This is a rather strange brain dump but, at the time of writing, I don't have better clues on how to frame the idea differently. I also spent some weeks trying to phrase these concepts better but it's turning out to be more complex than expected. Perhaps it will become more clear with time. I am also not entirely sure how I should categorize the concept; the strongest feeling I have is that the main context is about the behavior of change agents when it comes to affecting and promoting change in a system.
The starting assumption is that there is an interest or motivation to improve a given system, as opposed to creating a new one instead, where the new system would perhaps look completely different from the original one. I was speaking with a friend some days ago and we both agreed that there is some sort of threshold that triggers, at some point, a decision to create a new system rather than investing more energy in improving the current one. In my understanding, this threshold is mainly related to resources, although resources might come in from different sources and in different forms. When it comes to affecting change, this last point - i.e. the availability of resources - would make the argument of creating a new system even less relevant: in my view, as long as there is a motivation to grow and a clear vision for the future, keeping the system in a state that can scale is a much viable option. This is something that perhaps touches also on the improving-harmonious state of a system, a topic I briefly mentioned in the post "System dynamics and the strive for harmonious balance".
Going back to the original context of affecting change in a system, I am convinced that staying on the boundary of that given system is a much better threshold and strategic positioning for influencing the system without being too much influenced by it. I would claim that trying to influence a system - at least the kind of system I have in mind - while being "all in" is not effective because one would get too much influenced by the same system dynamics he or she is trying to actively change. It would take a great amount of energy and self-awareness, very precious resources, to remain true to oneself; when this is the case, these resources cannot be invested in the changing process (of the system). On the other hand, as human beings, most of us - I would even claim all, despite many might not admit it - have a desire and a need to belong. The desire to be "accepted" and pulled into the system would be so strong that if this eventually happens the main motivation for affecting a change will probably fade (most likely because of conformity). When deciding whether to affect change, one has to have very clear in her or his mind what the motivation and the expected outcomes are.
As I'm reaching the end of this brain dump I cannot help but notice that everything I wrote looks like a reason for change agents not to act as part of the system itself, but also not stay on the boundary of it, at least as long as they are alone and they are the only active ones with this mindset. The energy spent trying to stay on the boundary - a dynamic and balancing process by itself - would not leave many resources to affect change. On the other hand, some knowledge and awareness of the internal state of the system is necessary to enable change and continuous improvement therefore it feels like this is going back to the concept of harmonius balance, which requires by itself a tremendous amount of energy. Did I hit a loop? Time will tell.
Picture created by the author using GenAI