The Change Toolkit: Design Thinking, Community Organizing, and Game Theory.
Dear Founder,
How have you been? "Pelumi, are you going to act like you didn’t disappear in the middle of a book review?" Yes. Actually, no. My other child demanded my full attention. I’m sorry. Now that we’ve made up, shall we dive into the next three tools for crafting social impact? I understand if you need a refresher on the first three tools.
Chapter 7: Design Thinking
"In Chinese landscape painting, the proportions fit people. The image invites the viewer to rescale themselves and take a stroll through the pathways of the scene. How might we design situations, solutions, and processes that fit the human scale?"
This chapter opens with the commandment: "Thou shalt not design for thyself." It then presents a dilemma. Vision, while important for social change, can reveal the arrogance of our perspective. We need to gather insights hidden in the people and world around us. That intentionality is the spirit of design thinking. Jacob explores seven design thinking techniques, but first, he introduces the three basic frames of design thinking:
Listening – Ensuring that the voices of others inform our understanding.
Empathy – Orienting solutions around the people who will use them.
Iteration – A pattern of action that recognizes we won’t get it right the first time.
According to Stanford's Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, there are eight core abilities of design thinking:
You must navigate ambiguity.
You must learn from people and contexts.
You must be skilled at synthesising information.
The ability to experiment rapidly is essential.
You must move seamlessly between concrete and abstract thinking.
You must build and craft intentionally, thoughtful construction.
You must communicate deliberately—whether ideas, stories, or concepts—to the right audience.
You must design your own design process, recognising a project as a design problem and selecting the right people, tools, techniques, and processes.
Key takeaways from this chapter:
When designing for social good, celebrate your wins, but return to the design thinking process. It’s a constant cycle of learning and action.
Listening not only gathers information but also builds alliances. It signals respect, eases recruitment, and fosters relationships for future iterations.
Design thinking (DT) is a process, not an outcome. The best design processes are intentional and iterative. Designers move through deliberate steps and often revisit parts of the process.
Prototyping is a key DT technique—an early working version of an idea. Organisations create minimum viable products (MVPs) for learning. A prototype should have the fewest features needed to enable learning, but beware—prototypes can easily take on a life of their own.
Ethnography is another technique, involving immersion in a space, problem, and community. Watching, listening, and participating reveal patterns and details that might otherwise be invisible.
Wise ethnographers know that what they observe isn’t the same as what happens in their absence—people behave differently when they know they’re being watched (the observer effect). Anthropologists recommend participant observation, where you engage in the community’s patterns while observing.
Jacob explores techniques like biomimicry, often used by product designers and industrial engineers—Janine Benyus is a key figure in this field. Visualisation is another tool; stick figures, lines, and words all help communicate ideas.
Finally, he introduces Lean Impact Design, which focuses on ambitious long-term goals. Think big, start small, and relentlessly seek impact. In Silicon Valley, this approach is called the "lean startup.”
Chapter 8: Community Organizing
In typical Jacob style, we start with an opening quote: "I am because we are." Ubuntu, essentially. He defines community organizing as the art of finding order in the shared interests, frustrations, and hopes of a group. It begins with recognising the need to confront the power held by those whose decisions matter.
There are two pillars of organising: Power and Relationships. Power is the ability to influence others' behaviour. Power dynamics exist between community organizers and the decision-makers they aim to influence, as well as between organizers and their allies. An organizer always needs two things: a target (group or individual) and strategies to influence that target. Sometimes, the best strategy is becoming the decision-maker yourself.
It’s not community organizing if you’re acting alone. Types of organizing include Advocacy Organizing and Community-led Organizing. The difference? Advocacy organizing starts with a specific issue and builds a community around it, whether local, national, or global. Community-led organizing, on the other hand, starts with the community and identifies the issues they care about.
Key takeaways from this chapter:
Recruitment is essential in community organizing. In community-led organizing, you already have your people—you just need to identify the right goals. In advocacy organizing, you have to find the right people and convince them.
The Rule of Halves: When recruiting, think of this rule. For example, if you're inviting students to a meeting:
Half the people you talk to will be interested.
Half of those will sign up for more information.
Half of those will respond to a follow-up.
Half of those will actually show up.
This rule helps you gauge how many people you need to reach.
Community organizing is about empowerment. First, you give, then you give away. The organizer gives energy, purpose, information, hope, and inspiration—a reason to participate. But to build collective power, the organizer must also be willing to share or give up power, not hoard it.
Power must be demonstrated. Demonstrations force decision-makers to recognise what they’re up against, while also building shared identity and commitment among participants. Design them intentionally with a clear ask and a compelling image or story. If a demonstration isn’t required, alternatives include lobbying, fundraising, or petitioning.
Civil disobedience is a powerful tool in an organizer’s toolkit, but it requires caution. Plan carefully, avoid falling into illegal activity, and ensure actions are nonviolent. Understand the legal consequences and prepare for support. It’s not for every situation or the faint-hearted.
Organizing isn’t always grassroots; it can be grasstop. This means organizing the powerful. However, avoid two traps: believing that only those with power matter (it’s not the only kind of power), and fetishizing powerlessness. When fighting inequities, you might lose sight of the full humanity of the powerless, seeing them as good solely because of their lack of power.
Technology and social media have changed organizing, but canvassing remains an effective tool.
Be mindful when using technology. Email blasts for fundraising, for example, can come off as narcissistic or extractive, making donors feel like they’re just bank accounts. This weakens the connection between organizations and their supporters.
Decision-making can make or break a campaign.You need good decisions that lead to more impact, and sometimes fast decisions in a changing environment.
Diverse perspectives within a community can lead to infighting. While it’s strategic to have a range of views working together, there will be times when you can’t accommodate every opinion. Acknowledge the humanity of those with whom you disagree.
Chapter 9: Game Theory
"We will not win alone."
Jacob begins by emphasizing that much of the book focuses on collaboration, a key ingredient for social change. He reminds us that history is full of failed collaborations and unnecessary conflict. Game theory, a branch of applied mathematics, provides tools to analyse situations where decisions are interdependent. The core message of the chapter is that social change agents must avoid short-sighted, selfish behaviour that limits both individual and collective success.
Before we dive into the famous "prisoner's dilemma," let me remind you of something from the last DNF interview with Mr. Ahmed Alaga on Partnerships:
Pelumi: Is there anything you're looking forward to seeing more of in the Nigerian nonprofit space?
Mr. Ahmed Alaga: I want to see true collaboration among nonprofits. Nonprofits don’t like to collaborate fully, and I think it has to do with budget. When they do collaborate, they don’t want to share what their budget really is. Understanding how solutions can benefit their shared target audience is essential. We see more effective private sector partnerships than nonprofit ones. In the social space, many collaborations are one-sided and not real or honest.
Back to the dilemma:
Two suspects are held in separate cells, unable to communicate. The prosecutor asks each to declare the other guilty.
If neither accuses the other, both get a light sentence—30 days.
If both accuse each other (defect), they each get a serious sentence—3 years.
If one defects and the other stays silent, the defector goes free, while the other gets 10 years.
We know the best option is for both to remain silent. However, acting in isolation, each may feel tempted to defect, thinking they’ll get a better deal by accusing the other. This perception leads to an outcome that harms both.
Besides the prisoner's dilemma, two other models illustrate the pitfalls of collaboration: "chicken" and the "stag hunt." Both show why people struggle to collaborate. Jacob argues that any two collaborators will face some version of the stag hunt.
With that said, let’s get into the takeaways:
Life isn’t a game, but real tragedies emerge from the dynamics captured in these models. For example, climate change is a global prisoner’s dilemma between nations, companies, and individuals who don’t trust that others will act for the collective good. Warfare often plays out like a game of chicken between leaders and nations. Society can also miss out on something deeper by chasing the hare instead of the stag.
Changemakers may dream of cooperation but often act against it. Everyone loves the stability of their own funding stream, staffing model, program strategies, and organisational culture over the prospect of true partnership.
There are five lessons to be learned from these dilemmas on achieving better outcomes together: 1) Access to information is crucial. 2) Trust is built through repetition. 3) Institutions need structures to facilitate shared purpose. 4) Virtue is essential, helping to transcend the temptation to defect. 5) An abundance mindset brings more to the table.
Changemakers are not prisoners. We shouldn’t work in isolation or be ignorant of each other. With the internet and conversations, we have access to share useful information about our work.
We often encounter the same people in the same space. Reputation with these individuals matters. The best way to gain trust is to show trust. Those who trust others earn it back many times. Jacob suggests a tit-for-tat strategy in collaboration: generosity (cooperation), accountability (defecting if betrayed), and forgiveness (restoring cooperation through restitution).
Collective action depends on getting institutions right. If institutions are games with sequences of options, information, rewards, and punishments, successful institutions are those that make people want to play.
Virtue is key for changemakers who want to avoid or escape the trap of unproductive games. The tit-for-tat strategy involves starting with kindness, showing discipline when faced with bad behaviour, and offering forgiveness when others show their best selves.
In mergers and investments, an abundance mindset is essential during negotiations. A useful tool to keep in mind is BATNA—Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Not every negotiation results in equal wins, but decisions shouldn’t be driven by irrational fear or scarcity.
Jacob’s advice to social change organizations on collaboration:
Identify what the groups have in common; collaboration requires a sense of commonality.
Shift away from the short-term incentive of taking credit for wins or winning alone. For example, a nonprofit could ask a funder to also support a partner organisation, broadening their impact.
Be willing to name your weaknesses and limitations as an independent actor. Build opportunities on a foundation of honesty and humility.
Actively look for examples of successful collaborations.
Make the implicit division of labour explicit.
Not every collaboration requires formal restructuring or merging.
Multilateral collaborations benefit from a neutral guide—preferably not a foundation forcing engagement, but someone or an organisation aligned with the shared purpose.
Dear Founder,
I hope you found today’s letter insightful. I’m curious—what are your three key takeaways from today’s letter? It’s a lot of information, so it might help to focus on what you want to carry forward. On that note, I’ll see you next week, at the right time and on the right day, as I wrap up the first-ever book review. See you soon! (I’ll be back, I promise).
Did you find today’s letter helpful? If so, share it with someone who needs to read it.
Do you want to share your takeaways with me? I’m all ears.
If you’re new here, welcome to the best newsletter for change-makers.