Finding Leverage
Here's where things get exciting. You've learned to see systems. You can draw CLDs, recognize archetypes, and dig for root causes. But seeing problems clearly—while essential—doesn't automatically mean you can fix them. Now we discover your superpower.
The superpower is this: in complex systems, you don't need brute force. You don't need unlimited money, political power, or a massive army of activists. What you need is leverage—finding those special places where a small push produces a big change. It's like the difference between trying to push a car uphill versus releasing the parking brake and giving it a gentle nudge downhill.
This chapter is about becoming a leverage detective. We'll learn to spot where systems are most vulnerable to positive change, why some interventions fizzle while others transform entire industries, and how clever activists and reformers have used leverage throughout history. Along the way, we'll also examine why markets fail, how power really works, and what the most harmful industries have in common.
Get ready to think like a systems strategist.
The Leverage Mindset: Working Smarter, Not Harder
Before we dive into frameworks and case studies, let's establish the right mindset. Most people approach big problems with what we might call "brute force thinking":
- Problem: Climate change is caused by fossil fuels
- Brute force solution: Ban all fossil fuels immediately!
This approach, while emotionally satisfying, usually fails. It ignores system dynamics, triggers fierce resistance, and creates collateral damage that undermines the goal. Leverage thinking is different:
- Problem: Climate change is caused by fossil fuels
- Leverage approach: What makes fossil fuels so entrenched? What feedback loops keep them dominant? Where are the weak points in those loops?
| Approach | Effort Required | Resistance Generated | Likelihood of Success |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brute force | Massive | Extreme | Low |
| Leverage thinking | Strategic | Manageable | Much higher |
The Judo Principle
In judo, a smaller person can defeat a larger opponent by using the opponent's own momentum against them. Leverage thinking works the same way—we look for places where the system's own dynamics can be redirected toward positive outcomes.
Donella Meadows' 12 Leverage Points: Your Field Guide
Donella Meadows was a brilliant systems thinker who, after decades of studying complex systems, identified twelve places where you can intervene to change system behavior. She ranked them from least to most effective, and her framework remains the gold standard for strategic intervention design.
Think of these twelve points as a ladder. The bottom rungs (12-10) are easy to reach but don't get you very high. The top rungs (4-1) are harder to climb but offer transformative views. Smart change-makers learn to use the whole ladder strategically.
Diagram: Leverage Points Ladder
Run the Leverage Iceberg MicroSim Fullscreen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 | |
The Shallow Interventions (Levels 12-10): Easy to Do, Limited Impact
These are the interventions politicians love because they're visible and don't threaten powerful interests too much. They're useful—but limited.
Level 12: Constants, Numbers, Subsidies
What it is: Tweaking the quantitative elements without changing system structure.
Examples:
- Setting a carbon tax rate
- Raising the minimum wage by $2
- Limiting prescription opioid quantities
- Capping CEO pay ratios
Why it's low leverage: Numbers are symptoms, not causes. Change them, and the system often finds workarounds. Set a carbon price? Companies might just pass costs to consumers without changing behavior. Cap opioid prescriptions? People may turn to illegal alternatives.
When it's useful: Creating immediate relief while working on deeper changes, meeting political demands for "action," and buying time.
Level 11: Material Stocks and Flows
What it is: Changing the physical capacity or infrastructure of the system.
Examples:
- Building renewable energy plants
- Expanding public transit
- Training more factory inspectors
- Creating recycling facilities
Why still limited: Physical changes are slow, expensive, and don't address why the system behaves badly in the first place.
Level 10: Regulating Negative Feedback Loops
What it is: Creating constraints that prevent the worst outcomes.
Examples:
- Environmental protection laws
- Antitrust enforcement
- Safety regulations
- Truth-in-advertising requirements
Why more effective: Regulations can set boundaries that change competitive dynamics. If everyone has to meet safety standards, no one gains advantage by cutting corners.
Regulation Success: Vehicle Safety Standards
Before mandatory safety regulations, car companies competed on style and speed, not safety. Regulations requiring seatbelts, airbags, and crash testing created a level playing field where safety improvements became competitive advantages rather than costs. Deaths per mile driven dropped 80% over 50 years.
The Medium Interventions (Levels 9-7): Changing How the Game is Played
These interventions start to address structure rather than just symptoms.
Level 9: Driving Positive Feedback Loops
What it is: Accelerating beneficial self-reinforcing processes.
Examples:
- Renewable energy feed-in tariffs (solar adoption breeds more solar adoption)
- Tax incentives for electric vehicles
- Premium pricing for sustainable products
- Research funding that builds on itself
Why it works: You're harnessing the system's own momentum rather than fighting against it. Once a positive feedback loop gets going, it can become unstoppable.
Level 8: Information Flows
What it is: Changing who knows what, when they know it, and how they can act on it.
Why it's powerful: Information is power. Changing information flows can dramatically alter decisions without changing formal structures.
| Information Intervention | Example | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure requirements | Calorie counts on menus | Reduced average calories ordered by 6% |
| Transparency mandates | Conflict mineral reporting | Shifted supply chain practices |
| Real-time feedback | Smart meters showing energy use | Reduced consumption 5-15% |
| Whistleblower protections | SEC bounties for fraud tips | Massive increase in reported violations |
The Feedback Loop Connection: Many information interventions work by creating feedback loops that didn't exist before. When consumers can see a product's carbon footprint, their purchase decisions become feedback to producers. When executives must disclose their compensation, public scrutiny becomes feedback on their behavior.
Level 7: Rules of the System
What it is: Changing the formal and informal rules that define how actors behave.
Why high impact: Rules define what's possible, what's rewarded, and what's punished. Change the rules, change the game.
Types of rules:
- Constitutional: Fundamental organizing principles (corporate purpose, property rights)
- Legal: Laws and regulations
- Economic: Market rules, pricing mechanisms, ownership structures
- Social: Norms, customs, expectations
- Organizational: Policies, procedures, incentive structures
Example: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Traditional rule: Manufacturers can externalize disposal costs to society.
New rule: Manufacturers must fund the recycling/disposal of their products.
Impact: Suddenly, design for recyclability becomes profitable. Products get simpler, materials get standardized, and waste decreases—all without micromanaging how companies operate.
The Deep Interventions (Levels 6-4): Changing Who Plays and Why
Now we're getting to the transformative stuff. These interventions don't just change the game—they change who gets to design the game and what winning means.
Level 6: Power to Self-Organize System Structure
What it is: Changing who makes the rules and how rule-making works.
Why highly effective: This is power over power. It determines who gets to define purpose, rules, and structure.
Forms:
- Worker representation on corporate boards
- Community ownership of resources
- Open-source governance models
- Democratic control over public goods
- Indigenous sovereignty over traditional lands
Example: Community Land Trusts
Traditional structure: Land is owned by investors seeking maximum return.
Changed structure: Land is owned by a democratic community trust that balances affordability, sustainability, and community benefit.
Impact: Housing remains affordable across generations, community priorities shape development, and the "Success to the Successful" archetype is disrupted.
Level 5: Goals of the System
What it is: Changing what the system is trying to achieve.
Why transformational: A system's purpose determines its structure and behavior. Change the purpose, transform everything.
| Old Goal | New Goal | System Transformation |
|---|---|---|
| Maximize shareholder value | Optimize stakeholder wellbeing | Different metrics, decisions, investments |
| Grow GDP | Increase genuine progress | Different policies, priorities, success measures |
| Treat disease | Promote wellness | Preventive focus, different funding, different research |
| Maximum crop yield | Ecosystem health | Regenerative practices, biodiversity, long-term thinking |
Level 4: Mental Models and Paradigms
What it is: Changing the shared beliefs and assumptions that create the system.
Why most powerful: Mental models determine how we see the world, what we think is possible, and what solutions we can imagine. They're the source code of culture.
Common paradigm shifts needed:
- From "nature as resource" to "nature as partner"
- From "more is better" to "enough is plenty"
- From "winner take all" to "rising tides lift all boats"
- From "efficiency at all costs" to "resilience and redundancy"
- From "short-term returns" to "seven-generation thinking"
Paradigm Change is Hard
Paradigms are deeply embedded and defended. They're "the way things are" to most people. Changing them requires persistence, storytelling, demonstration projects, and often generational turnover. But when paradigms shift, everything shifts with them.
MicroSim: Leverage Point Intervention Simulator
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 | |
Why Markets Fail: Understanding the Battlefield
Before we can apply leverage effectively, we need to understand why markets—which are supposed to efficiently allocate resources—so often produce harmful outcomes. Markets fail for predictable, systemic reasons, and each type of failure suggests different intervention strategies.
Information Asymmetry: When Someone Knows More
The problem: One party to a transaction has information the other doesn't, enabling exploitation.
Classic examples:
- Used car sellers know about hidden problems; buyers don't
- Pharmaceutical companies know about drug side effects; patients don't
- Employers know workplace hazards; job applicants don't
- Social media companies know how their algorithms work; users don't
Why it matters for harmful industries: Information asymmetry is the business model for many harmful industries. Tobacco companies knew about cancer risks for decades. Fossil fuel companies knew about climate change. Opioid manufacturers knew about addiction rates. In each case, hiding information was profitable.
Leverage implication: Information flow interventions (Level 8) directly attack this failure mode.
Externalities: Costs Someone Else Pays
The problem: The price of a product doesn't include all the costs of producing and using it.
How it works:
- Factory pollutes air → Neighbors get sick → Factory doesn't pay medical bills
- Fast fashion dumps clothes → Environment degrades → Society pays for cleanup
- Social media creates addiction → Users suffer → Platform profits
| Product | Price Paid | Hidden Costs | Who Pays Hidden Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pack of cigarettes | $8 | $35 in healthcare, productivity loss | Taxpayers, families, smokers themselves |
| Gallon of gasoline | $3.50 | $6 in climate, health, military costs | Future generations, vulnerable communities |
| Fast food meal | $7 | $12 in health, environmental costs | Healthcare system, ecosystems |
Leverage implication: Externality pricing (Level 12), regulation (Level 10), and rules changes (Level 7) can force costs back onto producers.
Regulatory Capture: When the Cops Work for the Robbers
The problem: Regulatory agencies, created to protect the public, become dominated by the industries they're supposed to regulate.
How it happens:
- Industry has concentrated interest and resources; public has diffuse interest
- Industry hires experts who end up in regulatory agencies (or vice versa)
- Industry funds lobbying, campaigns, and research that shapes policy
- Regulators depend on industry for information and expertise
- Regulatory agencies start serving industry interests over public interests
The Revolving Door:
- FDA official → Pharmaceutical company executive → FDA advisor
- EPA regulator → Oil company lobbyist → EPA administrator
- SEC lawyer → Wall Street partner → SEC commissioner
Leverage implication: Power redistribution (Level 6) and rule changes (Level 7) that increase transparency and limit conflicts of interest.
Diagram: Regulatory Capture Cycle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 | |
Collective Action Problems: The Tragedy Continues
Remember the Tragedy of the Commons from Chapter 5? That's a specific case of a broader category: collective action problems.
The core challenge: When benefits are individual but costs are shared, everyone has incentive to free ride—and everyone loses.
Game Theory Perspective:
The Prisoner's Dilemma captures this perfectly:
- If we both cooperate, we both win
- If I defect while you cooperate, I win big and you lose big
- If we both defect, we both lose
The problem? Rational individual strategy is to defect. But if everyone follows that logic, everyone defects, and everyone loses.
Nash Equilibrium: The stable point where no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing strategy—even if that point is terrible for everyone.
Examples in harmful industries:
- Overfishing: Each fleet's rational choice is to fish more, even as stocks collapse
- Pollution: Each company's rational choice is to pollute, even as everyone breathes worse air
- Tax avoidance: Each company's rational choice is to minimize taxes, even as public services crumble
Leverage implication: Changing the rules (Level 7) and changing information flows (Level 8) can alter the payoff matrix and shift Nash equilibria toward cooperative outcomes.
MicroSim: Prisoner's Dilemma Industry Game
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 | |
Power Dynamics: Who Really Controls What?
Understanding leverage requires understanding power. Not all stakeholders are created equal—some can make things happen, others can only watch.
Stakeholder Analysis: Mapping the Players
Before designing interventions, you need to know who's on the field:
Key questions:
- Who benefits from the current system?
- Who is harmed?
- Who has the power to change it?
- Who would resist change?
- Who could be allies?
Diagram: Stakeholder Power-Interest Grid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 | |
The Tactics of Industry Resistance
Harmful industries don't just sit back when change threatens their profits. They fight back using a consistent playbook:
Manufactured Doubt: Create confusion about scientific consensus.
- Tobacco: "We need more research on the cancer link"
- Fossil fuels: "The climate science isn't settled"
- Sugar industry: "The obesity research is contradictory"
Front Groups and Astroturfing: Create fake grassroots organizations.
- "Citizens for Sound Science" (funded by tobacco)
- "Americans for Prosperity" (funded by fossil fuels)
- "Center for Consumer Freedom" (funded by food/alcohol industry)
Greenwashing: Create appearance of responsibility without substance.
- "Clean coal"
- Carbon offset programs with dubious effectiveness
- "Sustainable" fashion collections representing 1% of production
Revolving Door: Place allies in regulatory positions.
- Industry executives become agency heads
- Regulators leave for lucrative industry jobs
- Creates culture of accommodation
Industry Lobbying and Political Influence:
| Industry | Annual US Lobbying Spend | Political Donations (2020 cycle) |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmaceuticals | $380 million | $92 million |
| Oil & Gas | $125 million | $139 million |
| Insurance | $160 million | $65 million |
| Tech | $70 million | $100 million |
Leverage implication: Understanding these tactics helps you anticipate resistance and design interventions that are harder to capture, co-opt, or evade.
Naming the Game
When you can identify tactics like "manufactured doubt" or "astroturfing," you've taken away some of their power. These tactics rely on appearing organic and reasonable. Naming them exposes the strategy.
Industry Case Studies: Patterns of Harm and Paths to Change
Now let's apply our leverage thinking to real industries. We'll examine both how these industries create harm and where the leverage points are for transformation.
Case Study 1: Tobacco Industry
The Harm Profile:
- 8 million deaths annually worldwide
- $2 trillion in global economic costs
- Addiction designed into the product
- Decades of deliberate deception
What Worked: A Leverage Success Story
The tobacco control movement is one of the most successful public health campaigns in history. US smoking rates dropped from 42% (1965) to 12.5% (2020). Here's how leverage points were used:
| Leverage Level | Intervention | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 8 (Information) | Surgeon General's warnings, required labels | Awareness increased |
| 8 (Information) | Internal document disclosure (litigation) | Exposed decades of lies |
| 7 (Rules) | Advertising bans, especially to youth | Reduced recruitment of new smokers |
| 7 (Rules) | Smoking bans in public places | Denormalized smoking |
| 7 (Rules) | Heavy taxation | Reduced consumption, especially among youth |
| 6 (Power) | Master Settlement Agreement | Shifted resources to prevention |
| 4 (Paradigm) | From "glamorous" to "deadly" | Cultural shift |
Key Insight: The campaign worked at multiple levels simultaneously. Information disclosure (Level 8) changed the public narrative, which enabled rule changes (Level 7), which accelerated paradigm shift (Level 4).
Case Study 2: Fossil Fuel Industry
The Harm Profile:
- 8 million deaths annually from air pollution
- Climate change threatening civilization
- Trillions in unpriced externalities
- Entrenched political and economic power
Current Leverage Landscape:
| Leverage Level | Current Interventions | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 12 (Numbers) | Carbon pricing | Patchy, often too low |
| 11 (Capacity) | Renewable energy build-out | Accelerating rapidly |
| 10 (Regulation) | Emission standards | Inconsistent, under attack |
| 9 (Positive Feedback) | Solar/EV cost curves | Working! Costs plummeting |
| 8 (Information) | Climate disclosure requirements | Growing momentum |
| 7 (Rules) | Fossil fuel subsidy elimination | Politically difficult |
| 6 (Power) | Community energy ownership | Emerging |
| 5 (Goals) | From growth to sustainability | Nascent |
| 4 (Paradigm) | Energy abundance vs. scarcity | Shifting |
The Promising Signs:
- Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most places (Level 9 feedback loops)
- Young people overwhelmingly support climate action (generational paradigm shift)
- Investors increasingly see stranded asset risk (information changing behavior)
- Technology is enabling distributed energy (power redistribution)
Case Study 3: Ultra-Processed Foods
The Harm Profile:
- 11 million diet-related deaths annually
- Obesity and diabetes epidemics
- Products engineered for overconsumption
- Heavy marketing to children
Leverage Opportunities:
| Leverage Level | Potential Intervention | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|
| 12 (Numbers) | Sugar taxes | Proven effective (Mexico, UK) |
| 10 (Regulation) | Marketing restrictions to children | Growing precedent |
| 8 (Information) | Front-of-package warning labels | High impact, spreading globally |
| 8 (Information) | School nutrition education | Long-term investment |
| 7 (Rules) | Remove subsidies for commodity crops | Politically difficult |
| 5 (Goals) | From cheap calories to nourishment | Requires cultural shift |
| 4 (Paradigm) | From "food as fuel" to "food as medicine" | Emerging |
Case Study 4: Social Media
The Harm Profile:
- Attention extraction and addiction
- Mental health impacts, especially on youth
- Misinformation and polarization
- Privacy violations and manipulation
Leverage Analysis:
| Leverage Level | Potential Intervention | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| 10 (Regulation) | Data privacy regulations (GDPR) | Spreading globally |
| 10 (Regulation) | Age verification requirements | Debated |
| 8 (Information) | Algorithm transparency | Minimal but growing |
| 8 (Information) | Researcher access to data | Resisted by platforms |
| 7 (Rules) | Platform liability for content | Contentious |
| 7 (Rules) | Data portability requirements | Emerging |
| 7 (Rules) | Interoperability mandates | Discussed |
| 6 (Power) | Alternative ownership models | Emerging (Mastodon, etc.) |
| 5 (Goals) | From engagement to wellbeing | Minimal |
The Challenge: Social media platforms have unprecedented power to shape the information environment. Their business model (attention = advertising revenue) is fundamentally misaligned with user wellbeing. Shallow interventions (Level 10-12) may not be sufficient.
MicroSim: Industry Transformation Strategy Builder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 | |
Cross-Industry Patterns: What They Have in Common
After analyzing multiple harmful industries, clear patterns emerge:
Common Tactics:
| Tactic | Tobacco | Fossil Fuels | Processed Food | Social Media |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufactured doubt | Yes | Yes | Yes | Emerging |
| Capture regulators | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Target vulnerable populations | Youth | Poor communities | Children | Youth |
| Externalize costs | Health system | Climate, health | Health system | Mental health |
| Create addiction | Nicotine | N/A (but lock-in) | Sugar/salt | Dopamine loops |
| Lobby heavily | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Greenwash | "Light" cigarettes | "Clean" energy | "Healthy" options | "Well-being" features |
Common Vulnerabilities:
- All depend on information asymmetry (Level 8 interventions work)
- All benefit from externalized costs (Level 7 rule changes work)
- All resist transparency (information disclosure is threatening)
- All have internal contradictions (employees, scientists who know the truth)
- All face generational attitude shifts (paradigms are changing)
Industry Accountability: The Universal Playbook
Once you've seen how tobacco was transformed, you have a template. Ask: What information needs to be disclosed? What rules need to change? What paradigm shift is needed? How can power be redistributed? The specifics differ, but the strategic logic transfers.
Systemic Drivers of Harm: Beyond Individual Industries
While analyzing harmful industries is valuable, some critics argue that focusing only on industries misses deeper, structural forces that enable and amplify harm across all sectors. These "systemic drivers" operate at a meta-level—they're not industries themselves, but rather economic logics, ideological frameworks, and governance failures that shape how industries behave.
Understanding these drivers doesn't replace industry-level analysis; it complements it by revealing higher-leverage intervention points.
Leverage Point Levels
Throughout this section, we reference Donella Meadows' 12 Leverage Points framework introduced earlier in this chapter. The levels range from shallow interventions (Level 12: tweaking numbers) to deep interventions (Level 4: changing paradigms). Higher numbers = easier but less effective; lower numbers = harder but transformative.
Extractive Capitalism
What it is: An economic orientation focused exclusively on extracting maximum short-term profit, which is then funneled to owners and executives rather than reinvested in workers, communities, or sustainability.
How it drives harm:
- Externalization imperative: When profit is the sole metric, companies are incentivized to push costs onto others (workers, communities, environment)
- Short-termism: Quarterly earnings pressure discourages long-term investments in safety, sustainability, or worker wellbeing
- Wealth concentration: Extracted profits flow to a shrinking pool of owners, undermining the consumer base and democratic governance
- Financialization: When making money from money becomes more profitable than making useful goods, productive investment declines
Industries most affected: For-profit healthcare and insurance, private equity-owned companies, payday lending, private prisons—anywhere the "product" is vulnerable people.
Leverage implications: This operates at Level 5 (Goals) and Level 4 (Paradigms). Changing individual industry rules (Level 7) without addressing extractive logic may simply shift harmful practices elsewhere. Deeper interventions include:
- Stakeholder governance requirements (Level 6)
- Fiduciary duty reform to include non-shareholder interests (Level 7)
- Alternative ownership models: cooperatives, employee ownership, community ownership (Level 6)
- Mission-lock structures like B-Corps and benefit corporations (Level 5)
Fundamentalism: Religious and Political Absolutism
What it is: Ideological frameworks—whether religious or political—that claim absolute certainty and reject compromise, evidence, or democratic deliberation.
How it drives harm:
- Policy paralysis: When positions are non-negotiable, evidence-based harm reduction becomes impossible
- Science denial: Climate denial, vaccine hesitancy, and rejection of public health measures often have fundamentalist roots
- In-group/out-group dynamics: Fundamentalist frameworks often dehumanize those outside the group
- Democratic erosion: Absolutist thinking is incompatible with democratic give-and-take
Where it appears: Climate policy obstruction, resistance to harm reduction for drug use, opposition to evidence-based sex education, rejection of regulatory frameworks as "government overreach."
Leverage implications: This operates at Level 4 (Paradigms) and is extremely resistant to lower-level interventions. Strategies include:
- Finding values alignment: Identify shared values (stewardship, community care) that can bridge ideological divides
- Messenger credibility: Voices from within fundamentalist communities carry more weight than outside critics
- Narrative reframing: Present ethical action in terms compatible with existing worldviews
- Long-term cultural work: Education, exposure, and generational change
Distinguishing Critique from Attack
Identifying fundamentalism as a systemic driver of harm is not an attack on religious faith or political conviction per se. Many religious and political traditions contain profound ethical resources. The critique targets absolutism—the refusal to engage with evidence, dialogue, or democratic process—not sincere belief.
Government Dysfunction and Regulatory Failure
What it is: The systematic failure of government institutions to serve public interest, whether through capture, corruption, bureaucratic ossification, or ideological sabotage.
How it drives harm:
- Regulatory capture: Agencies meant to protect the public instead serve industry interests (discussed earlier in this chapter)
- Enforcement gaps: Laws exist but aren't enforced due to underfunding or political interference
- Bureaucratic inertia: Systems designed for past problems fail to address emerging harms
- Intentional sabotage: Ideological opposition to regulation leads to deliberate weakening of protective agencies
Where it appears: Environmental protection failures, financial regulation gaps, workplace safety lapses, public health system weaknesses.
Leverage implications: This operates at multiple levels simultaneously:
- Level 7 (Rules): Strengthen conflict-of-interest rules, revolving door restrictions
- Level 6 (Power): Increase citizen oversight, strengthen whistleblower protections
- Level 8 (Information): Transparency requirements for lobbying and regulatory decisions
- Level 5 (Goals): Redefine agency success metrics around public outcomes rather than industry satisfaction
The Interaction Effect
These systemic drivers don't operate in isolation—they reinforce each other:
| Driver A | Driver B | Interaction |
|---|---|---|
| Extractive capitalism | Government dysfunction | Industry captures regulators to protect extraction |
| Fundamentalism | Extractive capitalism | Religious frameworks justify economic inequality |
| Government dysfunction | Fundamentalism | Ideological opposition weakens regulatory capacity |
| All three | — | Create conditions where harmful industries flourish |
Strategic implication: Addressing any one driver may be undermined by the others. The most effective strategies work on multiple drivers simultaneously, just as they work at multiple leverage levels.
Reflection: Which systemic driver most enables the industry you're studying?
Think about the harmful industry you've been analyzing. Which of these systemic drivers—extractive capitalism, fundamentalism, or government dysfunction—most enables its harmful practices? How might addressing that driver change the industry's behavior?
Finding Your Leverage: A Practical Framework
Now let's bring this all together into a practical framework you can use to find leverage in any system you want to change.
Step 1: Map the System
Before intervening, understand:
- What are the key stocks and flows?
- What feedback loops drive behavior?
- What archetypes are operating?
- Who are the stakeholders and what power do they have?
Step 2: Identify Current Intervention Points
What changes are already being attempted? At what leverage levels? How effective are they?
Step 3: Look for Leverage Gaps
Where are the under-explored opportunities? Often, everyone focuses on the same level (usually 10-12) while higher leverage points are ignored.
Step 4: Assess Your Resources
What do you have to work with?
- Money? (useful for infrastructure, litigation, campaigns)
- Political access? (useful for rule changes)
- Expertise? (useful for information interventions)
- Organizing capacity? (useful for power redistribution)
- Cultural influence? (useful for paradigm shifts)
Step 5: Design Multi-Level Strategy
The most effective transformations work at multiple levels simultaneously:
- Immediate actions (Levels 10-12): Create urgency, buy time, build momentum
- Medium-term strategies (Levels 7-9): Change rules, shift information, accelerate positive loops
- Long-term vision (Levels 4-6): Shift power, redefine goals, transform paradigms
Step 6: Anticipate Resistance
How will incumbents fight back? Design your interventions to be resistant to:
- Capture (make them transparent and distributed)
- Evasion (close loopholes in advance)
- Delay (create ratchets that prevent backsliding)
- Narrative war (have your story ready)
Reflection: What leverage points could you reach?
Think about an issue you care about. What resources do you personally have access to? What level of the leverage ladder could you realistically operate at? Even if you can only work at Level 12 (numbers), you might be able to support others working at higher levels.
Learning Outcomes
By completing this chapter, you should be able to:
-
Apply Donella Meadows' 12 leverage points framework to analyze intervention opportunities in any system
-
Explain why markets fail (information asymmetry, externalities, collective action problems, regulatory capture) and identify which leverage points address each failure mode
-
Analyze stakeholder power dynamics and design engagement strategies for different quadrants
-
Recognize common industry resistance tactics (manufactured doubt, astroturfing, greenwashing, revolving door) and design interventions that are harder to capture
-
Evaluate the effectiveness of interventions across multiple industries and identify cross-industry patterns
-
Design multi-level intervention strategies that work at shallow, medium, and deep leverage points simultaneously
Self-Assessment: Name the leverage level. A regulation requires food companies to list added sugar content on package labels.
This is Level 8 (Information Flows). The intervention changes who has access to information (consumers now know about added sugar) without changing the rules about what can be sold or how products are made.
Self-Assessment: What market failure does this represent? A chemical company's factory pollutes a river, causing health problems downstream, but the company doesn't pay for medical costs.
This is a classic externality problem. The company externalizes costs (pollution damage, healthcare) to third parties (downstream communities, public health system) rather than including them in the product price.
Self-Assessment: What leverage level is this intervention? A new law requires that half of a company's board of directors be elected by workers.
This is Level 6 (Power to Self-Organize System Structure). It changes who makes decisions about the company's rules and purpose—workers now have structural power they didn't have before.
Summary: Your Systems Thinking Superpower
You now have something most people lack: a strategic framework for thinking about change. When you see a problem, you don't just see the problem—you see the system that produces it. You see the feedback loops, the archetypes, the power dynamics. And you see the leverage points where small, well-placed efforts can produce large, lasting change.
This is your superpower. Use it wisely.
Remember the key principles:
-
Think leverage, not force. Ask where the system is most susceptible to redirection, not where you can push hardest.
-
Work at multiple levels. The most successful transformations combine immediate actions with long-term vision.
-
Understand resistance. Incumbents will fight. Design interventions that are hard to capture, evade, or delay.
-
Find your contribution. You don't have to work at every level yourself. Find where your resources and skills can contribute to a larger multi-level strategy.
-
Be patient but persistent. Deep leverage points take time to shift but produce lasting change. Don't give up on paradigm change just because it's slow.
In the next chapter, we'll turn this strategic thinking into concrete action—designing advocacy campaigns, building coalitions, and applying behavioral economics to create change.
The world is full of problems that seem too big to solve. But they're all systems. And systems have leverage points. Now you know how to find them.
Concepts Covered in This Chapter
This chapter covers the following 42 concepts from the learning graph:
Market Failure Concepts (MRKT)
- Market Failures
- Information Asymmetry
- Externality Pricing
- Regulatory Capture
- Industry Lobbying
- Greenwashing
- Misleading Marketing
- Power Dynamics
- Stakeholder Analysis
- Game Theory
- Prisoner's Dilemma
- Nash Equilibrium
- Collective Action Problems
- Free Rider Problem
- Coordination Failures
Industry Case Study Concepts (CASE)
- Tobacco Industry Case
- Fossil Fuel Industry Case
- Ultra-Processed Foods Case
- Social Media Case
- Fast Fashion Case
- Pharmaceutical Industry Case
- Gambling Industry Case
- Industrial Agriculture Case
- Firearms Industry Case
- Alcohol Industry Case
- Private Prison Case
- Payday Lending Case
- Arms Industry Case
- Chemical Industry Case
- Mining Industry Case
- Pesticide Industry Case
- Industry Comparison
- Cross-Industry Patterns
- Industry Accountability
- Deceptive Practices
- Science Denial
- Manufactured Doubt
- Astroturfing
- Front Groups
- Revolving Door
- Corporate Lobbying
- Political Influence
Prerequisites
This chapter builds on concepts from: