How systems leadership could hold the key

In a world of increasing uncertainty, volatility and complexity, new kinds of networks are emerging as key systemic actors in philanthropy: catalysts, developers, enablers, accelerators and multipliers. They are uniquely positioned to foster trust, share purposes, expand quality relationships and accelerate collective learning and systemic awareness.

I had the privilege, as the former president of DAFNE – one of the two organisations that converged to create Philea in 2022 – to participate in leading Philea’s development to date. In this piece, I would like to share some takeaways about systems leadership that might be useful in the next phase.

In a world obsessed with individual attribution, quick wins, direct impact measurement, linear planning and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), what are the unique features of systems leadership?

Peter Senge spent 40 years of his professional life at MIT’s Sloan School of Management studying system dynamics and systems thinking, and is one of the pioneers who, in the 1970s, started to apply complex systems physics and engineering to social change. His work offers some crucial insights into core capacities in systems leadership that could be particularly relevant for Philea – and other networks – in the future.

Why is systems leadership (unfortunately still) so different?

Firstly, it foregrounds collective, distributed and team leadership.

While many leadership models celebrate the hero, the genius, the commander in chief, for system leadership to thrive it must be distributed, emergent and relational. No single person or organisation can dictate direction; rather, leadership manifests in the capacity to help the system see itself, embrace complexity, strengthen infrastructure, learn iteratively, co-create and evolve.

While network CEOs and teams are at the heart of system leadership, and the right people in formal governance roles can really make a meaningful difference, network leadership as a collective practice is not an individual achievement. The question is not “who is leading?” but “what leadership capacities are we cultivating across the network?”

The three core capacities of systems leadership

Senge identifies three essential leadership capacities that are particularly vital for networks: the ability to see systems, to foster collective aspiration and to engage in reflective conversations, especially across divergences.

Seeing systems: The power of interdependence

The first capacity is systems thinking – the ability to see patterns, interdependencies and leverage points rather than isolated events. This dual awareness – structural and human – is essential for networks because it enables leaders to work with reality as it is, not as we wish it were. In philanthropic networks, this means moving beyond viewing members as the sum of single entities and instead recognising how each organisation’s work influences and is influenced by others.

A leadership with systems awareness (that implies both system thinking and sensing) doesn’t simply judge organisations for being “risk-averse” or “too slow to change.” Instead, it seeks to understand the incentive structures, accountability mechanisms and historical experiences that produce such behaviour. From that understanding, it can help create conditions that support different choices.

In practice, this might mean recognising that a foundation’s reluctance to fund certain types of work reflects not just organisational conservatism, but genuine concerns about fiduciary responsibility and stakeholder expectations. Systems awareness allows leaders to hold space for those concerns while also helping the system evolve toward more courageous practice.

A network leadership needs systems awareness to ask these kinds of questions: (how) do our collective actions create unintended consequences? Where are the feedback loops that either amplify our impact or undermine it? What patterns of behaviour keep recurring, and what deeper structures drive those patterns?

For Philea, this capacity is critical. European philanthropy operates within complex regulatory environments, cultural contexts and political landscapes. Leaders who can help the network perceive these systems enable more strategic and coordinated action.

Fostering collective aspiration: The power of visioning and shared purpose

Another core system leadership element is cultivating a genuine shared vision. This goes far beyond crafting mission statements or strategic plans. It involves creating the conditions where diverse stakeholders can discover what they truly care about together and what future they want to help bring about.

In networks, this is especially challenging because members join with their own institutional identities, priorities and constraints. Yet networks thrive when there is a compelling shared purpose that transcends individual organisational interests – a “pull” towards a future possibility that engages hearts and minds.

Leadership that fosters collective aspiration creates spaces for authentic dialogue about values and purpose. For a philanthropic network, this might mean moving from “we’re all funders” to discovering a shared commitment for philanthropy to use its full potential to co-shape and support a pluralistic, just and resilient society that centres people and planet.

This capacity requires patience and skill. It can only emerge through processes that allow members to reflect together on what matters most, to voice their hopes and concerns, and to cultivate a ‘common ground’ (see Otto Scharmer’s work on U theory and presencing) that is highly qualitative and meaningful rather than merely convenient.

Engaging in reflective conversation: The importance of co-operation

The third capacity is the ability to foster conversations that matter in a way that avoids polarisation and enables reflections and, eventually, change. Networks live or die by the quality of their conversations. When dialogue is authentic, curious and generative, networks become spaces of collective intelligence and innovation. When conversation is performative, defensive or superficial, networks become bureaucratic burdens.

For philanthropic networks, the stakes are high. Foundations often operate in competitive environments despite rhetoric about collaboration. There are hierarchies of reputation and resources and reluctance to admit uncertainty and failures, and to challenge each other, unlocking the kind of collective learning that drives innovation.

As Philea continues to evolve, the invitation is to embrace a clear understanding of systems leadership to meet the complexity of the challenges of our time, together, with collective intelligence, compassion and courage.