Podcast: The case for smaller, more humble systemic interventions

Interview with Odin Mühlenbein

Listen to the interview on the In Too Deep podcast

I have nothing against these grand ambitions, but I think we are limiting ourselves when it comes to the potential of systems thinking and system change work if we only look at these huge changes. In fact, even the big changes, I think, can only be achieved by tackling smaller systemic issues in the right sequence in a clever way.

Jeff (00:36)
This week we’re joined with Odin Mühlenbein who is a partner at Ashoka Germany and also a lead of the systems unit at Ashoka Globalizer. He’s also the co-author of a recent report, From Small to Systemic which looks at the multi-billion euro potential in social innovation. So Odin, super happy to have you on In Too Deep. Wondered if you could start just giving a little bit of your background, both kind of what brought you to the social sector and kind of social entrepreneurship work and also if you can share just a little bit about Ashoka for those who aren’t familiar, that’d be great.

Odin (01:10)
Sure. Thanks so much for the invitation. It’s great being here. I come to the social entrepreneurship world from management consulting. I’ve been with McKinsey for a while and then did some pro bono work for Ashoka and thought that’s very exciting and switched sides. Before that, I was a philosopher by training and also started a couple of social ventures myself. The most important thing about Ashoka is that it’s a global network of social entrepreneurs. We operate in about 90 countries and support about 3,700 social entrepreneurs that we call Ashoka fellows. And for this context, the most important selection criteria to mention, is that when we look at the fellow candidates, we discuss at length the potential for that candidate’s new idea to change a social system. And so, we have been part of the systems thinking and systems change movement for almost 40 years now.

Jeff (02:16)
Wonderful. And I know too, you had mentioned some of your work at Ashoka Globalizer. So, can you say a little bit more about that program and your involvement in that?

Odin (02:27)
Ashoka Globalizer started as an accelerator program that looked into opportunities for social enterprisers to grow beyond borders in the regional sense. So we were looking at international growth. Then we shifted gears somewhat and looked into ways for social innovations to spread without necessarily social ventures having to grow. We thought this is a more feasible and elegant solution to scale impact than the growth mindset that we find in for-profit businesses. And then the last iteration was to focus much more, not so much on spreading individual pieces, like social innovations, but to look at the systems that the fellows ultimately want to change in a bit more detail, in a bit more holistic way. And so, what we are doing right now is over the course of 14 weeks we develop what we call a systems change strategy.

Jeff (03:29)
Wonderful. And can you go into a little bit more depth on the systems change strategy? I think a lot of our listeners are trying to do exactly that type of work. So maybe say a little bit more both about kind of what people, what skills people are coming into that program with and what mindsets and kind of what’s the training that you go through with those entrepreneurs and how do some of those mindsets and skills change as a result of that program?

Odin (03:53)
Sure. We have structured the thought process that people go through in the Globalizer program in five steps. First, we look at the problem that the fellow is ultimately interested about, so this might be forests are being destroyed or people live in poverty. The more tangible outcomes of systemic problems. Then we move on to analyzing the systemic root causes of these problems. That gives us usually stuff, like five to 10 of what we believe are the most relevant systemic drivers of that problem. Based on that analysis, we then select one or two systems and like, specific elements in those systems that we believe if we can tackle those, would have the biggest impact on the problem that we care about. So, and we try to be really, really specific here. So intended system changes, system change goals of past fellows include things like, in the rural water management system in Mexico, there’s a feedback loop between local bureaucrats and local communities to make sure that the projects actually, you know, include what the people actually need. Or, in the healthcare system in Egypt, people go to general practitioners before they go to specialist doctors, as that would increase overall efficiency, and so on and so forth. Like really, like not just improve the education system but like, what exactly in the education system in which country do you want to change and how?

Odin (05:30)
Once we have that, that is step three, we move on to the fourth step, which is what we call a system change journey or system change story. So here we take the system change goal of step three, take it as the happy ending of a system change story and then develop the story from back to the beginning. So, if you think about a story like Lord of the Rings, the happy ending there is that the evil ring is brought to Mordor and destroyed in the big volcano. And then thinking backwards, you might have, you might have story arcs, like the hobbits make it to Mordor undamaged or the armies of the good defeat the armies of the bad, like the big arcs of the story.

Odin (06:15)
And then you can zoom into those arcs and define the more tangible milestones and chapters like the Hobbits make it through the dwarven mine or the Riders of Rohan join the forces for good, like the more, the smaller milestones that contribute to the bigger story arcs. And, we do a similar thing for the system change goals that our fellows have identified. And so, after step four, we have like a one page summary of what we believe needs to happen in order to achieve that systemic goal in the most elegant, efficient, risk-free way possible. And only when we have that, do we move on to the last step, the fifth step, which is to think about the concrete contributions that the social entrepreneurs can make to drive that story forward. So, can they sell a product or a service that helps the story move forward? Can they do advocacy? Can they start a movement? Can they do ecosystem initiatives? Can they train others? Can they opensource knowledge? Like all the different tools that are available to a social entrepreneur, we go through them and see how they can drive the story forward. And the whole process takes about 14 weeks.

Jeff (07:30)
That’s great. And how much do you do explicit mapping in that? And actually have those entrepreneurs do things like systems maps or how much of that is, are competencies that are kind of held by the Globalizer team or you? Can you tell me a bit more about that?

Odin (07:44)
Yeah, we do not ask our participants to be experts in systems thinking, system mapping, any of that. We trust our colleagues from the venture teams to select social entrepreneurs into the Ashoka fellowship who are already thinking on a systems level in some way. They might not have like technical systems mapping skills, but they are definitely thinking on that level. And so what Ashoka Globalizer colleagues provide is the more technical skill to structure these thoughts, to put them on a systems map, to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant factors, to identify some of the most relevant feedback loops, things like that. But we, we understand ourselves more as… We ask a lot of questions and we are thought partners to the social entrepreneur and we trust the insights that the social entrepreneur and their team already bring to the table. We just had to put it on paper in a nice way and to facilitate the process.

Jeff (08:49)
Great. And before we get into the report, wanted to ask a question too about another publication that you had done in SSIR, which was the article “On Systems Change, Big or Small” and in it, you talk about the misconception that systems change by definition needs to be big and so I would love if you can share a little bit more about kind of the gist behind that article and some of the stumbling blocks you see people run into, based on that misconception.

Odin (09:14)
Mm-hmm. The motivation behind that article was… So we were talking about system change to a lot of the social entrepreneurs that we support and whenever, especially in Germany when we use this, the term system change, everybody got afraid. Like it, it seemed like there was a lot of resistance even though we selected those people for their potential to achieve system change. Some that was a bit weird for us to realize, but it’s about… So, I think the first… It’s different things that come together, but some of the issues were that people associated system change with, I don’t know, getting rid of capitalism, or completely overhauling the education system on a continental scale, or things of that nature. And that seemed so big and the people who have done something vaguely similar to that level of ambition were so few and few in between, that nobody wanted to actually say out loud that that’s the kind of work that they wanted to do or that that’s the level of ambition.

Odin (10:18)
It seems ludicrous in a way. And I was a bit perplexed because that is, that is actually not what we select people for. So if somebody has invented a social innovation that can improve the efficiency of the Egyptian healthcare system in some neat little way, that’s perfectly fine for us. Like, we don’t ask for a complete revolution of any sort. And so, that was one part, the experiences that we had in the discussions with our own fellows. And the other was when we looked at the publications that were coming out at that time, most notably a great report by the Schwab Foundation in collaboration with the Bertha Centre in South Africa, they showcased a number of case studies where organizations, in many cases, grew to quite an extent and had systemic impact for quite a bit of region, like big impressive numbers.

Odin (11:19)
And, they were talking about revolutionizing a whole field, et cetera, et cetera. And so, because those were the only publications with concrete case studies that reinforced this point, that system change needs to be big and I just thought, I have nothing against these grand ambitions, but I think we are limiting ourselves when it comes to the potential of systems thinking and system change work if we only look at these huge changes. And in fact, even the big changes, I think, can only be achieved by tackling smaller systemic issues in the right sequence in a clever way. And so, not only do we forget about 95% of the work that we can do with a systems approach, we even limit our chances of success for the remaining 5% which represent the big grand changes. Because when we do our strategies, we fail to look at all the smaller systemic changes that ultimately result in the bigger ones.

Odin (12:18)
And so this, this is what I wanted to highlight and also give some concrete examples, how more targeted, smaller, more humble systemic interventions can look like. In addition to the analytical piece, there’s also, I think this is also important from a mindset perspective. This, I have some issues with this idea that you can revolutionize a field or a healthcare system or education system. This is not, I think, how you can, should most constructively approach systems work. It relies much more on doing small steps, sensing, adapting your approach, learning, getting more people involved. And so, this whole idea of some small number of entities or even one social enterprise being responsible or driving a big change, it’s kind of misleading, at the very least, or even counterproductive.

Jeff (13:22)
That’s a great reminder. So let’s switch gears to the report. So its title is “From Small to Systemic.” Would love to have you share a little bit more about kind of why it felt important to write the report and would love for you to give a little bit more background on kind of how you chose the title as well.

Odin (13:38)
Hmm, yeah. For the title, I can’t really say that much. We had marketing people look over that and I’m really not good at that. But the motivation was… So we were trying to build the field that supports system changing social entrepreneurs. And we are, of course, and the fellows are, of course, motivated by the good that you can do with this approach for the world. And so we were talking about, you know, yeah. Improving ways of teaching or adding new job opportunities for people with disabilities, and all that good stuff. But when you talk to donors and when you talk to politicians and when you talk the partners that you need, to achieve these types of changes, like healthcare insurance providers or school bureaucracies, you know, these types of entities, that’s not necessarily their language or what they are motivated by.

Odin (14:38)
And so we said, okay, we need to make sure that these entities understand the value of these social innovations and of a systems approach. And so, we looked at the economic potential that these changes have for society at large. And so, we joined forces with McKinsey who are very good at building these models and doing calculations like that. And we looked at four cases, two in the education and two in the healthcare sector, to see what’s actually in it for Germany as a whole, for the state, for society. And how much would we have to invest to unlock that economic potential?

Odin (15:26)
And our hope was that, I mean, we were sure that the numbers would be kind of attractive but we didn’t know how attractive they would be. So, to give just two examples, Discovering Hands is a social business that trains blind women in diagnosing breast cancer much earlier than other doctors can. And this is because of two things. First, they have an improved sense of touch and second, they have more time for the diagnosis. And so, the difference is so big that if you used this way of diagnosing breast cancer for all women in Germany, and I’m not quite sure about the numbers but, between the ages of 35 and 55 or something like that, then you would save 18 to 160 million euros each year in Germany alone. And that is including all the costs for training and the diagnosis themselves.

Odin (16:24)
So this is like a net benefit. And I mean, this is still a minor change, right? This is just quote unquote a new job that is established in the healthcare system, a new practice of doing breast cancer diagnosis, with blind women. It’s a relatively small change but even then it’s a three-digit-million kind of savings every year. And so, we get similar even more impressive numbers for other innovations and this, this proved to be quite powerful in conversations. So this made the whole idea of social innovation relevant enough to be featured in major publications in Germany. And also, there’s a debate in the national Parliament right now to better support social entrepreneurs. And we just had the first debate on the topic on the parliament floor and the report was cited as the motivation to better support these innovators.

Odin (17:30)
And we also know of other parties who will also refer to the report in their proposals. So this is a great success for us. At the same time, we are a bit worried that it might also have a negative impact on the debate overall, because we, I mean, we did the study in the hopes of making social innovation more attractive for certain stakeholders. Like politicians or donors, but we don’t want to imply in any way, shape or form that we are only after social innovations and system changes because of the money that it saves. This is just a nice side effect of many systems improving innovations, but it’s not why we are doing it and this shouldn’t become the narrative. The narrative should still be social progress, helping disadvantaged and disenfranchised parts of the population.

Jeff (18:27)
And you, in our conversations before, you had mentioned a few interesting things about Germany, both in terms of different cultural aspects and the entrepreneurial environment and also too, just literally how the social sector is structured and kind of some of the challenges that non-profits have in actually accessing funds. Can you share a little bit more about that so listeners have an understanding of that context?

Odin (18:54)
Yeah, I have to be quite brief here because I think the history and context of Germany is quite different from other countries, but the most important elements I think are that, so first of all, Germany has a well developed social safety net. That includes, whenever you might lose your job, you get money to find the next one, you will always have enough to eat, let’s put it that way. Higher education is free, that kind of stuff. And so that’s one part. And the other part is that there are five umbrella organizations that together represent the majority of the welfare organizations. And this is how the state, but also a couple of, a bunch of private money, is making sure that there’s a basic set of social services available all over Germany. And so, many of the issues that might be that might be tackled by social entrepreneurs in other countries are already taken care of, either by the public safety net or by very well developed, extremely professional, highly resourced private entities, the big welfare organizations.

Odin (20:07)
And so, I think the role of social entrepreneurship is a little bit different in Germany. So, in other countries it might, in many more cases make sense to aim for big organizations so that you can reach many people, that kind of thing. In Germany, usually the goal I think should be to, for example, develop an innovation, show that it works, do the next few iterations in collaboration with government programs, or in collaboration with welfare programs, and make sure that they adopt the innovation, or that they improve the policy framework around it. And because these, both the public programs and the welfare structures are just so much better suited at replicating good ideas at scale. And that changes the dynamic between the state and social innovators in that country.

Jeff (21:02)
That’s fascinating. Yeah. Well, and so, in your context too, in the report, you use the term systems partners and so, my guess is there’s also something interesting about your point in bringing other partners in early and developing those relationships to really make sure that those innovations can be taken to scale. Anything else you learned that were interesting ways that social entrepreneurs in Germany were learning to navigate that field that might be helpful for other people to think about, in really getting to more systemic impact for their given businesses and innovation?

Odin (21:37)
This is probably not unique to the German ecosystem but I think everything, ultimately you need a collaborative approach whenever you want to have an impact on a systems level pretty much and so, it doesn’t really matter if you need, like… For example, for the improved practice of breast cancer diagnosis, you need to train doctors in how this method works, so that they can trust it. So it should be part of doctor trainings at universities. That’s one change. You need to include the trainings for the blind women, in the public training systems so that you get all the subsidies, and the support, and the official accreditations for it. And third, it needs to be part of the regulations for the health care insurance to cover the diagnosis. And so, you need to collaborate with these different stakeholders.

Odin (22:37)
Right, you need to reach out to healthcare insurers, you need to talk to whoever does the curriculum for doctors at universities. And these are, this is absolutely crucial. And if you are not in a good position to work with these entities, then you will have a very hard time achieving impact on the systems level. You might have… So, what you might be able to do is, I don’t know, like train 20 of those blind women in being really good at breast cancer diagnosis instruments. But then, and you might even find jobs for them because you collaborated with, maybe with one doctor or you offer it privately to patients and they just pay for it themselves. But it will never be institutionalized that way. And so, the ability to work together with these systems players, universities, et cetera, that’s absolutely crucial. And here, we actually found some deficits.

Odin (23:38)
So, in order to be able to do that, you need a certain, like you need people who specialize in that, you need people who speak the language of the other players that you want to convince of something. You also need to be patient because, I mean, these are big structures and that has its upsides and its downsides. And the upside is, once you have convinced them, that’s your system change. But the downside is that it takes awhile for them to understand it, to align, to make internal decision making processes go through. And so, you need to be a good partner for them and you need to be interested in working with them in the first place. And so, and that already requires that you have the right strategy and the right skill set.

Odin (24:25)
And if you don’t invest in these things, then you will not even be invited to give, to give the pitch, try to deliver the pitch, or to help them in their internal decision making processes. And so that was definitely one learning of the study, that social entrepreneurs should invest more in the strategies, and in their capabilities to work with these systems players. The other is vis-a-vis funders. So, we all… Like, the field of social entrepreneurs, everybody likes to complain about donors and that they don’t give enough money for systemic initiatives, and that it’s too focused on just growing programs, and having a higher, like a bigger number of beneficiaries that you reach. But actually, and while some of that might be true, there’s also things that we can do ourselves to make it easier for the donors to support systemic initiatives.

Odin (25:19)
And one of the most striking feedback, in my eyes was that, what we heard several times is that social entrepreneurs with a systemic ambition tend to be quite unclear of what exactly they want to achieve and in what, in which way. And they seem to be way over-confident and overpromise what they can actually achieve in a given timeframe. And that happened too many times in the last couple of years. And so, even the donors who are, who like a systems approach are somewhat, like have a more reserved stance right now because they just burnt their fingers a bit too much. And so what I… My recommendation to social entrepreneurs right now is to state explicitly, including all the assumptions that might be wrong, what your intended system change is, and not, I want to improve the health care system but I want to introduce a better practice of breast cancer diagnosis.

Odin (26:23)
Like on that level of specificity. Then you should be able to say exactly how you see the system change journey towards that goal. So, this is how we are going to work with universities, this is how we are going to work with the training institutions, and this is how we are going to work with health care insurance providers, and these are the partners that we are going to involve, et cetera, et cetera. And then, be humble and somewhat reserved when it comes to the timeframes in which you intend to achieve all those milestones. If you are clear and open about all of your assumptions, and your strategy, and if it’s not completely over the moon in terms of ambition and time span, then you have built trust and then it’s also okay to have some failures to adjust your approach and to learn as you go.

Jeff (27:16)
Are you finding, having done the economic analysis for this report, are you finding that that is becoming a recommendation for social entrepreneurs, to try to estimate some of that? Or is the finding, “hey it was so much that to do that well, you’re going to be bringing in someone like a McKinsey to do it robustly, and if you don’t do it robustly, don’t even try to estimate it.” Where are you falling right now on recommendations to these social entrepreneurs relating to that?

Odin (27:44)
We were not really advocating for particular social innovations or their institutionalization. We were more like trying to make the point that there’s a lot of economic potential in this general approach and in this field of social innovation. We, I wouldn’t vouch for any of the numbers that we ended up for the four case studies that we looked at. So, like in another case we arrived at the sum of 900 million euros per year. And, but I mean, it could just as well be 450, I don’t know. The point is, as long as we are not wrong by several orders of magnitude, what we have identified is a good reason to better support social innovators. And that’s all we wanted to do with the study. If you’re a social entrepreneur, you are in a slightly different position. So in that case, you would have to advocate for particular innovation and that particular system change.

Odin (28:41)
And so the, and again you might, you would be in a similar situation as we are though, that you might be wrong with your one calculation. But in that case, it would be quite bad because it’s not just the general point that you are making, you are trying to make the potential of one specific thing explicit. And so, I think you should be very careful, like yeah. By all means, do the modeling, I think it can be a good argument to get additional supporters on board, but be as humble as possible, and as open as possible. So one principle for this whole exercise for example, would be, whenever you have a range in which a certain number could be in and you are not sure, take the lowest possible number, and then make it explicit. So whenever you plug in the number and you model it, there should either be a link to a source or ideally, people should be able to download the model and change the numbers so that they can get different results based on their own assumptions.

Odin (29:42)
So like don’t… I wouldn’t recommend doing this kind of modeling exercise, arriving at any number, and then just providing the number in your pictures and in your press releases, without anybody being able to play with it, to question it, to challenge certain assumptions that are behind it. This can backfire quite quickly. But as long as you are careful, as long as you are transparent, I think it can be a great exercise to make your case in a stronger way.

Jeff (30:12)
One of the other questions I have too, is when thinking about, I think there’s been a lot of energy and enthusiasm behind social entrepreneurship, and this distinction between thinking about kind of that as a growing field versus what it is to be kind of systemic in that pursuit. And so, can you talk a little bit, either about kind of how Ashoka starts trying to sense out whether people really are on more of that systemic path, or how you’ve explained this difference to people in relation to this report? To really capture, okay, what does it mean? Great, lots of people are interested in doing social entrepreneurship, but how do you really feel out whether someone is, kind of has those systemic ambitions and is at least, and is on the path towards being a more systemic in the impact that they’re after?

Odin (31:02)
Hmm. If only we had a good answer to that already, that would make things much easier. I think we are still struggling with that to some extent, to be honest. But, so here are some things that I can say right now. So first of all, I think it’s important to note that there is no clear cut distinction between the social business and the system changing entrepreneur. It’s not like this zero, one kind of dichotomy. It’s more of a… It’s a matter of degree, how much influence and impact your work has, on a systems level. And so, it’s not so much about finding the ones and discarding the zeros, it’s more like taking people where they are on that journey. And at least, when it’s about whether or not we select them into the Ashoka fellowship, all we need is to see potential for the new idea to at some point change the social system.

Odin (32:04)
And so, and sometimes it’s only in the selection process, when we talk to the fellow and their team and their partners that they realize this thing. So this is one of the ways in which Ashoka has impact, by talking to social entrepreneurs at various stages on this journey, about their potential and about their potential systemic impact. Now, at some point, I mean, and then we use some heuristics and we try to apply some systems thinking tools to see where the potential could be. So for example, as many of your listeners will know, like tools like the 12 Leverage Points exercise that Donella Meadows produced or the the five hour framework developed by USAID. Or like, all the different systems tools, or system dynamics mapping. It doesn’t really matter.

Odin (32:58)
We try to apply these concepts and frameworks to see how the work and the new idea of the social entrepreneur could fit in, and when, if we see, okay, this could really change a power dynamic, this could make a big contribution towards a different mental model about people with disabilities, this could introduce a really important new flow of information that would then allow certain actors to behave differently, this would make, this would introduce a new practice in the field of education. Whenever we feel confident that we can say one of those things in systems terms, then usually we have a good candidate for why we might select them or what their system change goal could be for a strategy exercise. But also, these things change over time, right? So, we put the fellow profiles online at the point when we select them into the fellowship, and oftentimes when we have them as participants of the Ashoka Globalizer program, let’s say seven years after they were selected, you wouldn’t recognize the profile. Like it’s, because the work has evolved to such and extent that they might be at a completely different point in their journey and then the system change might might have changed or they might even work in a slightly different field.

Jeff (34:17)
That’s great. It’s such an important reminder of it not just being a binary, and thinking about it as a developmental path, and thinking about the power of relationships in network, to push people on the trajectory towards systemic impact is, it’s such a powerful reminder. So Odin, one last question for you. You’ve spent a ton of time with social entrepreneurs from kind of various walks of life. I wonder if you can talk a little bit, just about some of the, like the common challenges and stumbling blocks you see people run into, generally? And any guidance and wisdom you tend to offer those folks, so people listening can benefit from that.

Odin (34:57)
I mean some things do come up more often than others, but before I give any list that might be misleading, let me say that you can be successful in changing social systems in a lot of different ways. There is no… We even, at some point, started to develop certain archetypes. Like you know, we talk about the architect approach to systems change, or the community mobilizer approach. And these things are very, very different and they need completely different skill sets and… Like everything from funding to impact measurement would be very different and so I struggle to give a concise, general list of things. At the same time, and with this disclaimer in place, there are three skills that we believe are important for pretty much everybody. And this is a bit more abstract than concrete challenges, but we believe that if you cultivate these skills and values, then that will be a great basis for tackling whatever more technical challenge might be in your way.

Odin (36:07)
And the three skill sets or values are first, systems thinking, which nobody should be afraid of. It’s a natural thing to do, doesn’t necessarily require technical expertise. If you don’t have that, it’s easy to bring it online, or to get it from an external partner. But you should look at the issues from a systems perspective. It’s usually quite hard to tackle the root causes of social problems if you’re hacking away at the symptoms, all the time. So that, that definitely helps. And it can be practiced in a very systematic way and it’s just system. You know, it’s like golfing or web development. You just invest a couple of hours and then you become better at it.

Odin (36:56)
The second one is what we call right ambition. So, there is… At some point, you need to want to change the root causes of a social problem. It can’t be enough anymore to just plant the new trees, which will then be cut off again. Or to have 10 homeless people who you know will be replaced by others because the systems have not changed. At some point the motivation needs to be redirected on a systems level and it should be redirected for the right reasons also. So, if the goal is to be, like, is to just be a hero entrepreneur but now on the systems level instead of a growth based, you know, VC kind of approach, then not much is won. It should be, you should want to change the system because it’s the best type of service that you can bring to a certain community, or to a certain system. And then you’re in, you’re in a good place.

Odin (37:58)
And the final quality is what we call openness. And this is the ability to give up control. Because as we said, at some point you will need to work with others, you will need to collaborate. And that requires sharing the spotlight, sharing decisions, decision making power, sharing resources in many cases, being patient. Yeah. Handing over things to other players. So in this, you need to be comfortable with these types of decisions because otherwise you might stay in control of everything you do, but you are limiting your potential impact on a systems level just too much. So yeah, this, I haven’t talked about any specific issues like funding, et cetera. But I think if you cultivate the qualities of systems thinking, right ambition, and openness, then you will be well equipped to tackle the technical challenges.

Jeff (38:56)
Think that’s a great note to end on. Odin, anything else before we part?

Odin (39:04)
Um, just maybe enjoy the whole process, right? So as I said, it’s not a zero, it’s not a binary thing. It doesn’t really matter where you are in your journey as a change maker or a social entrepreneur. If you just reflect, on a regular basis, how you can go deeper with your impact, how you can nudge systems in a certain way, how you can have more indirect impact. If you just keep at it, then it will just come over time. So don’t, I don’t think there is a point in trying to strive to be a systems entrepreneur immediately, whatever that might mean. It’s more, I think a more healthy approach is to see this as a lifelong development objective, and to walk one step after the other, and just see what happens.