Beyond the Stakeholder Mapping: What a Systemic View Really Means

What Do We Mean by Systemic?

Many people hear the word systemic and think it means structured, process-driven or complex. But the systemic lens is not about more structure, instead it asks for more awareness. It is about seeing people, teams, functions, plans and what lives in the spaces between them. It asks: What is going on that we are not seeing? What is shaping the dynamics beneath the surface?

A systemic view helps us:

• See the parts, the hidden parts, the spaces between them — and how their interactions create a whole that is more than the sum of its parts

• Understand how unspoken expectations, loyalties, or histories shape behaviour

• Spot dynamics that sit beneath tension

• Work with emotional undercurrents that affect decisions and relationships

Stakeholder mapping could be a starting point but real insight comes when we look at the connections between people, because relationships carry behaviours, and behaviours carry patterns. We also need to notice who is not on the map but still affects it, and who was part of it in the past because systems remember. and expectations and dynamics linger long after people have left The systemic view notices what is repeated, what is avoided, and what is asking to be seen. Systemic thinking treats silence, resistance, confusion, even over-efficiency, as data. We look beyond roles and outcomes at the assumptions, fears, loyalties, and histories that live within the system and shape how it behaves.

Barry Oshry, a key voice in this field, teaches:

“The system is not the sum of the parts, but the product of their interactions.”

We often get stuck trying to work with individuals, when the real issue is in the relational field — in the pattern, not the person. A behaviour that repeats itself becomes a pattern that the system absorbs and is shaped by. Patterns often feels like déjà vu: the same tension, the same misunderstandings, even when people change or are not longer there. These patterns are held in place by internal structures and invisible loyalties — until someone sees them clearly.

For example:

I once worked with a leadership team where big decisions were consistently delayed. On paper, they had seniority and support t to make them. But something kept stalling movement. As we slowed down, a familiar pattern emerged: people deferred to the founder even though the governance was there for the team to decide. No one had named the loyalty or the fear of overstepping and being responsible. Once we acknowledged both, decisions began to flow. The block was not in trust, process or competence issues, it was in the way people related within the system.

Another time, I supported a leadership team who had experienced a negative outcome which still impacted dynamics and kept the organisation stuck. On the surface, it looked like an external event had caused the problem. But what shifted everything was not a new strategy, it was a conversation that allowed an old conflict to soften and people within the system to shift perspectives. Something was clarified and the system rebalanced. The plan did not change much, but suddenly people could move and gain more insights.

Systems thinking brings depth, context, connection and meaning — like switching from 2D to 3D.

This is the kind of work I am fascinated by and engage in through facilitation, systemic consulting and leadership development. Systemic work brings depth to leadership and transformation. It helps us navigate complexity by relating to it with more perspective, understanding and trust.

Once you begin to see this way, you cannot unsee it. The system begins to reveal itself again and again. Patterns emerge and (some) are ready to be released so that in their place new possibilities begin to take shape.

Otto Scharmer, author of Theory U, describes it this way:

“When the inner place from which we operate shifts, everything shifts.”