Change Happens in Relationships, Not Systems: Why We're Investing in the Wrong Infrastructure

Bonus Insight #3 from 25 podcast conversations with leaders who leave the world better than they found it

Sophie Otiende works on gender-based violence prevention. She challenges one of the nonprofit sector's core assumptions:

"Change mainly happens in relationships. We can talk about it systemically and all those things, but at the end of the day, it's relationships."

Not policy changes. Not institutional mechanisms. Not systems interventions.

Relationships.

She gave an example: A chief in Malawi stopped several child marriages because of the power she had and the understanding she gained through relationships.

Two conversations with the right person changed an entire community's practice.

That's systems change. It just doesn't look like what we usually fund.

The Systems Change Myth

The nonprofit sector is obsessed with systems change.

We want to shift policies. Reform institutions. Change regulations. Build new structures.

We talk about root causes and leverage points and theory of change. We map systems. We identify intervention points.

All of this makes sense. Systems do shape outcomes. Institutional structures matter.

But Sophie argues we're missing something fundamental: systems don't change themselves. People change systems. And people change through relationships.

"Even if you hear most of the stories of abolition in the past, it was that someone had a relationship with somebody else and then recognized their humanity, recognized that this was wrong, and then started supporting," she told me.

The policy changes we celebrate as systems change? They happened because someone with power had their perspective shifted through relationship.

The institutional reforms we point to as progress? They occurred because people inside those institutions were influenced by people they knew and trusted.

Systems change is downstream of relationship change.

Why We Avoid Relationship Work

Organizations resist investing in relationship-building as systems change strategy for understandable reasons:

It doesn't scale predictably. You can't plan exactly how relationship influence will spread. You can't measure it cleanly. You can't replicate it precisely.

It's slow. Building genuine relationships takes time. Funders want to see change within grant cycles. Relationships work on human timelines.

It feels soft. Relationship-building doesn't sound strategic compared to policy advocacy or institutional reform. It sounds like "just talking to people."

It's hard to attribute. When change happens through relationships, it's difficult to draw a clear line from your intervention to the outcome. Multiple relationships contribute.

It requires vulnerability. Genuine relationships require showing up as human, not just as professional role. That feels risky in organizational contexts.

So we default to systems interventions that feel more strategic: research, policy papers, advocacy campaigns, institutional partnerships.

These aren't wrong. But they're incomplete without the relationship work that actually shifts people's perspectives.

What Relationship-Based Change Looks Like

Sophie describes it clearly: "Meeting people where they are allows us to recognize that people are human first."

Not targets for behavior change. Not obstacles to reform. Not decision-makers to influence.

Humans. With their own experiences, fears, values, and reasons for their current positions.

When you approach someone as human first, relationship becomes possible. And relationship creates the conditions for perspective shift.

Sophie gave another example: "I've had conversations with people who are absolutely racist. But then they're ready to [reconsider for] their Black person or this person that is in their family or is in their neighborhood."

The racism didn't shift because of a policy argument or educational program. It shifted because of relationship with a specific human.

That's how change happens. Not cleanly. Not scalably. But effectively.

The Two-Conversation Principle

Sophie's example of the Malawian chief is instructive: two conversations changed a community.

Not a ten-year institutional reform process. Not a carefully designed intervention with multiple touchpoints. Not a policy change at the national level.

Two conversations with someone who had influence and was open to shifting.

This suggests a different theory of change:

Identify people with influence and access in the system you're trying to change. Build genuine relationships with them. Create space for perspective shift. Support them as they use their influence differently.

Why Meeting People Where They Are Matters

Sophie is adamant about this: "We have to assume that in many ways people are acting rationally according to the knowledge that they have."

This is hard to accept. When someone's position seems obviously wrong, we want to correct them, not accept their rationality.

But Sophie's point is strategic: if you start by assuming someone is irrational or bad, you can't build a relationship. You can only fight.

When you accept that they're acting rationally given their knowledge and experience—even if that knowledge is incomplete or that experience has led them to harmful conclusions—you can engage.

You can be curious about how they got to their current position. You can offer different information without dismissing their intelligence. You can build relationship while acknowledging difference.

"Meeting people where they are in their knowledge and not preaching at people" is how Sophie describes it.

This doesn't mean accepting harmful positions. It means accepting that the person arrived at their position through a process that made sense to them. And relationship is how you create space for different processes.

The Language Problem

Sophie calls out something crucial: "Most of our language right now is too academic and too preachy. The people who actually need this knowledge would never listen to you."

She's right. Most social change communications are designed for people who already agree.

We use academic language. We cite research. We make logical arguments. We present evidence.

All of that works for people who trust institutions, value academic knowledge, and are open to being convinced.

It doesn't work for people who don't trust those sources. Who have different ways of knowing. Who need relationship before they'll consider information.

Systems change requires meeting people in their language, their knowledge systems, their ways of processing information.

And that requires relationship. You can't do that through institutional channels. You do it through human connection.

What Organizations Should Do Differently

If relationship is actually how systems change happens, organizations should:

Invest in long-term relationship-building. Not just strategic relationships with decision-makers. Genuine relationships with people throughout the system you're trying to shift.

Value connectors. The people who naturally build relationships across difference are strategic assets. Recognize and resource them.

Create space for informal connection. Not every interaction needs a strategic agenda. Sometimes the most important conversation happens when you're just being human together.

Measure relationship indicators. Track who you're in relationship with. How those relationships are deepening. What's becoming possible through connection.

Accept slow progress. Relationship-based change doesn't happen in grant cycles. Fund for the long term or don't fund for relationships.

Get comfortable with attribution ambiguity. You'll never be able to prove your relationship caused the change. But you'll know it contributed.

The Systems AND Relationships Both

I'm not arguing against systems analysis or institutional change work. Those matter.

But they're insufficient without the relationship work that actually shifts people's perspectives.

Sophie put it perfectly: "We cannot distance ourselves from humanity and expect any kind of change to happen."

Systems change work that doesn't include relationship-building is incomplete. It might shift formal structures without shifting the culture and people within those structures.

And when that happens, the formal changes don't stick. People find ways around new policies. Institutions revert to old patterns. Reform on paper doesn't translate to reform in practice.

Because the people haven't changed. And people change through relationships.

From Systems Interventions To Relational Strategy

Next time you're designing systems change strategy, add this step:

Map the key relationships that would need to shift for the system to change.

Not just decision-makers. But people with influence. People who are trusted. People who could shift perspective and bring others with them.

Then ask: What would it take to build genuine relationships with these people?

Not transactional relationships. Not strategic relationships where you're trying to influence them.

Genuine relationships where you're showing up as human. Where you're curious about their experience. Where you're open to being changed by knowing them.

That's not soft work. That's systems change infrastructure.

Because change happens in relationships.

And if you want to change systems, you need to invest in the relationships that make up those systems.

This is bonus insight #3 in an extended series exploring lessons from podcast conversations with leaders who leave the world better than they found it.

Subscribe for insights on relationship as systems change strategy.