P.P.S. Previous column: “Can We Harness the Universal Pattern of Change?”
Comments