Combining subjectivity and objectivity in systems thinking: The SOS sandwich

By James Stauch and Daniela Papi-Thornton. Originally published on the Integration and Implementation Insights blog.

In seeking to understand, map, and then act to intervene in a system, how can we make the best use of both subjectivity and objectivity? How can we effectively toggle between facts and norms, between what is true (or at least broadly verifiable) and what is valued (or valuable)?

In the book that this i2Insights contribution is based on (Stauch et al., 2025), the case is made for people to spend far more time understanding a problem, and proportionally less time acting to “solve” the problem. To help frame this approach, the SOS (subjective-objective-subjective) sandwich is used as a simple heuristic to show where subjectivity and objectivity can be taken into account when dealing with a system.

In this work, objectivity is considered as a vector, not a destination, with true objectivity always out of reach, as we can never be completely objective in our approach to research. That said, we can strive for it by recognizing our biases and seeking diverse viewpoints. Objectivity can only be approached by considering a wide range of observers and viewpoints, and a willingness to look beyond our own assumptions.

The journey to understand, map, and then act to intervene in a system, can be pictured like a sandwich, as represented in the figure below. The bread represents the subjective components, and the fillings are the objective ingredients that you layer on to make the sandwich as substantial and satisfying as possible. The relative times spent in each phase are indicated on the left-hand side.

Start with the subjective slice of bread at the bottom. This is where you ask some basic questions about the problem:

• What problem do I care about?
• What are the boundaries of the system(s) I want to explore?

You may need to explain why the problem you think is a problem is a problem (others may not think it is or may not see why it’s a big deal). It’s useful to think about “Who decides what good is?” or “What bad is?” and “Good (or bad) for whom?” Things that may seem urgent and necessary to you usually aren’t deemed urgent and necessary by many others (otherwise, there’s a decent chance that the problem wouldn’t even exist).

Then prepare the objective sandwich fillings. Figure out how you are going to learn about the problem and the system(s) that produce and maintain it:

• What kind of research do you want to undertake?
• Whom would you need to speak with and learn from?

Most of the time and effort required goes into this research phase, getting a better understanding of a system and figuring out where one might want to intervene. In the figure, it is referred to as “the 55 minutes,” drawing on Albert Einstein’s famous quotation: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend the first fifty-five minutes thinking about the problem and the last five minutes thinking about solutions.”

The objective fillings, explored in our book, are mapping frameworks and tools that help answer the following questions:

• Where do we focus, and how do we set boundaries?
• What are the contours of the current system?
• What’s beneath the surface?
• How did we get here?
• Where might we be going?
• How is the system experienced by those within it?
• Who is involved and how are they connected?
• Who and what holds power?
• What causes what to do what?
• What ways of thinking keep the problem in place?
• Where in the system might change be possible?

There are many tools that can be used when exploring a system, but some tools that might be useful for this exploration include:

• Problem framing canvas (for deciding where do we focus, and how do we set boundaries)
• Actor and network maps (for depicting who is involved and how they are connected)
• Force field analysis (for gauging who and what supports or opposes a potential shift)
• Causal loop diagrams (for tracking what causes what to do what)
• Theory of change (for theorizing where and how in the system change might be possible).

The final step is to top the sandwich with that last subjective slice of bread, which asks about what you value:

• What are you coming to next?
• How are you going to act on this problem?
• What aspects of the system are you interested in?

It is important to remember that the goal of mapping a system and identifying gaps (the objective layer) is not to find the one biggest leverage point or most important place to take action. If there was one clear answer for how to “fix” something, it would already be fixed.

Instead, when it comes to contributing to shifting a system, deciding what action to take is just as much about self-reflection as it is about gaps in the system. Your journey into systems understanding will offer you a much better sense of the array of potential leverage points available. You might ask yourself these questions as you move from “problem understanding” to the subjective task of choosing how, where, and with what enthusiasm to act:

• What might you want to do to contribute to that change?
• What do you have the energy, excitement, or passion for?
• What do you enjoy doing?
• What are you good at?
• What connections, resources, perspectives, processes, data, or other contributions do you uniquely have that might be useful to leverage change?
• Which leverage point(s) map onto your own passions or interests?

This combination of better understanding a problem and better understanding ourselves is what might lead to identifying the most fruitful places for you to contribute to change. By self-reflecting, you can decide if, and if so how, to move forward. You might stick to what you know, or you might decide you want to build a new skill set in order to contribute in a new way.

What do you think? Do these ideas resonate with you? Are there questions that you would add in exploring the three layers? Can you provide examples of how you have employed an SOS sandwich?

To find out more:

Stauch, J. with Johnson, A. and Papi-Thornton. D. (2025). The 55 Minutes: An atlas to navigate problems, reveal systems, and ask beautiful questions in a radically shifting world. ATCO SpaceLab and Institute for Community Prosperity: Calgary, Canada. (Online – purchasable or open access on submission of email): https://the55minutes.com/.
Much of this i2Insights contribution is taken verbatim from this book, which also provides 30 tools, alongside descriptions of how to use the tools and about how the authors have used or adapted them).

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biographies:

James Stauch MEDes is a social innovation and systems change consultant and educator based in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, Canada. He is a complex systems strategist with ATCO’s SpaceLab (the company’s research and innovation unit) and cochair of the Banff Systems Summit. He was the founding Executive Director of the Institute for Community Prosperity at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Oxford.

Daniela Papi-Thornton MBA is an educator, coach, and consultant who has a Lecturer position at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA, in their Masters of the Environment Program while also teaching at other social impact programs globally. She runs her own consulting practice called Systems-led Leadership working at the intersection of systems and social innovation.

Article source: Combining subjectivity and objectivity in systems thinking: The SOS sandwich. Republished by permission.

Header image source: Adapted from OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay.