Let Strategy Emerge: Inductive Approaches to Complex Change
Why planning from the top down fails in complex change, and why inductive thinking works.
If you’ve been engaging in social change work for any length of time, you’ve probably felt the tension between the pressure to have a comprehensive strategic plan up front and the reality that complex systems rarely behave the way our plans predict. Funders want clear theories of change. Boards want roadmaps. Stakeholders want clarity and direction. But the most effective systems change work I’ve seen hasn’t followed the traditional playbook of extensive analysis followed by execution. Instead, it starts with action, learns from what emerges, and develops strategy iteratively along the way.
This bottom-up approach isn’t about being reckless or unprepared, but about recognizing that in complex systems, the wisdom needed for effective change is distributed across many stakeholders, and no amount of upfront analysis can substitute for the insights that emerge when diverse actors begin working together and probing into a system. So I’ll make the case here for why inductive strategy works better for systems change, offer five key principles for putting it into practice, and explore what this means for how we think about strategic planning in our work.
What Is Inductive Strategy?
Inductive strategy flips traditional strategic planning on its head. Instead of beginning with comprehensive analysis and then moving to action, you start with action and experimentation, letting patterns and insights emerge that inform your strategy over time.
If you’re familiar with adrienne maree brown’s work on emergent strategy, you’ll recognize some resonances here—particularly the emphasis on starting small, learning from complex systems, and creating conditions for emergence rather than trying to control outcomes (and if you’re not familiar with brown’s work, you might start here). What I’m offering here is a complementary framework focused specifically on how funders and networks can put these principles into practice when navigating the messy reality of systems change work.
Think of it this way. Traditional deductive strategy is like planning an entire cross-country road trip before leaving home—mapping every stop, booking every hotel, scheduling every meal. Inductive strategy is like setting out with a clear destination in mind but discovering the best routes, unexpected scenic detours, and hidden gems along the way. You might even decide on a new destination.
Inductive strategy doesn’t mean having no strategy. It means developing strategy through iterative action-learning cycles rather than through analysis alone.
This matters because in complex systems—whether we’re talking about food systems, education, healthcare, or climate action—no single entity has enough information to fully understand the system, let alone predict how it will respond to interventions. The wisdom needed for effective change is distributed across many stakeholders, particularly those with lived experience of the challenges we’re trying to address.
Why Inductive Strategy Works Better for Systems Change
Traditional analytical approaches to strategy often fall short when tackling complex systems challenges. Here’s why, and examples of why inductive approaches work better:
Complex systems are unpredictable. Take the Regenerative Supply Working Group (now part of the Soil & Climate Alliance), which is advancing a set of interconnected initiatives to improve soil health and sequester atmospheric carbon. When the group first launched, they were focused solely on rebuilding non-GMO food and feed supplies in the U.S. As they explored the problems and possibilities in that space, however, they learned that markets had shifted far beyond just demand for non-GMO. Consumers and companies wanted to go further, faster, so the network shifted to advance a far more holistic agronomic system that ultimately works better for farmers, consumers, and the planet.
Diverse perspectives yield better solutions. The Clean Electronics Production Network is a multi-sector collaboration focused on eliminating worker exposures to hazardous chemicals in electronics manufacturing. One of the CEPN teams, while working on the problem of how to do scalable chemical testing in factories around the world, came up a seemingly ideal solution—they would use a chemical testing service operated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. By distributing simple and inexpensive test-kits-in-a-box to factory managers, they could quickly enable large-scale testing at a low cost. However, when the group presented their solution to the larger network, one question from an Apply employee in China stopped the idea in its tracks. “How,” he asked, “are you going to get U.S. surveillance equipment into China?” The team (after some initial disappointment) went back to the drawing board, ultimately developing the Qualitative Exposure Assessment, a simple method to quickly assess risk that reduced chemical exposure even faster than the original idea.
Engagement creates commitment. People support what they help create. When stakeholders participate in developing strategy through action and learning together, they develop deeper commitment to implementation. In our work with food system collaboratives, we’ve seen how farmers, processors, retailers, and consumers develop shared ownership of strategies they’ve co-created, leading to more sustained action than expert-driven approaches.
Adaptability is built in. Inductive strategy inherently builds adaptability into the process. Since the approach is iterative and learning-based, course corrections happen naturally as new information emerges. This stands in stark contrast to traditional strategic plans that often become outdated before they’re even fully implemented.
Key Principles for Effective Inductive Strategy
If you’re interested in applying inductive approaches to your systems change work, here are five key principles from our collaborative innovation model:
1. Start with Spiraling Engagement
Inductive strategy begins with what we call “spiraling”—starting with a small group of stakeholders who share a common intent, then gradually expanding outward to include more diverse perspectives. Rather than the “we’ll find something for everybody” approach, this is about seeking what we call “rising resonance,” the highest aspiration that pulls people together around a deeply shared purpose.
The Solar Circle collaboration exemplifies this approach. Starting in 2001 with just two people—Susan Davis and Alisa Gravitz—asking “How much solar do we need to tip the market?”, they gradually expanded to include industry leaders, academics, policy experts, and others. Each new perspective enriched their understanding and approach toward their goal of 50% of global energy supply coming from solar by 2050 (a goal that will now be met far before their deadline).
Part of this spiraling process is iterating between the WHY (your intent) and the WHO (the diverse stakeholders needed to achieve that intent). Each informs the other in an ongoing conversation.
2. Leverage Creative Tensions Rather Than Resolving Them
Complex challenges inevitably surface tensions between seemingly opposing values or approaches. Rather than trying to resolve these tensions by choosing one side, inductive strategy treats them as creative forces that can form a more effective, more informed, and more resilient strategy.
About a year into the development of the Clean Electronics Production Network, a tension emerged between those participants demanding that the group focus on visible, short term wins and others who insisted on pursuing a long-term systemic change strategy. The companies in the network were pushing for visible results that could happen quickly—for good reason, because they were under pressure to show results so their companies would continue to support the network. Some worker representatives, on the other hands, viewed these short-term goals as transactional and ineffective, demanding instead a strategy to fundamentally change the whole system of production, something that the companies saw is highly unfeasible. As we explore this tension together, actually mapping it using a method developed by Dr. Barry Johnson at Polarity Partnerships, the group realized that focusing exclusively on short-term wins OR long-term systemic change would fail. Instead, they begin developing a strategic approach in which they would pursue short-term results that were clearly set within a larger system change approach—advancing both in a mutually-reinforcing way.
3. Balance Diverging and Converging
Effective inductive strategy requires intentional movement between expanding possibilities (diverging) and making choices (converging). This rhythm allows for both creative exploration and focused action.
In Nā Kama a Hāloa, a network working to redesign the Hawaiian child welfare system to align with Native Hawaiian cultures and values, we facilitated a process where participants first diverged to identify critical shifts needed in the system, then converged to prioritize the most important ones. They then diverged again to generate solution ideas before converging on specific initiatives to advance together. This cycle not only provided more perspectives and ideas, and convergence on those, but built ownership, as everyone contributed to both the analysis and the design of solutions.
4. Work Concurrently, Not Sequentially
Traditional strategy often unfolds in a linear sequence, with assumptions mapped in a linear theory of change. Inductive strategy, by contrast, encourages concurrent work—multiple teams exploring different aspects of a challenge simultaneously, then cross-pollinating their learnings and strategies. This approach not only accelerates progress but also ensures that diverse perspectives aren’t lost in sequential processes where early or more powerful voices often dominate. Methods like silent brainstorming, where everyone contributes ideas simultaneously, help ensure that power dynamics don’t silence important insights and powerful ideas.
5. Check Back Regularly
Inductive strategy isn’t “set it and forget it.” It requires regular reflection on whether your current activities align with your evolving understanding and shared purpose. For most networks we support, that means a regular review (maybe every two years) of the overall vision and goal, the analysis of the system, the leverage points, and the strategy and priorities.
The Limits of Theories of Change
Theories of change—while valuable planning tools—have real limitations in complex systems work.
They often assume a linear progression of cause and effect, which is rarely how complex systems actually behave. This linearity can oversimplify the interactions and feedback loops that drive system dynamics, leading to incomplete or ineffective strategies.
They can also create an illusion of predictability and control. Once a theory of change is established, there’s often resistance to altering it, even when new evidence emerges or circumstances change. This rigidity contrains our ability to respond to emergent issues effectively.
Perhaps most importantly, theories of change tend to emphasize end outcomes while neglecting the processes and interactions that lead to those outcomes. In complex systems, understanding and influencing processes is crucial for sustainable change.
This doesn’t mean abandoning theories of change altogether. It may just mean recognizing their limitations and remaining willing to adapt them—or set them aside entirely—as your understanding evolves through action and learning.
Moving Forward with Inductive Strategy
As you consider applying these principles in your own work, remember that inductive strategy requires comfort with uncertainty and a willingness to learn and adapt. It may feel messier than traditional approaches—what we call “the design squiggle”—but this messiness is precisely what allows for more creative, inclusive, and ultimately effective systems change.
The greatest challenges we face today—from climate change to inequality to public health—are complex, interconnected, and resistant to simple solutions. By embracing inductive strategy, we can tap into the collective intelligence of diverse stakeholders, remain adaptive in the face of changing conditions, and develop approaches that truly match the complexity of the challenges we seek to address.
Strategy doesn’t have to be fully formed before you begin. Sometimes the smartest move is to start walking and let the path reveal itself.
Free resource from CoCreative: 6 Patterns in Collaborative Innovation:
Russ Gaskin is founder and co-owner of CoCreative, a consulting and training organization specializing in network weaving, systems change strategy co-design, and facilitation of multi-stakeholder collaborations.
Thank you for writing this—a rare piece of grounded, practical thinking about complexity and strategy. It’s refreshing to see this level of realism applied to systems change work.
I really appreciate the idea of inductive strategy. Where I hesitate slightly is in the framing of it as inductive versus deductive. In practice, strategy often feels more hybrid. You speak beautifully about staying with tensions and resisting premature resolution—which makes the binary framing stand out a bit. The section on leveraging tensions, in particular, subtly undermines the earlier dichotomy.
In my own mental model, I imagine this more like a gear train: during early exploration, execution spins quickly while strategy adjusts more slowly. As scaling begins, the ratio shifts—strategy stabilizes and execution expands. Continuing pure induction while scaling (without capacity to metabolize the learning) can create instability. So it feels less like replacing deductive strategy and more like dynamically shifting the ratio between exploration and coherence.
I also wondered about the CEPN example. It seemed more like an example of tactical adaptability than strategic evolution. Later, adaptability is treated almost as strategy itself, but those aren’t quite the same. Adjusting tactics within a stable objective is different from redefining the objective.
One thought I found compelling is what might be called process-as-strategy. In complex environments, the meta-capability—how you learn, iterate, and convene—may matter more than having a fully articulated plan at the outset. That resonates strongly. At the same time, it doesn’t eliminate the need for strategic coherence, especially as initiatives scale.
Overall, I read this as an attempt to explain why messy, emergent processes sometimes outperform structured plans—and I appreciate that it’s grounded in lived experience rather than abstraction.