--- # AGENT SKILLS STANDARD FIELDS (v2) name: agency-circles-for-systems-action description: "Map control, influence, and concern after systems analysis. Use when students need wise agency without being made responsible for everything." disable-model-invocation: false user-invocable: true effort: medium # EXISTING FIELDS skill_id: "systems-thinking/agency-circles-for-systems-action" skill_name: "Agency Circles for Systems Action" domain: "systems-thinking" version: "1.0" evidence_strength: "moderate" evidence_sources: - "Covey (1989) — The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (circle of concern/influence)" - "Zimmerman (2002) — Becoming a self-regulated learner (agency and self-regulation)" - "Manyukhina & Wyse (2019) — Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective" - "Meadows (2008) — Thinking in Systems (leverage points and systemic action)" input_schema: required: - field: "system_issue_or_aspiration" type: "string" description: "The issue or aspiration students are considering" - field: "context" type: "string" description: "Class, school, community, ecological, or project context" optional: - field: "iceberg_or_system_map" type: "string" description: "Prior systems analysis to draw from" - field: "student_level" type: "string" description: "Age/year group" - field: "stakeholders" type: "array" description: "People or groups with roles in the system" - field: "constraints" type: "string" description: "Safety, authority, policy, time, or resource constraints" output_schema: type: "object" fields: - field: "agency_map" type: "object" description: "Control, influence, collective influence, and concern zones" - field: "action_options" type: "array" description: "Safe action options matched to zones" - field: "adult_responsibility_flags" type: "array" description: "Issues that should not be placed on students" - field: "reflection_prompts" type: "array" description: "Prompts for agency without blame" chains_well_with: - "systems-awareness-iceberg" - "aspirational-systems-iceberg" - "mental-model-mapper" - "agency-scaffold-generator" - "self-regulation-scaffold-generator" - "project-brief-designer" teacher_time: "5 minutes" tags: ["agency", "circle-of-control", "systems-action", "student-voice", "wellbeing", "influence", "collective-action"] --- # Agency Circles for Systems Action ## What This Skill Does Helps students and educators sort possible responses into what they can control, what they can influence, what requires collective or institutional action, and what remains a concern to name without carrying as personal responsibility. It adapts the Circle of Control / Influence / Concern tradition for compassionate systems work. The key design move is to avoid over-individualising systemic problems. Students should not be told that a structural issue is simply their mindset problem. At the same time, systems thinking should not leave them overwhelmed. This skill turns analysis into wise agency: small actions, relationship-building, evidence-sharing, partnership, advocacy, and careful naming of constraints. ## Evidence Foundation Covey popularised the circle of concern and circle of influence as a practical agency framework. Education research on learner agency cautions that agency is relational and structured, not just personal will. Meadows' leverage-point framework helps connect agency to system structures rather than isolated effort. The result is a tool for agency with humility: act where possible, influence with others, and name larger responsibilities truthfully. ## Input Schema Required: - **System issue or aspiration:** The issue students want to respond to, or the aspiration they want to grow. - **Context:** Where this action might happen. Optional: - **Iceberg or system map:** Prior analysis. - **Student level:** Age/year group. - **Stakeholders:** Who has formal or informal power. - **Constraints:** Authority, safety, policy, time, resources. ## Prompt ```text You are helping students and/or educators translate systems analysis into wise agency using agency circles. Inputs: System issue or aspiration: {{system_issue_or_aspiration}} Context: {{context}} Iceberg/system map: {{iceberg_or_system_map}} Student level: {{student_level}} Stakeholders: {{stakeholders}} Constraints: {{constraints}} Rules: 1. Use four zones, not three: - Control: what students/teacher can directly do or choose. - Direct influence: what they can affect through relationship, evidence, modelling, invitation, or dialogue. - Collective/institutional influence: what requires adults, leaders, community partners, policy, money, or coordinated action. - Concern: what matters but is outside current influence; name it without pretending students must fix it. 2. Never place systemic responsibility only on students. 3. Connect each action to prior systems analysis: which pattern, structure, or mental model does it touch? 4. Prefer small safe experiments over heroic action. 5. Include wellbeing: acting should not require students to sacrifice safety, dignity, or belonging. 6. Include partnership: who needs to be invited, informed, or asked? Return exactly: ## Agency Circles for Systems Action: [Issue/Aspiration] **Context:** [brief] **Important stance:** Agency is real, but responsibility is shared across the system. ### Circle 1: Direct Control Things we can directly do or choose: - **Action:** [specific] - **Touches:** [pattern/structure/mental model] - **Evidence of effect:** [what to notice] - **Safety check:** [risk] ### Circle 2: Direct Influence Things we may influence through relationships, evidence, modelling, or dialogue: - **Influence move:** [specific] - **Who is involved:** [stakeholder] - **How to approach:** [language/process] - **Evidence of effect:** [what to notice] ### Circle 3: Collective or Institutional Influence Things that require partnership, adult authority, policy, resources, or coordination: - **Collective move:** [specific] - **Who holds authority/resources:** [stakeholder] - **Student role:** [evidence, voice, proposal, participation] - **Adult/institutional responsibility:** [what adults must own] ### Circle 4: Concern to Name Without Carrying Alone Things that matter but are not currently controllable: - [Concern] - **Why it matters:** [reason] - **How to hold it:** [learn, name, witness, seek allies, avoid self-blame] ### Recommended First Step [One low-risk action or experiment that fits the current sphere of control/influence] ### Reflection Prompts - What are we taking responsibility for that is truly ours? - What belongs to adults, leaders, institutions, or wider systems? - What can we influence together that none of us can influence alone? - What evidence would show that our action is helping rather than only making us feel busy? Self-check: Do not tell students to fix structural harm alone. Include collective/institutional responsibility. Every action should be specific, safe, and connected to the system map. ``` ## Common Pitfalls 1. **Making control too large.** Students cannot control other people's beliefs, policies, or resource allocation. 2. **Making influence too small.** Students can often influence through evidence, modelling, invitation, design, and collective voice. 3. **Confusing concern with apathy.** Naming concern can be honest and compassionate. 4. **Heroic individualism.** Systems action is usually collective and relational. 5. **Ignoring adult responsibility.** Some issues require adults to act. ## Known Limitations 1. **Cannot determine actual authority or access.** The skill provides general categories of control, influence, and concern, but the real sphere of action for a specific student, class, or teacher must be assessed locally. The output is a map, not a permission structure. 2. **Metacognitive demand.** With younger students, the distinction between collective influence and institutional responsibility may be difficult to communicate without significant adult scaffolding. The tool assumes some capacity for abstract self-reflection. 3. **Does not plan the action.** Agency circles identify zones and options; designing the actual action or project requires a subsequent step using project-brief-designer or agency-scaffold-generator. 4. **Risk of making structural harm feel manageable.** Sorting actions into circles can inadvertently imply that systemic problems are addressable through personal and small collective action. Teachers must explicitly name when structural change beyond student agency is required. ## Verification Checklist - [ ] Four zones are used. - [ ] Actions are specific and safe. - [ ] Institutional responsibility is visible where appropriate. - [ ] Student agency is real but bounded. - [ ] The first step is small enough to try soon. - [ ] The map reduces overwhelm rather than minimising the issue.