Systemic thinking for scaling can refer either to addressing systemic issues (rather than focusing on single issue initiatives), or to approaching coalition-building in a systematic manner.

Addressing systemic issues is an approach to scaling that contrasts with the idea of building networks or coalitions around specific issue areas. For example, one Black Lives Matter group notes that they promote a systemic approach by centering all marginalized communities through their activism. One activist in this group shares, “Coalition building used to mean we will help you if you help us—that has changed thanks to social media, the new concept is built on the idea of ‘the rising tide lifts all boats.’ If we all help marginalized people, everyone wins.” The image of the rising tide lifting all boats places concerns related to injustice and oppression that affect multiple marginalized groups at the center. This modern twist on traditional coalitions and networks calls on activists to prioritize a systemic perspective.  

Similarly, systematic coalition-building can focus on bringing together an even broader swath of coalition members from across sectors, communities, and socio-economic groups. For example, in the Northern Ireland context, civil society practitioner Mari Fitzduff discusses the significance of a multi-sectoral approach in community relations work. She notes that rather than forming coalitions primarily with other civil society groups, her organization, the Community Relations Council (CRC), worked at multiple levels and with a range of actors, including lawyers, politicians, trade unions, paramilitaries, and so on: “the whole thing of strategy and tactics was very much around not staying in the NGO sector.” She also notes the importance of not only working with the grassroots, because in many cases, members of the middle class had the power to influence or change the dynamics of the conflict within communities at the grassroots level.

Challenges you may encounter using this tool

• When shifting to systemic thinking, it can be hard to articulate clearly what joint initiatives are all about. The core message may get “watered down” along the way. In Northern Ireland, for example, the Peace Women in the 1970s were unsuccessful because their key point was "we want peace" without a clear definition of what peace actually entailed. 

• Although building coalitions in a systemic way can bring more and varied voices to the cause, it can also make it harder to coordinate efforts. The more groups that are brought into the picture, the harder it is to align collective actions.