From Talk to Walk: The Language of MSD Facilitation

MSD Hub editor's note (Michael Field, Senior Systems Specialist, Vikāra Institute):

The practice of applying systems thinking lenses and approaches has been evolving for some time now. At the same time, MSD practitioners have not really evolved how we talk or go about applying such approaches. In this blog, Dun and I try to spark a conversation about the importance of MSD practitioners also evolving, including how we talk about MSD, how we understand our role, and how we understand what exactly we are encouraging local actors to do and why. As with any complex contexts, we are not saying we know the answer (or that there is an answer), but catalyzing a learning and doing journey that can increase the pace in which systems thinking approaches provide value in face of what seems like an increasingly chaotic world.

Language and words have a significant impact on how we understand the world, which influences both how we think and how we act. If we want to be better MSD facilitators, we need to start by being better systems thinkers, which means we need to change how we talk about systems change. Let's rethink our words to rethink our actions. 

The Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity and the Vikāra Institute recently interviewed twenty market systems development (MSD) practitioners and hosted three Deep Dive clinics at the 2024 Market Systems Symposium. The purpose of this was to understand what has changed in MSD and how its facilitation principles, now a decade old, might also need to change.  Through this consultative process, one of the key insights that emerged was that many of the challenges faced by teams in applying MSD principles stem from the language and words we use to describe systems change. 

Language Shapes Thinking and Thinking Shapes Action

The language used in the MSD field comes from a Global North, technocratic, worldview. This perspective feels increasingly inadequate for addressing today’s complex challenges. 

As a field, MSD has long recognized that market development goes beyond the dynamics of supply and demand, to include rules and supporting functions. It is becoming increasingly evident today just how much markets are embedded within social, political and ecological systems. The growth in systemic inequalities, global conflicts, and climate crises are evidence of the seismic shifts in the context in which markets will work in the future. 

To prepare for the future, we need to rethink how we approach change. The language we use shapes how we perceive the world and influences how we respond to its challenges. By choosing our words more carefully, we can begin to think and act more systemically.

When the 'Problem' is Part of the Solution

To demonstrate this, let’s look at two concepts that are frequently discussed in MSD:

Market Failure: the inability of a market to allocate resources efficiently, resulting in outcomes that are not socially optimal.

Constraint: a limitation or barrier that restricts the performance or effectiveness of a market system.

In theory, terms like “market failure” and “constraint” help frame the challenges MSD aims to address. But in practice, these labels can lead us to misdiagnose the situation. Take “informality,” for example. If we view informality as a market failure—poor enforcement of laws that creates unfair competition—or as a constraint—focusing on how informality limits access to markets—we risk missing the bigger picture. 

In some contexts, informality could play an important system function by providing space for businesses to start, grow, and fail safely, driving innovation and competition. Focusing on “fixing” informality in this context can backfire. Instead, there might be leverage in strengthening informal systems to help businesses develop. 

Sometimes, the key to finding the right solution lies in the language we use to frame the problem.

Re-Framing Action by First Re-Framing Language

Words carry meaning not just in their literal content (the “what”) but also in their structure, tone, and context (the “how”). Take “failure,” for example. Is failure in MSD good or bad? It depends. Was it a quick failure that provided valuable learning, or a slow failure where the signs of failure were missed, and the same mistakes were repeated? 

Or consider terms like “subsidies,” “grants,” “partnership agreements,” or “localization.” On the surface, they all involve giving money to organizations in the system. But the framing changes everything. A subsidy may distort markets in a negative way, while a partnership can disrupt systems in a positive way. 

By rethinking our language, we can reframe our actions for greater impact. Below are some examples of words we discussed related to MSD facilitation that are worth rethinking. 

Original	→	Reframe	Internal Reflection Questions
Actor	→	Agent	Have we removed the sense of agency from the people and organizations (or ‘actors’) we aim to influence? Are we overestimating our control and influence we actually have?
Constraints	→	Potential	Are we overly focused on "fixing" constraints, rather than leveraging the system's inherent potential for change? Do we recognize and build on this internal drive?
Scale-up	→	Transform	Do we honestly believe ‘scale-up’ will happen effortlessly? Or do we confront the reality that other things, like networks and norms, need to change? Furthermore, are we invested in a system evolving toward being more inclusive, equitable, and fair?
Transactions	→	Relationships	Do we think improving transactions is enough? Or do we recognize change as a social process that results from new relationships and power dynamics developed over time?
Crowd-in	→	Amplify	Are we waiting, hoping others will follow our lead, or are we actively amplifying the right signals to make change more attractive and relevant, catalyzing the next set of changes needed for transformation?
Analyze – design – implement	→	Act – reflect – learn and adapt	Do we still treat change as a linear problem to solve, or do we embrace it as an internal systemic process that we can support if we effectively listen/understand what the system is telling us via a process of probing, reflection, learning, and adaptation?

Reframing Language and Structure 

The way we structure the language of MSD facilitation goes beyond word choice to the frameworks that inform how we perceive and approach change. However, these structures can sometimes oversimplify complex systems, reducing nuanced guidance to basic "do’s and don’ts." By reframing how we talk about systems, we can move past simplistic narratives and better embrace the complexity needed to drive meaningful, lasting change.

Here are some of the common phrases that have had implications on how we understand change: 

• Will/Skill: Focus on the market agent(s) with the most will and skill as the primary levers of change, ensuring they remain central to the process.

• Cause-Effect: Using logical frameworks to articulate how specific interventions are expected to lead to desired outcomes, e.g., "if we do X, we’ll achieve Y."

• Results Management: Prioritize observable and measurable outcomes to ensure accountability and demonstrate the impact of interventions.

Add to  “Will/Skill” a Systems Lens:  Focusing on market agents with the most “will and skill” highlights prominent people, firms, organizations, and roles but often overlooks other agents and interactions that are critical to change. In addition to only using will/skill, also emphasize the contributions of multiple agents and, crucially, their interactions—how they work together—to better capture the dynamics of systems change.

Before	After
The project supported input dealers to train farmers on adopting sustainable practices, leading to higher yields.	Input dealer-led training, supported by the project, shifted how sellers communicate with buyers, which resulted in improved seed access and the adoption of sustainable practices, boosting yields. Adoption of the methods and practices began to spread to farmers that had not been trained, illustrating changes in how information is shared.

Use Probabilistic Language: Direct cause-effect statements can clarify intentions and outcomes but often oversimplify complex, dynamic systems, creating a false sense of certainty. Instead, use language that reflects uncertainty and interconnectedness.

Before	After
Farmers connected to savings groups, established by the project, saved and invested more in their farms than before.	Farmers participating in savings groups tended to save more cash compared to before. Previously, they mainly saved in-kind, such as livestock. This shift suggests that savings groups are helping farmers diversify and make more varied investments.

Balance Tangible and Intangible: Focusing on measurable changes provides clear evidence of success but can overlook deeper, less visible impacts. Pair measurable outcomes with qualitative evidence of the underlying changes driving those results.

Before	After
Sales increased by 20%, demonstrating the success of the intervention.	Sales increased by 20%, reflecting deeper changes in market dynamics. Previously, farmers sold small volumes at weekly town markets. Now, with the new regional market, stronger connections between farmers and buyers enable more consistent and reliable sales.

Language as a Catalyst of Systems Change

Language is more than a tool for communication; it shapes how we perceive, think, and engage with the world around us. Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky’s research underscores how the language we use influences not only our thoughts but also our actions.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Boroditsky’s research into the Kuuk Thaayorre, an Aboriginal community in Australia, uncovered a connection between language and spatial awareness. The Kuuk Thaayorre rely exclusively on the words —north, south, east, and west – which trains them to always stay oriented towards cardinal directions. As a result, the Kuuk Thaayorre have an exceptional ability to navigate, even in unfamiliar environments—far beyond English speakers who use words like "left" and "right" to describe directions.

In MSD, the language we choose can either constrain our thinking or open our thinking to new possibilities for change. Will we cling to old narratives of control and linear simplicity, or will we embrace a new language—one that reflects the complexity of today’s challenges, fosters shared agency, and promotes adaptability and transformation? 

This blog serves as a precursor to a forthcoming paper on the principles of effective market systems development facilitation, to be published by the Vikāra Institute and DAI under the Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity. As the blog indicates, the guidance will focus on principles that embrace complexity in a practical manner, but still in alignment with how real, durable change unfolds. One of the more important principles is to focus on internal systemic processes, as opposed to specific fixes.  While specific fixes are important, the key to systemic change is an ability of the system to be able to effectively adapt to threats and opportunities over time. Be on the lookout for the principles coming in the new year.   

Authors:

Michael Field, Senior Systems Thinking Specialist, Vikāra Institute

Dun Grover, Consultant, Vikāra Institute