970x125
In the midst of vast uncertainty and an overwhelming news cycle, I often hear a version of this: “I know we can’t change the big picture, but at least I can help the people around me.” Or, “I can’t change what’s happening out there, but I can focus on what’s within my reach.”
These statements sound reasonable; even wise. But this seemingly practical mindset reveals a belief that actually amplifies anxiety while keeping our vision and impact small. That belief? That the big picture just “is what it is”—and that our best option is just to learn to navigate it better.
Obviously, understanding our limitations is wise. Taking action where we can is imperative. And we must all navigate the world as it currently is. But there’s a crucial difference between (1) focusing on small-picture efforts because it’s how we can best contribute to big-picture change, and (2) focusing on it because it’s the only work we think is possible. The latter shuts down our creativity and distorts how we see ourselves and our work.
Why This Matters
Believing that big-picture change is impossible doesn’t just limit our impact; it actively increases anxiety and stress. Research on learned helplessness shows that once we come to see positive change as impossible, we’re likely to stop trying even when new opportunities emerge. This learned sense of powerlessness fuels the very anxiety we were trying to manage by “focusing on what we can control.”
In my work, I’ve seen this play out again and again—often unconsciously. Many of us have made decisions about advancing change without full awareness of what’s actually possible. We’ve accepted certain limits as facts rather than as beliefs we can question.
The River Problem
Imagine noticing that hundreds of people have fallen into a river, and they need help. Most of us would rush to begin pulling them out. But ideally, someone would also go upstream to find out why people are falling in. (Is there a broken bridge? Lack of signage? Someone pushing them in?) By addressing the upstream situation, we’d prevent the crisis rather than perpetually responding to it.
But what if the locals said, “In this town, people just always wind up in the water. We can’t change that fact, but we can get better at pulling them out”?
This response might sound absurd, but it reflects how we commonly respond to challenges in our workplaces, communities, and the wider world. When we have mistaken beliefs about our situation, we render some of the most impactful solutions invisible. By failing to see the actual, “full-stream” context of our problem, we misdefine that problem and limit our opportunities.
In the river metaphor, the problem isn’t just that people are struggling in the water. The underlying problem is that they fell in. So if we define the problem as “people are in the water,” we’ll remain unable to see—let alone address—the most effective change.
Consider a real example: For decades, doctors treated children with lead poisoning: testing their blood, providing chelation therapy. This was critical work. But when researchers went “upstream,” they discovered that lead paint in old housing was a primary source of lead poisoning. This reframed the problem—and identified new solutions.
Not only could we improve medical care and give advice about exposures, but we could also ban lead paint and remediate existing homes. We could pass housing policies and environmental regulations. Going upstream revealed impactful options that would otherwise remain invisible.
With any challenge we face, when we assume that the big picture can’t change, we surrender our ability to see our situation clearly, imagine what could be instead, and then take responsive action. As philosopher Ernst Bloch said, “The most tragic form of loss isn’t the loss of security; it’s the loss of the capacity to imagine that things could be different.”
When we hit the limits of our creativity, we often assume we’ve hit the limits of reality. But we can learn to (1) question this assumption, and (2) use tools that expand our view.
Seeing Problems Differently
One of my go-to tools for expanding our view of change is public health’s “Social Ecological Model of Health” (SEM). When discussing “health,” most people think immediately of individual behaviors and biology. But the SEM makes clear that individual health is actually always affected by multiple levels: interpersonal relationships, community and institutional factors, policies, and sociocultural norms. In other words, this model takes us “upstream” so we can understand situations accurately and find better solutions.
I’ve come to see this as the Social Ecological Model of Everything—because every challenge we face is created or affected by these same multiple levels.
Take workplace burnout. At the individual level, we see exhausted employees needing self-care. But at the interpersonal level, there might be toxic team dynamics. At the organizational level, understaffing and unrealistic expectations. At the policy level, a lack of quality health care and PTO. At the cultural level, beliefs that overwork signals commitment.
Creativity Essential Reads
To address only individual self-care while ignoring these upstream factors is to treat burnout as inevitable—something we can react to, but never change. By contrast, the SEM reveals “upstream” changes that could shape a world where burnout is rare.
In short, when we recognize that problems exist at multiple levels, we see that solutions also exist at multiple levels. Every level of impact is also a lever that can be pulled to make change.
Putting It Into Practice
The shift to multi-level thinking is powerful, but it starts small. When you notice yourself thinking, “We can’t change X, but I can Y,” let it prompt questions: “Why can’t we go upstream here? What if this is a limit not of reality, but of imagination? Who else is working on different levels of this same problem?”
Try using the SEM to expand your view of one pressing challenge. Ask yourself what’s happening at each level: individual, interpersonal, organizational, policy, and cultural. Where are the upstream causes? What changes could help make this problem rare rather than inevitable?
The goal isn’t to overwhelm yourself by tackling everything at once. We should always choose our response to challenges based on our unique circumstances and capacities. Rather, the goal is to see our situation more accurately so that we can choose our response from a place of creative agency rather than learned limitations.
Choosing Consciously
The profound challenges we face across the globe demand that we get creative not only about how we navigate the world we have, but how we’ll make it over. “Small-picture” change is vital, but when we think it’s the only option, we’re not seeing our situation accurately. We risk making decisions based not on what’s possible and effective, but on what’s familiar.
The good news is, we can all learn to notice and question the belief that transformative change is impossible.
James Baldwin wrote, “I do not believe…that we are all helpless, that it’s out of our hands. It’s only out of our hands if we don’t want to pick it up.” Big-picture, “upstream” change is not mysterious, impossible, or “out of our hands.” It’s the conscious, creative work of people who stay curious, expand their view, and find multiple, collective paths forward.
