In systems change, not all interventions carry the same weight. Some adjustments improve performance only at the margins. Others reshape everything else.

Donella Meadows described this difference through the idea of leverage points. Places in a system where a small shift can lead to profound change. Among these, she identified the deepest leverage not in policies, incentives, or structures, but in the mindset out of which the system arises.

Mindset here doesn’t mean attitude or intention. It refers to the underlying assumptions we operate from. Not as fixed truths, but as lenses worth noticing, questioning, and unlearning.

What we believe the world is like,
What we think is possible or realistic,
What feels responsible, normal, or risky.

These assumptions sit beneath strategies and tools. They shape how problems are framed, which questions we ask, what trade-offs feel acceptable, and which futures can even be imagined. Because they are shared and rarely questioned, they tend to remain invisible. But they guide decisions more powerfully than any framework.

This is why systems so often reproduce themselves even when we change the instruments. New tools are introduced, but old patterns stick, because the underlying way of seeing hasn’t shifted. It’s not that easy.

When mindset changes, something fundamental happens. The same information is interpreted differently. Relationships are held differently. Power is exercised differently. Over time, systems begin to reorganise around new logics, new priorities, and new forms of coordination.

Because a different worldview is now shaping what feels smart and real.

This is why systemic investing does not begin with better tools, but with how we see — and who we believe we are within the system.

Everything that follows in this chapter: unlearning, values, narrative, relationships, governance, and practice, builds from this point. Exciting right!

Why this matters in impact investing and philanthropy

Even as we speak about systems change, as impact investors we are obviously attached to familiar ways of working. It makes sense, we’ve spent years building ever more detailed frameworks, measurement systems, and reporting disciplines. And often with real value. But across the field, we collectively realise: the limits we’re hitting are not technical, but perceptual. Many of today’s crises cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them. We are not failing because we lack tools but because we are operating from a paradigm that has reached its limits.

The main take away from the majority of impact investing gatherings in the past years has been that we have all the theory we need to make a shift in mind set. But how do we do this in practice? Letting go is not so simple. Unlearning rarely is.

ift in mind set. But how do we do this in practice? Letting go is not so simple. Unlearning rarely is.

Dominant paradigm are:

• Growth as primary success metric
• Control over complexity
• Human dominance over nature
• Competition over collaboration
• Short-term optimisation
• Lineair versus complexity
• Ego versus commons
• Financial gains over concern for environment

Systemic investing is not new

This mindset is a rootcause of todays challenges and a shift is needed if we want to reach new outcomes.

Forms of systemic investors have always existed. If we look back at historical patrons, the mecenates, what we see is not naïve generosity, but a deeply relational form of capital deployment. They didn’t fund “outputs.” They funded people, practices, and potential.

These patrons also had a lot of flaws. Power was concentrated, voices were limited, and equality was not the goal. But what we can learn:

• Long-term commitment next to short-term proof
• Trust is not the opposite of rigor — it’s a different form of it
• Supporting capacity often matters more than supporting projects
• Systems shift through culture, narratives, and relationships — not just interventions]

Systemic investing therefore does not begin with models or frameworks. It begins with how we see.