• human behavior
• the mind
• ecology
• the birth of a baby
• social organization
• truth
• reality by
• measuring it
• observing it
• testing it under different conditions
• making a mechanical or computer-assisted model of it
• making a mathematical model of it
• observing things around it
• seeing how it reacts to and acts upon its environment

. . . you can make some assumptions about the whole nature of it. Or can you?

Most fields of inquiry and research are based on this theory. It is so well understood to be true that we treat it as fact.

For example, we know that people’s thoughts are caused by the mechanics of brain function. We have performed tests directly stimulating the brain; we have studied the chemistry and biology of the brain; we have studied people with portions of their brain removed or damaged. We know how the brain works.

We can explain, predict, and fully describe things and processes by what we have observed about them. And if we study enough of the individual parts, we will understand how they all fit together as a whole entity or process.

It is generally understood that almost all events, things, and processes behave in a certain way. A causes B, which then results in C.

In the rare situation where that is not the case, we treat it as a random occurrence — unplanned and unconnected to anything else. It just happens.

Systems theory is an attempt to understand the previously indescribable and immeasurable.

But there are some in the fields of life sciences, ecology, social sciences, and other areas of study and theory who sense that things do not happen in linear or predictable ways. Perhaps our tangible, concrete ways of analyzing and building fact and theory are limited — and limit us from understanding the whole picture.

How do you explain intuition? Perception? How do we explain the “why” of things and processes — from molecules to social groups to the evolution of life forms — adjusting and adapting as they are affected by their environment, events, or occurrences?

Maybe it isn’t “A causes B, which results in C” after all. Maybe it is more like “A and B change in relationship to one another, and when they change, something else changes, too let’s say Z.” And maybe all the things and processes around this alphabet change in response to change. Maybe everything changes everything.

Maybe there are entirely new ways we can understand complexity, dynamics, and perhaps even our description of reality. Systems theory is an attempt to understand the previously indescribable and immeasurable.

A Definition of Systems Theory

Systems theory is a set of principles applying to complex, interacting wholes as a way to understand them. These principles are a tool to help us understand not just how things happen or are related in a linear way, but instead to conceptualize how processes, events, and things are interrelated, from cell to universe to time to everything else. That is a difficult idea for our linear minds to grasp. Systems theory is an attempt to grasp the ungraspable to understand reality in a larger way than just what we can see and measure.

Many of the world’s religions honor the interrelatedness of everything to a greater whole and acknowledge that individual actions or events create change. For example, according to Buddhist scholar and systems theorist Joanna Macy, Buddha’s writings teach that everything is connected, is part of a larger system, and that every act results in a change to some part of the greater whole.

Cells, organs, organisms, communities, galaxies — all can be described as systems within systems within systems, all organized in some way and all interacting in some way and changing or being changed. If something happens in one part of the system, it causes change in other parts of the system. If something happens to one’s body — such as a wound — not just the area the arm or leg that was wounded but many other parts of the body change to accommodate and respond to that wound.

In the second World War, engineers studied, built, and refined a new kind of missile — one that could in feedback about air patterns, temperature, the movement and of an enemy plane, the missile’s own path, and more. It could collect these bits of data throughout its whole flight, and with each new bit of data could adjust and adapt its own angle and path to accommodate for these changes and eventually hit the moving target. The self-guided missile was almost a participant with its target and everything that it passed through and was happening all around it. It was in a relationship to all of these things, and all of these things affected it. Both missile and target were interrelated—no longer two individual parts, but instead part of a greater whole, a greater system that is constantly changing and, in many cases, creating change.

So instead of a linear way of thinking that “this causes this,” we have a nonlinear way of thinking not only that this causes this, but, for example, that both the nut and the squirrel eating it are affected and changed by the action of the squirrel munching on the nut. And both the nut and the squirrel two systems are part of the greater, more complex systems enclosing them. And each larger system is more complex than the one “below” it.

The nut is the simpler system in this short section of relationships — it is a small yet organized system full of cells and nutrients and time and structure, among other things. The squirrel is a more complex system — it is a system full of squirrel thoughts, the mechanics of mobility, and cells and nutrients and time and structure. The forest where the squirrel eats the nut is an even more complex system it is a system consisting of kinds of life, soil, patterns, cells, time, and. Don’t the forest because of the squirrel eating the nut, just as the squirrel and the nut are changed in their relationship. One can continue on these images, noting that the forest is within the ecological system, which is within the earth system; the earth is within the planetary system; and so on up through greater levels of complexity, pattern, and order.

forest where squirrel eats nut

All of these systems change and are changed by the other systems within and encompassing them. All of them are interrelated and interdependent on one another.

The form and structure of the forest does not change, nor the squirrel’s form and structure, nor the nut’s. Each system, when affected by/effecting change, just self organizes and adjusts itself to encompass the change. If the change has negative consequences for the squirrel — the nut makes the squirrel sick each time the squirrel eats a nut of that kind — it uses this data, or feedback, to reorganize, to evolve, and to change its codes into a slightly higher level of complexity so as to take this new information into account. The squirrel now avoids certain nuts and chooses others, and all runs smoothly again. The new feedback of all nuts now tasting great is data that reinforces the new pattern by which the squirrel can function.

And perhaps the squirrel’s new pattern and new codes will change the forest, as now most of the bitter tasting nuts will grow into trees previously rare in this particular forest. Maybe deer will love eating the bark of these trees and change their paths through the forest, and so on.

This humble example of squirrel, nut, and forest does not do justice to systems theory, as it is too linear a way to explain the interrelated systems of time, greater consciousness, evolution, and so many other wholes inside wholes inside wholes. Systems encompassing systems encompassing systems all of them in a state of constant change and all of them continuously exchanging information.

Open Systems

Think again of the forest. It can be called an “open” system. An open system is constantly changing in relationship to its environment. It receives information from outside of itself and changes its behavior in relationship to that information. The human body, a community, a galaxy all are open systems. And the principles demonstrated by or appearing in one system seem to apply to all different systems, from social systems to ecological systems to political systems to immune systems.

Change anywhere creates change elsewhere, as the systems within systems within systems (wholes the wholes are within) modify their codes and processes to adjust to new data. Each change affects the greater system it is part of as well as the simpler system it has changed. The squirrel is part of the more complex forest system, and the act of eating another kind of nut creates change in the nut system, as the nut system must adjust to new data and a new environment. The (forest/squirrel/nut) system reorganizes itself, adapting to information and changes in the surrounding environment according to its needs, changing and adjusting itself to create a new pattern of events or processes and thereby to maintain its stability.

The example of squirrel and nut illustrates changes in the ecological system. According to systems theory, every kind of system works in the same way. So let us now take as an example the human mind. Our mind observes, notes, and sifts data and positive or negative feedback from the surrounding environment (both the body and the world outside the body). It often makes adaptations to this new information, for example, adjusting our decision-making or our perception of things, causing behavior change, and using knowledge.

Each change in our mind system gives it more flexibility and complexity, as it adds to its accumulation of data and its ability to respond. Each piece of irregular data is noted. If feedback of a certain sort keeps occurring if something keeps happening in a different way than our usual understanding the mind changes its codes and adjusts how it responds.

We trip on a rock in our path and scrape our knee. As all systems change in order to stabilize and continue, our mind develops a new pat-tern of organization to encompass this experience and information. It makes changes, which in turn effect changes in behavior and other systems in our body. We are now changed on the outside, as well, and wear sturdier shoes and long pants on future hikes.

Our sensory system, balance system, neurological system all of these interrelated systems work in the same way, mapping out a new way of responding to changing data as information is exchanged among them all. Feedback from the next similar situation reinforces the way that each system has evolved. We do not trip on rocks as often now.

Feedback Informs Change

Nature evolves, planets evolve, and social structures evolve, organize, and complexify. All are systems that are constantly in a state of change as they adjust according to feedback from both the whole they are encompassed by and the wholes embedded within them. Desert, galaxy, and school system give and receive feedback to and from temperature, solar system, and parent teacher group.

Using the definitions created by systems theory, the term “feedback” is divided into negative and positive feedback. In systems theory, the words “negative” and “positive” are used a little differently than we might otherwise use them.

Feedback that reinforces the system’s codes and patterns of organization — the school system deals with similar issues each year is negative feedback. Negative feedback means no change is needed — it tells the system to keep functioning in the same direction as it has previously. The parent-teacher group gathers and discusses issues each year. The people may change, but the issues and meeting process generally stay the same.

As wholes are interrelated, change in one system creates change in another system (or several, or many).

Positive feedback is that which leads the system to adapt and change as it works its way back toward stabilization and continuance. Yes, change is needed. The school system experiences a serious financial crisis. This does not match how the parent-teacher system has organized its patterns of response. So the parent-teacher system adapts and reorganizes perhaps it develops task forces or calls in consultants as each system seeks stability.

Negative feedback equals “continue in the same direction all is stable,” and the system stays the same. Positive feedback equals “change direction adapt and change to return to stability,” and the system evolves.

This Affects That (and That, and That, and That . . .)

Think of a person’s new understanding of the world in which she lives. This change in thought doesn’t just stay in the body; the body and the mind interweave with other systems — the environment, society, nature, the world, the universe. Each is a complete whole, yet all are part of a greater whole encompassing it. As wholes are interrelated, change in one system creates change in another system (or several, or many), which causes change in other systems, and so on and so on, as each system exchanges information with every other system. A person’s action, a society evolving, a life form becoming extinct, even a change in a person’s perception of the world — each of these reorganizing systems affects the larger whole and affects how other things happen.

Science fiction author Ray Bradbury writes about this interrelatedness in a short story entitled, “A Sound of Thunder” (from The Stories of Ray Bradbury, originally published by Alfred A. Knopf, 1943). In this tale, a man travels back in time to shoot a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Travis, the time safari leader, tells him that no matter what happens, he must not step off the elevated path on which they are walking.

“Say we accidentally kill one mouse here. That means all the future families of this one particular mouse are destroyed, right? . . . And all the families of the families of the families of that one mouse! With a stamp of your foot, you annihilate first one, then a dozen, than a thousand, a million, a billion possible mice!”

“So they’re dead,” said Eckels, “So what?”

“So what?” Travis snorted quietly.

“Well, what about the foxes that’ll need those mice to survive? For want of ten mice, a fox dies. For want of ten foxes, a lion starves. For want of a lion, all manner of insects, vultures, infinite billions of life forms are thrown into chaos and destruction. Eventually it all boils down to this: Fifty nine million years later, a cave man, one of a dozen on the entire world, goes hunting wild boar or sabertooth tiger for food. But you, friend, have stepped on all the tigers in that region. By stepping on one single mouse. So the cave man starves. And the cave man, please note, is not just any expendable man, no! He is an entire future nation. From his loins would have sprung ten sons. From their loins one hundred sons, and thus onward to a civilization. Destroy this one man, and you destroy a race, a people, an entire history of life. It is comparable to slaying some of Adam’s grandchildren. The stamp of your foot, on one mouse, could start an earthquake, the effects of which could shake our Earth and destinies down through Time, to their very foundations. With the death of that one cave man, a billion others yet unborn are throttled in the womb. Perhaps Rome never rises on its seven hills. Perhaps Europe is forever a dark forest, and only Asia waxes healthy and teeming. Step on a mouse and you crush the Pyramids. Step on a mouse and you leave your print, like a Grand Canyon, across Eternity. Queen Elizabeth might never be born, Washington might not cross the Delaware, there might never be a United States at all. So be careful. Stay on the Path. Never step off! . . .

Crushing certain plants could add up infinitesimally. A little error here would multiply in sixty million years, all out of proportion. Of course maybe our theory is wrong. Maybe Time can’t be changed by us. Or maybe it can be changed only in little subtle ways. A dead mouse here makes an insect imbalance there, a population disproportion later, a bad harvest further on, a depression, mass starvation, and, finally, a change in social temperament in far-flung countries.”

Change Is Essential if the System Is to Continue

If there were never change, a system might not survive. If people’s tastes changed because of a trend toward restaurants serving fancy kinds of lettuce, then the number of iceberg lettuce growers might decrease. The iceberg lettuce system would destabilize, and without change, it would not survive.

A bit of chaos in the system can be a good thing, however, as in order to return to stability, a system has to develop a new order and pattern of how to organize itself. With a choice of either surviving (evolving to a new order, reorganizing the patterns) or not surviving (maintaining the same order and same organization of pattern, and the system doesn’t thrive anymore because other things have changed), often unique and creative results can occur.

A bit of chaos in the system can be a good thing, as in order to return to stability, a system has to develop a new order and pattern of how to organize itself.

The grower has the choice of either closing his lettuce business (system not surviving) or reorganizing how he operates within the existing greater system (system surviving). He decides to form an alliance with another grower to pool their resources. In other words, they both reorganize their patterns and codes they exchange information, evolve, and become more complex and more expansive in their abilities. Together they now provide a fuller range of lettuces to the restaurant market. Together they form a new system and a new response to the system they operate within. In the future, they will be able to be a little more flexible toward changes in consumer taste trends.

Perception

Taste, touch, perception of a situation — all of these inform the human system. According to systems theory, perception includes both that which is perceived and that which is perceiving. A person’s perception of a rock requires both the person (her previous experience with similar items, her senses, her mind, and her sense of touch for comparing this object with previously gathered data) and the rock (its weight, its form, its appearance, its similarity or dissimilarity with other rocks the information it presents to the human). In this way, each system both rock system and human system exchange information. Systems theorist Macy says, “We do not see objects so much as our ideas of them” (in Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory, State University of New York Press, 1991).

We extract information with our senses, refer it to our current understanding of “rock” (which has been developed through past experience with similar items), and notice whether it fits or does not fit with our understanding (our codes, our patterns) of “rock.” If the information our senses give us matches our “rock” codes, then we keep the same codes. If it does not match, we cast off our old codes and now have a new and expanded code. Some rocks have sharp edges, and some rocks are round.

We each have our own filters our own filtration system that sees things in our own unique way. Our way of seeing things is built by our senses and our own individual experience. Other people — with other understandings and experiences — may have a different way of seeing the same thing a different pattern of codes.

The Notion of Self

Systems theory offers a new look at what is the self versus what is the world within which the self operates. It is traditionally assumed that the self is separate from its environment — a person is separate from the world through which he walks. What a person sees and touches and walks on exists as a separate entity from the person.

Using systems theory, it is impossible to separate one system from the interrelated and interdependent systems within which it exists and it is impossible to separate the systems that it encompasses. The physical form of the body is interconnected both with its environment and with its own processing and response systems. One system does not control the other; rather all work together to exchange information to form a pattern of health or understanding.

Self as a whole is not a separate “me” but rather is a part of all related systems. Systems theory explains that we are connected with everything else because we draw from and exchange information with everything else. For example, we receive information through our senses and our collection of past experiences that a rock is an inanimate object, separate from us. We are not the rock.

However, if we are interrelated with our environment (through our existing pattern of interpretation), if we are exchanging touch sensation or sight sensation in our perception of that rock, are we not exchanging data with that rock? Is not perception a constant, ever-changing information flow? Are we not a system interacting with our environment in a constant state of information exchange, feedback, and change? Where are the boundaries of our self? At the skin? At the edge of our understanding? There really are no boundaries, no distinctions between us and what we perceive of as outside of us.

Can the “self,” whatever that might mean (identity, consciousness, thought, perception, physical entity), ever be separate from anything else? The self as a system is always interacting with, changed by, affecting, within, and encompassing other systems. It is a whole that is part of interconnected wholes. All are related, all are in relationship to one another, all are affected and changed by one another, all evolve due to changes within the others. We humans are all connected to one another as well.

We are unique and yet inseparable from each other, the ecology, time, society, past and present history, even the rock that we hold in our hand.

Humans Create Change

“Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons and daughters of the earth. We did not weave the web of life; We are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.”

Whether we are a sculpture of blood, bone, organ, and muscle, or whether we are a process or a series of events or a small piece of a greater whole, through systems theory, we see that everything happens in relationship to everything else, and everything is interrelated with everything else.

We cannot choose to participate or not participate the nature of systems is to exchange with, change, and be changed by other systems.

Everything we do affects everybody else and everything else. We cannot choose to participate or not participate the nature of systems is to exchange with, change, and be changed by other systems. And as systems, we are participating all the time. .

But one element specific to humans and other animals is that they can decide to create change. They can consciously alter their patterns, their way of interacting, and their actions and their responses.

Consider if more of us changed our comprehension of the world in which we live. If more of us had the awareness that we are connected to every event, everything, and everyone, we could perceive wholeness and therefore know that our own actions (or lack of action) affect the greater whole of which we are a part. With this greater awareness, we could move through the world more consciously, creating little concentric explosions of change in our world, our environment, our ecosystem, our social, our political or economic system, and so on. The possibilities are virtually endless.

The post The Mouse and the Earthquake: An Introduction to Systems Theory appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Teams, too, face similar challenges. While team members often understand the need to gather for the purpose of creative dialogue, learning, and engagement, day-to-day demands often lead them to resort to counterproductive behaviors. For instance,

rather than getting together to expand our knowledge and understanding of an issue, we often turn meetings into a war zone, in which each participant tries to push his or her own agenda. In this context, managing knowledge within teams becomes a formidable task, indeed.

Maya provides a beautiful framework for surfacing common barriers to the effective flow of knowledge.

Nevertheless, the effective generation and flow of knowledge is so important that leaders must make a deliberate effort to understand and address the barriers that exist. One approach is based on an aspect of Vedanta philosophy. Called maya, this concept provides a beautiful framework for surfacing common barriers to the effective flow of knowledge within organizations. This article seeks to explore these hurdles, develop a shared understanding of maya, and spell out the implications of this framework for leaders. At the end of the article, a series of practices based on these concepts will contribute dramatically to leaders’ own effectiveness and that of the teams they lead.

Common Barriers in Managing Knowledge

Here’s a recurring scenario common in today’s organizations: A team meets so that members can make a critical decision. The gathering is carefully structured as a series of presentations, after which participants are given the opportunity to debate various plans of action. Others may present differing opinions and concerns, but the role of individual team members is to convince their coworkers that their approach will have the greatest impact. After all, because they are “in the trenches,” the members of this team believe they have the most important knowledge for developing solutions. Team members hope that, through such debate, the prevailing view will lead to the most successful course of action over the long run.

In the end, though, collaborative problem solving and true learning become extremely difficult. According to the current thinking in organizational development, this all-too-common norm for teams may not lead to the most desirable results, because it creates a number of barriers to organizational learning:

• The unchecked assumption that an individual’s level of understanding reflects a singular “true” reality.
• The failure to understand that individuals may interpret the same event or observation differently and that perceptions of reality are dependent on the individual making the observation (“the observer”).
• The assumption that the most accurate understanding of the realities faced by an organization can be attained through debate and “winning over” those with opposing viewpoints.
• The assumption that the individual, the advocate, the orator, and the great debater possess supreme value through their ability to convince others to abandon their perceptions of reality.
• Finally, and perhaps most tragically, the underlying assumption that the most complete understanding of the complex problems facing organizations today can be achieved through an analysis of the problems facing each of its individual parts, independent of the environment and relationships affecting those parts.

Given the prevalence of this scenario, it should come as no surprise that most organizations struggle to address complex problems that require creativity and an unrestricted flow of ideas.

Vedanta philosophy, central to Hindu thought, provides an elegant perspective for those who feel stuck in such dilemmas. An understanding of the concept of maya provides organizations with one way to grow beyond their current limitations in addressing complexity, fostering creativity, and increasing effectiveness. In the following sections, we seek to gain wisdom and insight from the idea of maya and use this understanding to enhance our effectiveness as leaders.

Vedanta Philosophy

First, some background describing the worldview inherent in the Vedanta philosophy is necessary. The core teachings of Vedanta revolve around three areas:

• The true nature of the universe
• The true nature of the individual
• The interrelationships that exist within the universe

According to this philosophy, the true nature of the universe is that all things, living and inanimate, are interconnected in some fashion. As quantum physicists have learned, each action has an effect on other aspects of the universe, and nothing is really separate from anything else. The belief that a particular event or outcome can result from the actions of one person, independent of all of the other factors in the universe, is a distinctly human flaw. Furthermore, energy is the true essence of material existence, not matter, and it is through this energy that all things are interconnected. This all-pervasive field of energy, referred to as Brahma, exists in all things.

The true nature of the individual exists as energy that is part of a greater whole and not as individual minds or bodies. In fact, the Hindu greeting “Namaste” alludes to this worldview, as its meaning can be translated to “I worship the divine within you.”

The interrelationships that exist among all individuals and among elements of the universe are integral to the true nature of the universe. According to the Vedanta worldview, no individual element can be truly understood independent from its surroundings.

A Definition of Maya

Maya is the illusion, based on our false perceptions, that the true nature of the universe is rooted in the material reality we observe through our senses rather than in energy. It refers to the misconception that events and observations are independent from one another and that the problems of the whole can be understood by analyzing the problems of the parts.

Within the world of Vedanta, maya implies that humans are vulnerable to the illusion that events and objects are not only real in a singular context but exist distinctly and independently from one another. In addition, maya leads humans to rely on ego and thus to see themselves as distinct and independent entities. As a result of this mindset, the teachings of Vedanta view human suffering and dysfunction as having their origins in maya.

How, exactly, is maya the cause of human suffering? For one thing, Hindus see it as the root of human attachment to objects and possessions that our senses perceive as real when, in fact, those objects are transitory. Second, individuals who fail to understand the interconnectedness of all end up acting in ways that promote personal gain at the expense of others and of the environment; foster competition and antagonism as opposed to collaboration and symbiotic growth; and steer others astray from a desire to seek true inquiry and dialogue. Finally, maya results in the illusion that there is, indeed, a single perspective or view that is “right.”

This mindset leads to the need to win, convince others, debate, and resort to violence.

Interestingly, a similar concept can be found in Christianity. Although most Christians may not see it in this context, Hindus interpret the story of Adam and Eve’s bite out of the apple in the Garden of Eden as a metaphor for human vulnerability and overreliance on our senses. In this metaphor, the apple represents maya and thus the origins of human suffering. Similarly, many Hindus choose to see this event as one that leads humans to consider God to be a separate being that can be perceived by the human senses rather than as an all pervasive field of energy in the universe, present in all things.

Maya and Quantum Mechanics

Beyond the spiritual and philosophical origins of maya, many Westerners find it helpful to understand more concrete examples of how the teachings of Vedanta may have validity. The fields of quantum mechanics and subatomic theory provide substantial support for the concept of maya. The following scientific principles, in particular, are helpful:

• The true nature of the universe is not matter but rather energy.
• The true nature of the subatomic world involves probabilities rather than certainties.
• Particles arise from energy.
• A particle’s formation and nature occurs when an attempt is made to observe it.
• Particles do not exist independent of other particles and especially of the observer.

This “new” physics has demonstrated clearly that there is no objective reality “out there,” independent of its relationship with and perception by observers. The field reveals that we cannot understand the whole merely by understanding its parts; we must consider the relationships and interactions between the parts, the observer, and the rest of the universe. In this world, there truly are no independent things.

The interconnectedness of the universe can also be demonstrated from experiments involving subatomic particles. As an example, consider two paired particles with opposite spins (, “spin” is one property of subatomic particles). Physicists have demonstrated that, when a pair of particles is separated by a great distance, they maintain their opposite spins. Even more compelling is the finding that when the spin of one of the separated particles is changed, the other particle somehow alters its spin so that it remains the opposite of its pair. In essence, their relationship and interconnectedness is maintained despite their physical separation.

David Bohm, the well-known physicist and philosopher, described how fragmentation — or focusing on the parts to the exclusion of the whole — results in a sort of “pathology of thought.” He understood that humans tend to divide things that, on a more fundamental level, are actually connected. This mindset has led to flawed thinking in the field of quantum physics and in our perception of the world in which we exist. By advocating for a change in how we view the world, Bohm led to breakthroughs in both physics and the field of dialogue.

Maya, too, refers to this fundamental flaw in human understanding and, as we shall see, in organizational thought. It reminds us of our fallibilities as leaders, as well as those of our organizations and communities. So how can we break free from this trap? Below, we’ll examine the power of dialogue and systems thinking for helping us see through the net of illusions cast by maya.

Perspectives from Dialogue

Leaders who want to achieve a true understanding of reality in the context of the challenges they face should turn to dialogue, not debate or discussion. Because individuals possess different interpretations of what they observe and because there is no reality independent of the observer, the ability to elicit the mental models and perceptions of others is crucial. Dialogue offers a set of tools for surfacing the multiplicity of perspectives that add to a more complete picture of reality.

In particular, four specific dialogue skills, as defined by William Isaacs, can assist those who seek to generate a shared understanding of the true essence of any given situation: listening, respecting, suspending, and voicing.

Listening is more than hearing, as it involves not only the perception of words, but also the attachment of meaning to those words.

Listening

In our over-stimulated lives, we seldom notice the ways in which we listen. Listening is more than hearing, as it involves not only the perception of words, but also the attachment of meaning to those words. The meaning that we attach is often biased by our projection of our own biases, assumptions, interpretations, inferences, and history our mental models. In fact, failing to objectively examine our own interpretations while listening can distort our perceptions of reality.

Maya, as an illusion, refers to this distortion of reality and makes true listening ever so critical to enhancing our own understanding of reality. Given this fallibility, we must understand the mental models within which we operate and learn how to circumvent the automatic projection of these models on the things we hear.

The mastery of inner silence through meditation can dramatically enhance the ability to listen. Vedanta philosophy states that the true essence of reality can only be experienced in, “the space that exists between thoughts.” It is in this space that true mental silence exists and in which mental models disappear. The same principle can be applied to the skill of listening. The greater the degree of inner silence that we are able to achieve, the more effective our listening skills become.

Respecting

When we listen with the goal of understanding others, we are able to achieve greater levels of mutual respect than when we try to push our own agendas. Such listening is made more imperative by, but also facilitated through, the understanding that we are interconnected with and do not exist separate from others. Through mutual respect and listening, we learn about the thinking of others and, more importantly, about our own thinking. In the words of William Isaacs, we can see that “I am in the world, and the world is in me.” Likewise, our ability to say “That, too, is in me” is an extremely useful tool for building respect and understanding with one another. By making efforts to control our tendency to fall for the illusions of maya and separateness, we can build a practice of respectful listening.

Suspending

Suspending involves sharing and putting aside our own mental models. In essence, by suspending, we are making visible our own perspectives of reality. In so doing, we put forth the possibility that our own perspective may be flawed, that certainty may be in question. As we both suspend and seek to understand the perspectives of others, we must inquire effectively from a place of genuine curiosity. In addition, true inquiry involves being aware that our own perspective maybe flawed. The key in the act of suspending involves both surfacing and exploring the relationship between separate interpretations of reality.

Voicing

Often, because of the “pathologies of thought” that are so prevalent in our society, we learn to fear expressing our own interpretation of reality. Taking the leap requires the courage to share a view that may differ from that of others. To combat these fears, we must cultivate the skill of self-awareness, along with that of trusting our own thinking as a valid glimpse of reality.

Understanding that every element of the universe arises from the same underlying energy and reality can help us develop trust in our own voices. By becoming aware that only different perspectives of “the truth” exist, we can muster the courage necessary to effectively voice our opinions. The concept of maya provides us with an awareness of our own vulnerability to forgetting that we are in touch with this reality.

Perspectives from Systems Thinking

Just as dialogue provides us with tools to cultivate perspectives that contribute to a more complete understanding of reality, so does systems thinking. By offering tools that lead us to examine the interrelationships and dynamics that exist among elements of our world, systems thinking creates a framework for moving beyond the limitations that maya imposes on our thinking.

Fragmentation

Our tendency to see things as separate parts whether they are processes, departments, positions, or individuals can severely limit our ability to understand the myriad of systems within which we exist and participate. Leaders in organizations that succumb to maya may ultimately find that they deal with unintended consequences, “fixes that fail,” and processes that deplete rather than renew and invigorate.

Taking time for both reflection and dialogue at meetings and in groups permits teams to explore critical questions such as, “How might this impact other departments with which we interact?” and “How will this approach help to renew the environment and the partners with which we operate?” Eliciting, through generative dialogue, the full nature of interconnectedness is a powerful experience for a team and has the potential to create new perspectives and revolutionary approaches. Such regular dialogue is essential for groups as they evolve beyond the limitations of maya and is a critical competency for leaders to develop.

Even more enlightening is dialogue that elicits connections and relationships to enhance an understanding of the whole. Effective dialogue must be based on the premise that there is not one true perspective of reality, independent of the observer, and that many voices must be engaged to expand our understanding of the whole. In the end, greater insight into the connections and relationships between processes and structures leads to a greater level of group intelligence and more effective and fulfilling work.

The symbol for Om, representing all existence

Individuals and organizations tend to view assets human, financial, or intellectual as their own. In reality, however, when we cease to exist, the things we have in our possession will “flow” elsewhere. In essence, assets flow through the universe and pass through us (or our organizations) temporarily, so that we can utilize them to enhance the greater well-being and harmony of that with which we are interconnected: our partners, our environment, our customers, and our owners.

In the context of Vedanta philosophy, the resources in our possession at any particular moment are available to us for the purpose of fulfilling our mission. But when we fall prey to maya, we fail to experience this interconnectedness as it relates to our true mission and purpose. Individuals and organizations that hoard resources in a miserly fashion are at risk for failing to accomplish their true mission and intent.

Resources for Leaders

In order to master the skills necessary to function beyond the limitations and vulnerabilities described by maya, leaders can adopt a number of practices:

1. Meditate. Time for daily reflection is essential for effective leaders to bring about a greater awareness of their own “center,” their interconnectedness with all that surrounds them, and their own limitations in seeing only a glimpse of reality. Such reflection, though humbling, also instills a sense of calm. Indeed, avoiding the illusion of maya is difficult, and daily reflection can help us to develop this practice.

To that end, devote time each day for silence. Inevitably, when beginning, you will notice thoughts entering your mind. Observe the internal dialogue, label it with what you feel, and release it to return to experience the silence. This observation will uncover aspects of your own mental models that influence thought. To overcome the illusion of maya, it is imperative to develop the ability to master silence and to realize that the essence of true reality is in the space between thoughts, not in the actual thoughts.

2. Become Aware of Ego. Ego, defined as a perception that we are solely responsible for our own success, that our perceptions of reality are indeed the most accurate representations of reality, and that our identity is based in the greatness of our own accomplishments, is a tragic human vulnerability. Leaders must become aware of this flaw in themselves and in those they lead. More importantly, they must foster the conditions that make it safe for individuals to relinquish their attachment to an identity based in ego.

3. Engage Others in Dialogue. Leaders must reflect upon and engage others in dialogue around maya and how it may exist in your own views and perceptions. Explore how opportunities may be missed and dysfunctions created through this vulnerability. In asking questions such as, “How do we create fragmentation in our organization?” leaders trigger others to reveal aspects of their mental models and create a more complete view of the situation.

4. Understand the Interconnectedness of All Things. Encourage those whom you lead to reflect each day on your interconnectedness and on, “That, too, is in me” in the context of thinking about the behaviors and perceptions of others in your organizations and communities. Understand how processes and objects do not exist independent of their surrounding, and explore the relationships that exist between processes and objects, in the context of systems thinking. Work with others to surface these unseen connections.

5. Examine the Relationship That You and Your Organization Have with the External Environment.How do your actions affect the world around you? What systems exist that you have not yet explored or surfaced? In order to be sustainable and healthy, organizations must renew and invigorate their surroundings and environment, not deplete them.

6. Realize That Assets Are Not to Be Hoarded, but Rather to Be Used to Fulfill Your Purpose in Life.Organizations and individuals must realize that assets are part of the universal flow of resources and that, when these resources flow through you or your organization, they do so for the purpose of fulfilling a mission. Hoarding such resources is based on maya, the illusion that it is truly possible to, “own” things.

By comprehending maya as a source of limitation and mastering the true nature of existence, we can begin to successfully manage knowledge in our organizations and support individuals in becoming thoughtful and fulfilled contributors. Likewise, by developing a more complete shared understanding of maya among members of their organizations, as well as within themselves, leaders will develop the skills necessary to excel in the turbulent environments that we face now and that we shall surely face in the future.

The post Becoming Unstuck: Leadership Lessons from Hindu Philosophy appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

I had good teachers in organizational development, but none of them, except Chris Argyris, could articulate his or her practice theory. When I began to work with teams and organizations using Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline as a point of departure, I realized that the disciplines Senge describes are useful approaches, but that the approach lacked a practice theory — I couldn’t tell which discipline to use when. So, I took some bits and pieces of ideas from colleagues and I made one up. And since I’m a visual person, it’s a practice theory as a picture (see “The Learning Action Matrix”). I call it the Learning Action Matrix, though the name isn’t important.

What is important is that the Learning Action Matrix knits Senge’s learning disciplines into a system that provides a logical “map” to guide practitioners through a process that produces real results and continuous learning. It helps identify where you are in any given process, suggests what to do at any given point, and indicates where to go next.

Learning Action Matrix

Level of Reasoning

The vertical axis “Levels of Reasoning” is borrowed from Daniel Kim’s “Vision Deployment Matrix” (see “Levels of Understanding” in The Systems Thinker, June/July 1993). His work, in turn, owes a debt to the “Iceberg Model” from Innovation Associates’ Systems Thinking curriculum.

What is a matrix? A matrix is a grid with different elements on the horizontal and vertical axes. Each cell combines the attributes of the vertical and horizontal axes to create a unique meaning.

The Learning Action Matrix is a five by four (5 x 4) grid. Let’s understand each axis of the grid, and then see what happens when we combine these axes into a matrix.

On the vertical axis is listed “Level of Reasoning.” Each of these five levels represents different ways of seeing, frames through which situations can be viewed at increasing levels of complexity. The more complexity that can be brought into the conversation, the more potential for change.

All of these levels are informed by vision. The key question at this level is “What do we want to create?” or, taken retrospectively, “What do we seem to be creating?” These aspirations, stated or unstated, exert a powerful influence on the events, patterns, systemic structures, and mental models working in any given situation. Systemic structures, in turn, are frequently held in place by mental models — assumptions that may be undiscussable theories on what constitutes quality, good service, or an acceptable return on investment. These “theories in use” may also treat interpersonal dynamics, for example, approaches toward conflict or the correct way to interact with senior leaders. Once a pattern has been identified and described, it is possible to document the systemic dynamics that maintain it. The level of systemic structures marks the boundary between what can be easily observed in the objective world (events and patterns) and what must be assessed, often laboriously, from the data (mental models and vision). Systemic dynamics are abstractions, but they stay close to the data. The causal loop language is an example of this kind of thinking. There is nothing wrong in understanding the world as a series of events. It’s just not a very high-leverage way to approach problems. Leverage begins with pattern recognition, with the basic insight that “this has happened before.” Most discussions begin at the events level, with some version of “this is what happened.” Discussions on this level usually assign a single cause to each effect: “This happened because that happened.” Listen to an explanation of stock market behavior on any given day for a good example of reasoning at the events level. The horizontal axis of the matrix describes a four-phase iterative learning cycle: observe, assess, develop, and implement.

Learning begins with observation

Learning begins with observation, with seeing what has occurred. An assessment or diagnosis is made about what one has observed — one develops a theory about what is going on. This theory influences the development of a response, which leads to the implementation of certain actions. These actions are observed, initiating a second trip through the cycle. When we combine the two axes described in the last section, we get the Learning Action Matrix (below).

Notice how the terms on the horizontal axis are verbs (“Observe”) and the terms on the vertical axis are nouns (“Events”). When we combine the two, we get a series of imperative sentences that we can group into four “Zones of Work.”

THE LEARNING ACTION MATRIX

The Learning Action Matrix knits the learning disciplines into a system that provides a logical “map” to guide practitioners through a process that produces real results and continuous learning.

The four zones on the matrix are:

• Zone 1:Observe Current Events and Patterns
• Zone 2:Assess Current Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision
• Zone 3:Develop New Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision
• Zone 4:Implement New Events and Patterns

The arrows in the Learning Action Matrix show the logical progression through the four zones.

Progressing Through the Zones

Learning begins with observing events and patterns (Zone 1).

People make assessments about the underlying structures that drive the behavior they have observed (Zone 2).

They then work to develop new structures, based on that assessment (Zone 3).

They implement the new patterns of behavior suggested from the changed structures (Zone 4) and observe the results of these actions, initiating a second iteration of the learning cycle.

While the boundaries between the zones are not hard and fast (rarely does a group say “O. K. — done with Zone 2; let’s move on to 3!”), the zones are helpful for a number of reasons: There are different kinds of work that one must to do integrate reflection and action, and the zones do a good job describing these differing kinds of work. Observing what is (Zone 1) is different from developing ideas about what could be (Zone 3). The differences are “different enough” to be useful.

Knowing where you are can help you get to where you want to go. If you’re leaping from seeing something (Zone 1) to doing something (Zone 4) without reflecting (Zones 3 and 4), chances are you’ll create unwanted conditions. The matrix helps to direct careful, learning-oriented work by suggesting what to do next.

Finally, the zones provide a way for groups to quickly self-assess what type of work they’re doing now. My clients use the vocabulary of the zones as “sound bites” to describe what they see themselves doing. It’s a vocabulary that carries over beyond my work with them, which I really like.

The work that takes place in the different zones is discussed in more detail below.

Zones 1 and 2 in Detail

Here’s a detailed tour through the first two zones of the matrix.

Zone 1: Observing Events and Patterns.

In Zone 1, team members observe and report on events in the workplace; they tell stories that focus on “what happened” in a given situation. These organizational war stories are like potato chips — no one can tell just one.

But to gain leverage, storytelling must move up the axis from “Observing Events” to “Observing Patterns.” Recognizing a pattern begins with the simple insight that “this has happened before.”

Having teams identify the patterns in their work is useful for lifting conversation out of the Events level.

For example, one group was considering rolling out an update to a product development method when I asked, “How do you usually do this, and what usually happens?” One member responded immediately that their pattern was to announce changes through a large meeting like the one they were planning, and that very little usually happened as a result. (Notice how this constitutes Zone 1 work of “Observing Patterns.”) Others laughed in agreement. The moment was an important one, as they realized the truth of the cliché “If we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we’ve always gotten.”

Many of the best tools for Zone 1 work come from Total Quality. Statistical process control, with it’s ability to distinguish normal from special variation, supports a rigorous analysis of production patterns. Group process practices like multi-voting and affinity diagramming make clear patterns of opinion that a group holds but cannot articulate. Stripped of its elaborate architecture, Process Reengineering reveals itself as a process of replacing one work pattern with another more rational one, here moving from Zone 1 of the matrix to Zone 4.

Zone 2: Assessing Current Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision.

Once group members have identified and described a pattern, they can begin to document the underlying systemic structure that maintains that pattern. This zone is usually the first one teams experiment with when they begin to practice the five disciplines. They try to draw causal loop diagrams to explain the patterns they identify and eagerly point out each other’s mental models. As individuals become more experienced in this practice, they recognize that they need to examine their own beliefs as well.

New practitioners frequently strive to create the “right” causal loop diagram to describe a pattern. More experienced practitioners learn to tolerate more complexity and thrive in the intricacies of contradiction. Eventually, deep and sustained work with causal loop diagramming and mental models leads to a vision-oriented understanding of “what we seem to be creating here.” Vision is the foundation for all of the levels below and exerts a powerful influence on the events, patterns, systemic structures, and mental models working in any given situation. The simple question “What do we seem to be creating here?” can often lead a group to state the obvious.

Loop B1 describes a balancing structure where pressure to improve leads to change initiatives, such as new teaching methods, sexuality education, anti-gang programs, and state-mandated curriculums. These initiatives lead to actual improvements and a perception that things are improving, but only after delays. Reinforcing loop R1 illustrates how new change initiatives actually increase impatience for improvements, which increases the pressure for improvements. R2 is a reinforcing loop, where each new initiative reduces the ability to focus on any single initiative, reducing the work and slowing the rate of actual improvement.

The group also identified mental models supporting a few of the key links in this system. These are indicated by the “thought bubbles” drifting off the links. In addition, they identified the highest level of “what we are creating here,” namely, a system in which the stereotype that schools resist change will lead to behavior (more and more initiatives), which will then reinforce this very perception.

I see groups working with “chaotic purpose” in this zone, jumping from working on causal loops to speculating on mental models to reflecting on the present culture (an “assessing vision” discussion) without resolving any of these issues. Teams in this zone, especially teams new to the disciplines, are like student archeologists wandering over an area they are convinced is an important historical site. The process of learning is iterative. They will need to dig in one spot several times before they become skilled enough to understand what’s there.

Zones 3 and 4 in Detail

Zone 3: Developing New Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision.

While the work of Zone 2 is like an excavation, the work of Zone 3 is more creative, like the work of an architect or artist. Like all activities that relay on inspiration, it follows its own pace, oblivious to deadlines and urgency

Teams that skip this zone imperil their ability to implement in Zone 4. Without Zone 3 work, the actions of Zone 4 are just different versions of “what we’ve always done.” They have to be, because the team lacks the cognitive infrastructure (mental models), the causal infrastructure (systemic structures), and the aspiration (vision) to create anything else.

Teams sometimes begin work in Zone 3 by literally making something up that serves as a provisional vision of the way they want things to be. In fact, I find many groups already have reflected on their vision for the future, inspired by the fact that, as one manager told me, “Vision is hot right now.” However, their visions have remained castles in the air, with little hope of informing action directly. The development of new beliefs and systemic structures are needed to link these castles to the “ground” of Zone 4 implementation.

The work of Zone 2 is a necessary point of departure for the work of Zone 3, especially in the development of new systemic structures. These structures can be creatively recast by:

• Linking existing variables in a new way
• Breaking existing links between variables
• Reducing delays in the system. (Thanks to Innovation Associates for first putting this so clearly.)

Using these as redesign principles, groups can reconfigure the structures in which they find themselves.

Extending the example of the educators and their challenge managing change, let’s look at how this team developed a new systemic structure in response to their original loop (see “Zone 3 Loop and Its Strategies”). Their Zone 3 strategies are:

1. Break the link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Pressure to Improve.”

2. Add a link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Ability to Focus on Any One Initiative.”

3. Reduce the delays in B1 between “Change Initiatives” and “Actual Improvements” and between this variable and “Perception of Improvements.”

In Zone 4, they make these theoretical changes concrete.

Zone 4: Implementing New Events and Patterns.

Obviously, drawing or crossing out a link on paper changes nothing in the material world (other than the paper, of course). Zone 4 work demands that these paper changes be translated into actual actions.

For most groups, Zone 4 work is familiar territory. They are comfortable with the methods that make sense in this zone. After all, planning actions is what most traditional managers do most of the time. Especially useful are those simple methods that support team planning, such as making public commitments through action plans and accountability charting.

To return to our example, reducing the two delays in the balancing loop might involve some or all of the following actions:

In “Example of Zone 2 Work,” a group of public school administrators impatient with the pace of change in their schools built the above causal loop diagram to describe what they saw.

Reduce these delays

• Designing an initiative for early successes
• Improving something simple and visible early
• Starting work before announcing the initiative to have some successes in-hand (an old fund-raising trick)
• Lowering expectations regarding the speed of change

Obviously, the mental models identified in the original loop will need to be addressed along with the systemic dynamics. For example, the assumption that “In X weeks I should see some improvement. If not, something’s wrong” needs to yield to a belief more consistent with the actual pace of change.

The educators will need to determine how best to influence this belief, possibly choosing different approaches for different constituencies; i.e., one influences a governor differently than one influences a parents’ committee. In the case above, both constituencies will need to be influenced, since both are sources of change initiatives.

How might the educators accomplish their second strategy, breaking the link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Pressure to Improve”?

A strategy might include:

• Testing whether or not people believe that the causal loop diagram makes sense, and then
• Seeking their agreement to shift their impatience to increasing the focus on present initiatives

This last point represents an implementation of the strategy “Add a link between ‘Impatience for Improvements’ and ‘Ability to Focus on Any One Initiative.’”

In addition, the educators could establish a pattern of having senior people visit the sites of present initiatives and publishing these visits in the school-system paper, along with statements that changes take time.

Typical Group Patterns

In moving through the four zones of work, groups often follow a similar developmental course as they becomes better able to integrate reflection (Zones 2 & 3) with action (Zones 1 & 4) in the service of learning and results.

Leaping to Action

Most teams initially move from Zone 1 directly to Zone 4 (see “Leaping to Action”). They see something happening (Observe) and they do something about it (Implement), without passing through the zones where they assess and develop new systemic structures, mental models, and vision.

Lost in Space As teams begin to learn the disciplines of organizational learning, they add Zone 2 work to their “Leaping to Action” habits, developing a “Zone 1/Zone 2/Zone 4” dance step, which one group called “Lost in Space” (see above).

Teams at this stage are able to use systems thinking and mental model disciplines to assess current reality in increasingly complex ways, yet they have difficulty using much of what they learn to implement new actions. They have usually learned just enough to see how the solutions they might have used in the past will not serve them in the long term, but have not learned enough to create new approaches. The result can be “analysis paralysis.”

Alternatively, when groups at this stage do take action, they can get into trouble. They haven’t yet developed the systemic structures or beliefs to underpin a desired future based on a new vision of what the team wants to create (Zone 3 work).

For example, one executive team I worked with used the matrix structure to redesign an organization. Working through Zones 1 and 2, they did a good job of describing current reality. However, once the outlines of a new organization began to emerge, they moved quickly to draw up the new pattern for the organization (Zone 4 work).

They presented this new organizational chart to their boss a few days later. Intrigued, he asked them to put some names on the positions on the chart. When they tried to assign the executive positions — their own slots — their agreement broke down, and part of the group went to the boss to retract the new design.

I now wonder what would have happened if they had developed a deeper understanding of the future they desired by working through Zone 3 in a disciplined manner, articulating the different beliefs they would have needed to function in this organization and developing the systemic structures to support these beliefs. At least, they might have confronted their own resistance to changing responsibilities.

Acknowledgments

As I mentioned earlier, the vertical axis “Levels of Reasoning” is borrowed from Daniel Kim’s “Vision Deployment Matrix” (see “Vision Deployment Matrix:A Framework for Large-Scale Change,” The Systems Thinker V6N1). His work, in turn, owes a debt to the “Iceberg Model” from Innovation Associates Systems Thinking curriculum, as do several other concepts from this article.

This piece benefited from early readings by Marty Castleberg, Peter Senge, and Janice Molloy. Several clients have advanced my understanding of how to apply the Matrix, most notably the Product Development Leadership and Learning Team at Harley-Davidson.

The post A Practice Theory for Organizational Learning appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Foresight, in contrast to fatalism, gives us increased power to shape our futures, even in the most turbulent of times. People who can think ahead will be prepared to take advantage of all the new opportunities that rapid social and technological progress are creating.

Success Through Foresight

The relation of foresight to success is poorly understood. As a result, we often think people are successful because of luck, when in fact it was their foresight that made them “lucky.” Foresight enabled them to take advantage of opportunities and to avoid problems that trap other people.

Alan Hald, a young Arizona banker with a strong interest in the future, attended a World Future Society conference in the 1970s. There he met the editor of a new magazine for computer hobbyists. At the time, nobody but governments and big businesses could afford to build a computer, but Hald had the foresight to see that the future of computers would be very different from the past, and many new business opportunities would open up. Hald went home in great excitement to talk to his partner about starting a business in computers. In the following years, Hald’s business (MicroAge) grew into America’s largest microcomputer distributor, serving dealers around the world.

Foresight, in contrast to fatalism, gives us increased power to shape our futures, even in the most turbulent of times.

Foresight is critical to success in all areas of our lives, including major life decisions. In contrast to Hald’s success, people who lack foresight are only too likely to find themselves unemployed when jobs are unexpectedly lost to new technologies, competition from overseas, or shifts in consumer tastes. Without foresight, we often have little idea of what to do next, so developing our foresight maybe the best way to safeguard our current jobs and future employability.

Foresight may also save our lives. Here’s why: Scientists are identifying more and more ways for us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives, but we have to decide to follow their advice. People lacking foresight are only too likely to disregard the practices that would safeguard their future health and well-being. Millions of people are alive today because they paid attention when scientists confirmed the enormous damage that smoking cigarettes does to the human body.

Meanwhile, their neighbors and friends who continued to smoke have succumbed to lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes.

Education is another area where foresight is important. Students lacking foresight are more likely to neglect their studies because they see no connection between education and a successful future. But students with good foresight skills can recognize the importance of studying and can also select the courses most likely to help them meet their goals. Young people who do not learn to think ahead may find it difficult to plan for a successful marriage and family life. People whose foresight is weak are likely to have difficulty saving money for emergencies, down payments on homes, and retirement.

Foresight is particularly important for investments, and exceptionally good foresight can bring riches. Warren Buffett, one of the world’s most successful investors, won his wealth by being able to identify inexpensive companies that were likely to prosper in the future.

Foresight in Business and Government

People in business can use foresight to identify new products and services, as well as markets for those products and services. An increase in minority populations in a neighborhood would prompt a grocer with foresight to stock more foods linked to ethnic tastes. An art museum director with foresight might follow trends in computer graphics to make exhibits more appealing to younger visitors.

Foresight may reveal potential threats that we can prepare to deal with before they become crises. For instance, a corporate manager with foresight might see an alarming rise in local housing prices that could affect the availability of skilled workers in the region. The public’s changing values and priorities, as well as emerging technologies, demographic shifts, economic constraints (or opportunities), and environmental and resource concerns are all parts of the increasingly complex world system in which leaders must govern effectively.

People in government also need foresight to keep systems running smoothly, to plan budgets, and to prevent wars. Government leaders today must deal with a host of new problems emerging from rapid advances in technology. Technology assessment expert Vary T. Coates notes that, “Technology-related issues today besiege Congress across the range of committee responsibilities stem-cell research and human cloning, missile defense, cellular telephones, genetically engineered foods, the Internet, and much more — because technology has become a central part of modern life.”

Even at the community level, foresight is critical: School officials, for example, need foresight to assess numbers of students to accommodate, numbers of teachers to hire, new educational technologies to deploy, and new skills for students (and their teachers) to develop over the coming years.

The Growth of Foresight Techniques

Many of the best-known techniques for foresight were developed by U. S.military planners, when the post–World War II atomic age made it critical to “think about the unthinkable” and prepare for it. Pioneering futurists at the RAND Corporation (the first think tank) began seriously considering what new technologies might emerge in the future and how these might affect U. S. security. These RAND futurists, along with others elsewhere, refined a variety of new ways for thinking about the future.

Futurists have recognized that the future is continuous with the present, so we can learn a great deal about what may happen in the future by looking systematically at what is happening now (see “Futuring: Profession or Point of View?”). The key thing to watch is not events (sudden developments or one-day occurrences) but trends (long-term ongoing shifts in such things as population, land use, technology, and governmental systems).

Futurists also developed the use of scenarios as an extremely useful way to think about the future. A scenario is not a prediction purporting to state definitely what will happen in the future, but rather a plausible description of events that might occur in the future. Scenarios are fictional, but realistic anticipations of what may happen in the future. Using scenarios, we can think seriously about what we should do next. In some cases, we may want to prevent these potential future events from happening; in other instances, we may want to cause them to happen or even hurry them along.

Using these techniques and many others, futurists now can tell us many things that may happen in the future. Some are nearly certain to happen, such as the continuing expansion in the world’s population. Other events are viewed as far less likely, but could be extremely important if they do occur, such as an asteroid colliding with the planet.

Ways to Anticipate the Future

We may not be aware of it, but we all develop, in the course of growing to adulthood, a variety of ways for thinking about the future. Most of us use these methods without being consciously aware of just what we are doing. Futurists anticipate, forecast, and assess future events by using a variety of rational, empirical, and scientific techniques. These methods are largely refinements of the commonsense techniques that people use in everyday life. But they are completely different from supernatural fortune telling practices such as crystal-ball gazing and astrology.

Here are a few of the most common techniques used in futuring. For more detailed discussions of these techniques, see Futuring: The Exploration of the Future(World Future Society, 2004).

• Scanning: An ongoing effort to identify significant changes in the world beyond the organization or group doing the scanning. Typically, scanning is based on a systematic survey of current newspapers, magazines, Web sites, and other media for indications of changes likely to have future importance. Scanning focuses mainly on trends — changes that occur through time rather than events — changes that occur very quickly and generally are much less significant for understanding the future.
• Trend Analysis: The examination of a trend to identify its nature, causes, speed of development, and potential impacts. Careful analysis may be needed because a trend can have many different impacts on different aspects of human life, and many of these impacts may not be apparent at first. Longer life spans, for example, increase the number of people for whom resources must be provided, but also increase the number of people who can contribute to the economy and society through paid and unpaid labor (see “Trend Analysis: The Increase of the Elderly in the Population”).

• Trend Monitoring: Trends viewed as particularly important in a specific community, industry, or sector may be carefully monitored — watched and reported regularly to key decision makers. For example, a rapidly rising unemployment rate or the appearance of a deadly new disease may have significant impacts on many different organizations and communities. On the other hand, fashion trends may be of keen interest to such people as clothing manufacturers or fashion-forward consumers (see “Top 10 Reasons to Watch Trends” on p. 5).
• Trend Projection: When numerical data are available, a trend can be plotted on graph paper to show changes through time. The futurist can then extend the trend line or, “project” it into the future on the basis of the recent rate of change. Such a projection shows where the trend should be at some point in the future assuming there is no shift in the rate of change. Example: A population with a steady 2% rate of annual growth will double in about 35 years.
• Scenario Development and Analysis: We all explore future possibilities through our imagination. For instance, we try to imagine what would happen if we accepted a job at a certain company: What good things — and bad things — might happen to us as a result of taking the job? Scenarios are attempts to imagine future possibilities on the basis of what we know (or think we know). Scenarios are useful in helping us to understand what might happen as a result of a decision we may make.The future development of a trend, a strategy, or a wildcard event may be described in story or outline form. Typically, a scenario seeks to show one plausible way that the future might unfold. Scenarios are particularly useful in futuring because of the general uncertainty of the future. Typically, several scenarios will be developed so that decision makers are aware that future events may invalidate whatever scenario they deem most likely and use for planning purposes.
• Consulting Others (Polling): Since, “two heads are better than one,” we may ask other people — often experts — for their opinions about the future. Other people can also advise us on whether we are likely to enjoy a trip to a certain city, for example. Business executives and government leaders constantly use consultation as a means of understanding the possibilities of the future and making better decisions. Data may be collected through face to face conversation, telephone interviews, and questionnaires sent by electronic or ordinary mail. Delphi polling, popular among futurists, uses a carefully structured procedure to generate more accurate forecasts.
• Models: Events that occur in the real world can be imitated in ways that help us to understand them better. A model of a building can help people to understand what a future building may look like. A map is a two-dimensional model that enables us to tell which streets we will come to if we go in a certain direction.
• Simulations or Gaming: A model is a static representation of something, but it has a dynamic twin—the simulation. Generals and admirals simulate battles when they move their model ships and aircraft about, either on large maps or during “war games” that involve real troops, materiel, and even live ammunition. In war games, real soldiers may become actors in a mock battle, which helps them to understand what actual combat is like and helps generals to test out alternative strategies and tactics they may later use. The game Monopoly simulates the real estate market. Games can also be played with real people playing various roles: In the game SimCity, one person might be the may or while others play the roles of urban planner, transportation manager, landlord, city council, and so on.
• Computer Simulations: Complex systems such as the U. S. economy can be modeled by means of mathematical equations, which can then be fed into a computer. Then data can be entered to express the situation in the economy at the present moment. After that, policy makers can ask various “What if questions, such as “What if we increase the income tax rate by 20%?” This policy change probably will have numerous results, many of which might never have been anticipated, due to the complex interaction of the many variables. The computer might show, for instance, that a proposed increase in the income tax would reduce automobile sales by 30% and cut the GNP by 10%.

• Historical Analysis: Futurists may study historical events in order to anticipate the outcome of current developments. Often a current situation can be compared to one or more situations in history that seem to be similar. For example, the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was compared by some commentators to the Vietnam War, with the implication that the Iraq War would also prove disastrous. Many government leaders have relied heavily on what they learned from history to guide them in making key decisions.
• Brainstorming: The generation of new ideas by means of a small group assembled to think creatively about a topic, such as a problem to be solved, an opportunity to capture, or a direction to take an organization. Group members are encouraged to build on each other’s ideas and with-hold criticism. Brainstorming is useful in identifying possibilities, opportunities, and risks. Other idea-generating or problem-solving methods are also common, such as idea mapping, impact analysis, and the systematic identification of all possible variables. Professional futurists may use brainstorming with their clients to help stretch their minds beyond the present and to promote continuous innovation and long-term strategizing.
• Visioning: Since futuring is about more than predicting, many futurists engage in the systematic creation of visions of a desirable future for an organization or an individual. Typically, the futurist will start with are view of past events and the current situation, move on to envision desirable futures, and then identify specific ways to move toward the desired future. A visioning procedure often prepares the way for more formal goal setting and planning.

The post The Art of Foresight: Preparing for a Changing World appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Organizations can use this framework to create a personal development path an employee might pursue using the five disciplines, as described by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline(click here for “Shifting from Knowing to Learning”). With this framework, employees will be able to understand what progress feels like moving from reacting toward creating, from protection toward reflection, from “my part” toward “the whole,” and so on.

At Gerber Memorial Health Services (GMHS), we have invested heavily in organizational learning, providing training and support to our leaders, along with implementing some structural changes that ensure that we use these ideas in cross-departmental teams. But until we incorporated the “knower to learner framework,” we only had vague expectation for leaders to improve their skills by practicing the five disciplines. Now, we are clear on what successful development along the continuums looks like, and we are holding leaders accountable for that development.

But there is still another problem. Even if our leaders successfully developed themselves in the use of the five disciplines, they still sometimes achieved mediocre results. Through the use of a framework called “the Learner’s Path,” we have found a way for people to ensure that they tie their learning to actual results.

The Five Learner’s Path Questions

The Learner’s Path utilizes a five-question framework that leads the learner toward increased responsibility, ownership, and self-reflection. The five questions are: (1) Are you producing desired results? (2) Is this issue yours to address? (3) Is it necessary to use alternative action strategies? (4) Is it necessary to use action strategies that are beyond your current action repertoire? and (5) Are you open to renewal and correction?

The individual or group answers the five questions in succession. If they answer each question successfully, they increase the likelihood that learning will occur (by “learning,” I mean “increasing one’s ability to achieve desired results through effective action” and not simply the accumulation of more information in one’s head). When you answer the first three questions successfully, you can say that you have become a learner, and not before. Affirmatively answering questions four and five will, thereafter, deepen your learning.

The Anvil of Learning

We might think of these five questions as the “anvil” against which we shape and form our knowledge. Imagine a blacksmith trying to shape a piece of metal into something valuable and useful without the use of an anvil. He holds the metal to be shaped in one hand while holding the sledgehammer in the other. With no base on which to rest the metal piece, he grips it as tightly as he can while clanging the hammer against it with the other hand. The blows fall at odd angles and have little impact on the piece of metal. But when the blacksmith rests his piece of metal on an anvil, it gives him the stability and leverage he needs to form and change the metal into something useful and valuable.

This same principle is true of any learning effort: When you attempt to learn without the support and testing of the anvil of learning, you are unlikely to transform your learning into something useful and valuable namely, an ability to achieve the results you couldn’t achieve before. Just as the anvil significantly leverages the blacksmith’s effectiveness, so the Learner’s Path leverages the learner’s effectiveness.

Walking Along the Learner’s Path

Let me illustrate how to use this framework with a story. I facilitated a meeting of a group of leaders, who were discussing the possibility of implementing a large-scale customer service improvement strategy. Customer service scores had been flat for two years, and some people advocated for doing something new to improve the scores.

I started out by explaining that I would be walking them through the Learner’s Path/Five Questions framework, which would help them determine what level of learning would be necessary for the initiative. Then, I led them through a progression of the five questions, as follows.

1st Question: “Are you producing desired results?”

After reviewing the trends of flat scores (although at a very high level) over the past two years, they concluded that these scores were not good enough. They wanted to be known for something better than “customer satisfaction” they wanted to give their customers “profound experiences.” Had they said that they were satisfied with the current results, there would be no point for them to continue the conversation. The rest of the five questions would be a waste of time unless they felt some aspiration to improve current results.

2nd Question: “Is it yours to address?”

In other words, they had to decide if they, as leaders, ought to take some responsibility for addressing this issue. They said, “If we don’t take responsibility, who will? What is the alternative?” Again, had they said that they did not want to assume responsibility, the conversation would have stopped, and the group would have had to be content with some wishful thinking that someone else would do something about improving the customer scores.

THE LEARNER'S LOOP

The purpose of The Learner’s Loop is to articulate what capacities a person must develop in order to increase their chances for successfully answering each of the five questions. Progressing along the Learner’s Path is not a linear process; it is a closed loop, an engine of growth, around which a learner circuits, seeking continuous development.

3rd Question: “Is it necessary to use alternative action strategies?” This question forced the group to struggle with some dilemmas. If they said, “No, we can keep using the current strategy,” then I would have had to ask why they hadn’t actually produced profound customer experiences all along. Alternatively, if they believed they should use some type of alternative action strategy, they would have to admit that their current strategy hadn’t worked, which could be threatening or embarrassing to them. In this case, the leadership group decided that they needed to try an alternative action strategy. Again, had they said “no,” there would have been no point in continuing the conversation because they would not be convinced that they actually had anything to learn.

4th Question: “Is it necessary to use action strategies that are beyond your current action repertoire?” At this point, the group answered “yes.” They felt that, if they were to achieve profound customer experiences, they would have to implement an action strategy that they did not yet know how to implement. In other words, they would have to expand their current action repertoire (by “action repertoire,” I mean action strategies they could reliably use to achieve desired results). Had they said “no” to this fourth question, the group would have assembled another action strategy from their current repertoire and, in the process, would be less likely to succeed.

5th Question: “Are you open to renewal and correction?” Without hesitation, the group said “yes” to this question. Because I doubted whether they really understood the implications of this answer, I clarified that this meant they would have to look closely and deeply at themselves regarding how they think, interact, and/or contribute to the current situation. They still said “yes.” They understood that they would be required to examine how their leadership had contributed to the flat scores.

As a result of walking along the Learner’s Path together, the leaders knew that, in order to achieve profound customer experiences, they would have to dramatically change the way they led the organization. They knew that it would not be enough just to do more of the same thing or to do the same thing better than before. They would have to learn to do new things and that this approach would require an openness to renewal and correction. The group used the five questions as an anvil against which they changed and formed their idea of the kind of results they wanted and the kind of learning that would be required of them in order to achieve those results.

Smoothing Out the Path

These five questions are deep and challenging when they are taken seriously. They are particularly difficult, and often threatening, to someone operating from a knower stance. How can knowers be helped to overcome their fear and sense of threat about answering these questions? The Learner’s Loop can help (see “The Learner’s Loop”).

The purpose of The Learner’s Loop is to articulate what capacities a person must develop in order to increase their chances for successfully answering each of the five questions. These capacities are described as a matter of “willingness” is the person willing to take the necessary action to increase the likelihood of answering one of the questions successfully?

Progressing along the Learner’s Path is not a linear process; it is a closed loop, an engine of growth, around which a learner circuits, seeking continuous development. You will notice that there is a suggested order for the first rotation, and then the loop feeds on itself thereafter.

At GMHS, we have designed a curriculum geared toward helping individuals increase their willingness to take the necessary actions and, thereby, increase the likelihood that they will successfully answer the Learner’s Path questions. I will describe below why these “willingnesses” are important and suggest some organizational learning tools, techniques, and frameworks that can be used to increase them.

1. Willing to Acquire a Desire We are more likely to aspire for better-than-current results (successfully answer question #1) when we are willing to acquire a desire to improve current results. If we are totally content with our level of current results, we will feel no prompting to seek new learning at all. Sometimes, people truly are achieving all that they could imagine in a certain area, and, in that case, they should move on to other issues. At other times, people delude themselves into thinking that current results are acceptable, when everything and everyone around them is screaming for better performance. The disciplines of personal mastery and shared vision are key in stoking the fires of desire for improved results.

Organizations investing in their capacity for organizational learning should design their curriculum so that learners:

• Increase their self-awareness (e.g., Myers/Briggs, DiSC, etc.).
• Uncover their personal values and vision (e.g., personal mission statements).
• Work from a creative, not a reactive, orientation (e.g., The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz).
• Empower their actions with creative tension (e.g., The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz).
• Co-create collective aspiration (e.g., shared visioning).

2. Willing to See Your Role in the Whole

We are more likely to own and pursue better-than-current results (affirmatively answer question #2) if we are willing to take some responsibility for seeing our role in the whole scheme of things. Systems thinking is most often thought of as a discipline for analyzing and solving difficult problems and it is useful for these things. It is also helpful for changing our perspective about who should be responsible for addressing problems in the first place.

Those organizations investing in their capacity for organizational learning should design their curriculum so that learners:

• Understand how structure influences behavior (e.g., the Iceberg diagram).
• See life as dynamic, complex, and interdependent (e.g., the concepts and tools of systems thinking).
• No longer see problems as “out there” (e.g., causal loop diagrams).

3. Willing to Resist the Lure of “Sure”

We are more likely to implement alternative action strategies (affirmatively answer question #3) if we are willing to examine the effectiveness of our current action strategies and resist the lure of being sure that we have the right strategy. Knowers are particularly resistant to this examination, for fear that it will be revealed that they didn’t actually know the best action strategy after all. If we are open to considering multiple perspectives, being unsure, or admitting our knowledge is less-than-complete, then we will be more willing to experiment with alternative action strategies and learn how to effectively improve current results.

The practices of the discipline of mental models are especially helpful at this point along the Learner’s Path, and a curriculum designed to teach skills in this area should enable learners to:

• Consider multiple perspectives (e.g.,the story of the blind men and the elephant).
• Examine their thinking and assumptions (e.g., the Ladder of Inference and Left-hand Column).
• Pursue mutual understanding using “reflection mode” rather than “protection mode” conversations (e.g., AND Stance, 3rd Story, “Be in control” vs. “Mutual learning” model).
• Realize that “me” and “my view” are not the same thing (e.g., “I Am Not My Hat”).

4. Willing to Raise the Bar of Your Action Repertoire

We are more likely to consider new action strategies beyond that which we currently know how to implement (affirmatively answer question #4) if we admit we have come to the end of our current action repertoire and want to expand it. Up to this point, as learners, we have used “what we know” to achieve “what we can.” This incremental type of learning is called single-loop learning, and it will only bring us so far — never producing breakthrough results. To expand our action repertoire, we need to examine and challenge the mental framework under which we are doing our learning. This kind of deep learning is called double-loop learning (see “Double-Loop Learning Cycle”).

The group-oriented discipline of team learning is particularly helpful here. We need the help of others to confirm that we have, indeed, reached the end of our capabilities and to have frame-breaking conversations. A curriculum teaching this capacity should enable learners to:

• Implement double-loop learning (see “Double-Loop Learning Cycle”).
• Create the conditions for effective group learning (e.g., Four-Player Model, ground rules from The Skilled Facilitator by Roger Schwarz).
• Generate new insights (e.g. productive conversations, dialogue).

5. Willing to Invite Insight We are more likely to be open to renewal and correction (affirmatively answer question #5) if we are willing to invite insight into how we think, interact, and contribute to problems. Doing new things in new ways and getting better results is an exhilarating and challenging learning experience. But we may still find ourselves reacting to problems rather than creating fundamental solutions; trying to get compliance from others rather than commitment; protecting ourselves during conversations rather than reflecting on our conversational habits; focusing on “my part” rather than on “the whole”; and getting into debates rather than engaging in mutual learning. Advanced learners are continually seeking deep change in themselves as they move along the continuums of the five disciplines toward the learner stance.

Again, this is where team learning is particularly helpful, along with a renewed emphasis on personal mastery. A curriculum teaching this capacity should, additionally, enable learners to:

• Integrate all five disciplines into everyday practice (e.g., action learning projects).

Pursuing the “Trade” of Learning

Blacksmithing is a learned trade. No one could ever attend a three-day workshop and return as a master blacksmith. It takes years of apprenticeship and continual practice. It is not glamorous work, but consider the impact the blacksmith has had on the world. “When the first blacksmith began hammering on a hot piece of iron, little did he know how he was shaping the future. He forged the tools that made the machines that produce everything mankind has today. The blacksmith was the pioneer of the technology that carried mankind from the iron age to the space age. It can truly be said that the first rocket to the moon was virtually launched from the face of the anvil” (Bill Miller, theforgeworks.com).

Just as a blacksmith forms and shapes his metal objects using a hammer supported and leveraged by an anvil, let us shape and form our knowledge using the hammer of the Knower-to-Learner framework and the anvil of the Learner’s Path. By doing so, we develop our capacity for learning and tie our knowledge to actual results.

Like blacksmithing, the “trade of learning” cannot be learned quickly and is not always glamorous. Nevertheless, consider the impact that it can have on our world. Responding to a changing world without deep, intentional learning is a risky proposition. Will it truly be said that the future we created together was formed on the face of the anvil of learning?

The post The Learner’s Path appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The planning team, comprised of five internal stakeholders from both companies, realized that in order to transcend the barriers that existed between the two organizations, participants had to come together in conversation. Working with Laurie Durnell from the Grove Consultants International, Lenny Lind from Covision, and me from Conbrio, team members chose a bold design that combined graphic facilitation, computer-assisted fast-feedback technology, World Café principles, and Storymapping in ways that created a whole much larger than the parts. This combination of tools, the planning team reasoned, would prompt breakthrough conversation and ultimately a commitment to invest time and resources in resolving key issues.

That’s exactly what happened. “It turned out the synergy of the design elements coming together created a unique situation beyond what we or anybody else expected,” said Lenny. “The amount of work accomplished was enormous.” By the end of the conference, participants mapped out specific action plans in five categories. What follows is what Laurie, Lenny, and I saw and heard, the discoveries we made, and the questions we’re still living with.

At a Snail’s Pace

First, some background. For the two companies (they want to remain anonymous), the walk toward convergence began five years ago, when both sought to solve the problem of providing superior service to the world’s largest companies in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. The companies are in an industry where it’s difficult to grow organically. At the same time, neither wanted an outright merger with the other. Their solution was to strike a partnership. Two years ago, they decided to strengthen that partnership and to both market and serve clients as if they were one organization.

Since making the agreement, implementation moved slowly so slowly that frustration boiled up in both companies. Negotiations on branding and a short list of other items necessary for a successful joint venture slowed to a snail’s pace. There was talk, some of which leaked to outsiders in Europe, that one company would spurn the other for a better match. It became clear that the December meeting would be vital for moving the partnership forward.

I began my work with the two companies in the spring of 2005, in time to participate in the May semi-annual meeting. The meetings were started three years earlier to bring together large account managers and leaders from both companies across the globe to build relationships so they could better team to seek new and serve existing customers. More than a hundred people participated in each of these events.

The May conference was a dud. A meet-and-greet affair, it was long on long-winded speeches and short on participation by attendees. A barely understandable economist held forth on the state of the world. An interminable panel discussion tried and failed to shed light on customer needs. A tour of locations around the city offered little insight into markets. One guest sitting next to me whispered, “This is a lot to go through for a free drink.” A U.S. participant was so disgusted that he bailed 36 hours after arriving and flew home.

A Fresh Start

The client planning team vowed then and there that the December meeting would be more focused and engaging. In July, when the five members gathered in San Francisco with the consulting team, they began to make good on that vow. They decided on a real give-and-take meeting, where podium time for talking heads would be at a minimum, computers would capture and share participants’ thinking, and graphics would play an important part in showing the whole picture. The team would hand-pick participants, keeping them to senior leadership and those who could actually make things happen – fewer than 100 were to be invited.

The meeting design drew on our consulting team’s collective experiences. Laurie and the Grove have a decades-long history of working with groups using visuals and visual language, including graphic facilitation. She says, “Visuals, graphics help draw people out, communicate ideas, and organize information.” Since 1992, Lenny has used computers in large group meetings to speed feedback among participants. The technology he has developed, called Council, allows people to enter ideas or view-points into computers and then instantly displays them to everyone in the room. And having used the World Café process several times, I knew the seven café principles – clarify the context, create a hospitable environment, explore questions that matter, encourage everyone’s contribution, connect diverse perspectives, listen together for insights and deeper questions and harvest and share collective discoveries would work well in this context.

All three of us agreed that any one methodology, one process, one tool graphics alone, for example wouldn’t be quite enough because, in Lenny’s words, “It would leave this other thing, like need for information or outlet for planning, that wouldn’t be addressed.” Together, however, Lenny’s technology and Laurie’s graphics combined with our collective sensitivity to group dynamics and our ability to blend, orchestrate, and facilitate elements would allow us to cover all the key areas of presentation of issues, discussion, and action planning.

Once we had established the tools we thought would be effective, the next step was to ask, What exactly will the people at the meeting talk about? What issues needed to surface? Where was the line they could not cross? What could this December conversation accomplish? In our July meeting, Laurie helped the client planning team untangle these questions. She drew simple star people with thought bubbles coming from their heads, one for each stakeholder, seven in all, with outcomes in each of the bubbles. Leaders, for example, needed to better understand the business case for the two companies moving closer together, while company reps in Europe and Asia needed to learn what American clients expect.

Now that they could see the outcomes, the planning team was able to go forward to rough out the hour-by-hour first draft of a three day agenda. They decided to use a custom-drawn “infographic” to visually portray the results of a client survey they would present to spur the first day’s discussion. And they agreed that since all the outcomes couldn’t be fully realized in one meeting, they would focus the conversation on making the case for change. Subsequent meetings would delve more deeply into how they would implement the agreed-upon changes.

COMPUTERS AND CONVERSATION

Participants sat three to a table. This setup facilitated both the Café discussions and teams’ use of computers to input responses. The infographic, which was positioned along a wall, provided a context for the process.

Drafting a minute-by-minute agenda was the next big task. This process guided the subsequent rounds of discussions with the planning committee. Like a script used by a stage manager to call a Broadway musical, the final agenda – 20 pages long contained directions for times, speakers, room set-ups, props, and other notes. Lenny, Laurie, and I used the agenda to work out how we would blend the details of the technology, the graphics, the World Café, and other elements. It also included a mock competition designed to show off the companies’ differences from its competitors and a panel of account supervisors who would illuminate customer service issues. “The planning was 40 to 50 percent of the intervention,” Lenny recalled. “The strong upfront process allowed us to design the session step-by-step so that it achieved all of the planning team’s goals while deeply engaging participants in creating a new future for the organizations.”

After the usual opening segments, results of a customer survey would be the main event of the first day. We would use the infographic to focus the presentation and then shift to World Café conversations. Lenny’s computers would capture reactions, quickly feeding them back so that participants, and especially key leaders, could see the collective thinking that emerged in the room. This back-and-forth between presentation and feedback was the structure that allowed creative problem-solving to emerge over the course of the meeting. The next day, we would start more café dialogues then move to a panel discussion, the mock competition, and more café conversations focused on action. Action planning in breakout groups would end the second day. The same groups would continue their action planning the morning of the third day. The conversation would wrap up at noon.

The planning team took those first minute-by-minute drafts and, in a series of meetings and conference calls with us during the fall, made them their own. They wrote, rewrote, and wrote again the café questions. They changed and changed again the infographic. They flipped and reflipped agenda activities. They ordered more implementation planning. They let more presentation time creep in, then, reluctantly, pulled it out on our recommendation. They settled on the final draft just days before the event.

The Main Event

The conversation opened just past noon in a ballroom at the Four Seasons Hotel in San Francisco. Participants entered to find the room set up with small, three-foot-diameter round tables, three chairs per table. Lenny put a computer at each table on top of a large sheet of paper that participants could use to take notes. We placed three dots one red, one blue, one green on the paper. Participants had one of the three colored dots on their name tags. In changing from table to table during café rounds, they could sit only at places where the dots on the table matched the dots on their name tags. The dots were meant to mix participants from different parts of the globe and different ranks in the organization (see “Computers and Conversation”).

Lenny, Laurie, and I went round and round on table size. The ideal number of people per computer is three. Lenny had been used to seating six people per table with two computers, partly because of wiring issues. Café discussions are best when four people sit at a small table because all can easily participate in the conversation. My fear was that larger tables would stifle discussion. I sought out Juanita Brown, co-creator of the World Café, who settled the issue when she advised us that three people per table would work much better than six.

As part of the first hour of the conversation, Lenny introduced his Council technology with three icebreaker questions. This process familiarized participants with the technology. Everyone could see all the answers on their screens, displayed without attribution. The anonymity continued throughout and allowed for an open and honest exchange.

Laurie explained the 14-foot-long infographic, how it was put together to tell the story of worldwide trends, what customer needs resulted from those trends as reported in the customer survey, the companies’ combined response to those needs, and the gaps between needs and responses. Then leaders began their presentation, using the infographic to which the group had just been oriented.

The first café round came after the first half of the presentation. It was a two-question round with participants entering their responses into their computers by table as they neared the 15-minute limit for conversation. Another round came after the second part of the presentation, this time with three questions. The final question was “What’s important for you as a group to explore further and understand?” At the end of each round, four participants, whom we dubbed the “Theme Team,” sorted through the answers, distilling them into themes, key questions, and comments.

The next morning started with the “Deep Dive Café.” Participants tackled three more questions, designed to support disclosure of the deeper issues, rotating to new seats after each question. The questions were straight-forward:, “What’s taking shape? What are the unsaid issues around these themes? What’s the most important insight from our discussions so far?” Table groups entered answers to the last question into their computers.

A Pivotal Moment

It was during the Deep Dive Café that one of the most senior leaders became anxious and nearly cancelled the rest of the event because the discussion strayed into areas of overall strategy. The client planning team pushed back, pointing out the concerns voiced in conversations at the tables and through the computer were overwhelmingly similar and reflected what people were really thinking. The leader allowed the meeting to continue. “The planning team’s work ahead of time combined with the theme team’s work during the conversations gave the team’s members complete confidence in addressing this leadership challenge,” said Laurie. “They understood how things flowed, and when things got rocky over the issues in the room, it allowed them to remain calm, convince the leader to continue, and then successfully complete the agenda.”

Now past the pivotal point, the attention turned to learning more about the gaps between customer needs and service capability. Four representatives who led global customer service teams told of their triumphs and frustrations. Participants both posed questions and made comments through the computer. Following lunch, participants broke into three groups to simulate a sales pitch. One of the three played the role of competitor and soundly beat the other two because, as one integrated global company, it had more and better services to offer the prospective client and in a way that better met the client’s needs. Through the computer, participants identified gaps in each team’s service offerings.

Each of the processes works well alone, but in combination, the strengths were maximized and the weaknesses minimized.

Participants went next into the Action Café. Again rotating between questions and entering answers into the computer, participants chose the three most critical gaps to work on for the rest of the conference. And they suggested specific areas that might be improved branding, for example, and global project tracking. Drawing from the responses, participants broke into nine different groups to plan how to close the gaps over the next six to 18 months. They worked on the specifics through the end of the day and throughout the next morning, focused by wall sized versions of a planning tool developed by the Grove called the “Graphic Roadmap” (see “Graphic Roadmap Template”). Each breakout group presented their plans to the rest of the participants before the final café rounds closing the conference.

GRAPHIC ROADMAP TEMPLATE

Designed by the Grove, the Graphic Roadmap is a large-format worksheet of actions and target dates for deliverables on a project or an organization change process. A signature element is the identification of “milestones.” These are the key dates for events and deliverables that everyone will work to achieve.

“Softening Hard Soil”

In analyzing the conference results in a conversation with Laurie, Lenny, and I, Juanita Brown saw that the combination of the visuals, the World Café process, and the Council technology “heightened the possibility of collective intelligence. One of the big things we find over and over in café work,” she said, “is this very intentional cross-pollination of mix, mix, mix. It’s softening hard soil, so the soil can be receptive to new ideas.”

The computers served as the “common tablecloth on the café table of conversation,” Brown said, that everyone in the room could refer to. It made the collective knowledge visible and led to an accepted conclusion in the whole room at a much earlier stage than is the case in many meetings. In a normal café dialogue where there aren’t any computers, she said, people sense their common conclusions, but they don’t have the level of detail to support them that the computer feedback supplies. The anonymity of the answers also helped with the positive meeting result, Brown said. “You don’t know where the ideas are coming from, so people can more easily accept innovative thinking as it is revealed in the spaces among participants. The space between the ‘me’ and the ‘we’ becomes more fluid and the ‘magic in the middle’ has the opportunity to emerge more easily.”

Conference attendees were just as enthusiastic. As they moved to close the conference, participants answered one last question through the computer: How did this conference compare to the last? “Phew! We had to work this time. The format, structure, people were spot on.” Said another, “It was great!”

So what did we learn? What questions remain unanswered? We learned the whole was far greater than the sum of its parts. Each of the processes works well alone, but in combination, the strengths were maximized and the weaknesses minimized. Also, we confirmed again risk-taking combined with collaborative planning are important. So is quickly creating a sense of “we” in a room divided into many camps.

Will the agreements made, the visions offered, hold up? We don’t know. The big question is how a process can further deepen commitment to action, and how, really, conversation in big groups can ultimately lead to significant action.

Bill Bancroft (bbancroft@conbrioamericas.com) is founder and principal of Dallas-based Conbrio. He designs and leads conversations for companies, organizations, and communities to help leaders with strategy, team building, communications, culture, and other organization issues.

The post Confluence of Process and Technology Brings Two Companies Closer Together appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

For a group to adopt new behaviors that can translate into their desired business objectives, they must first establish a learning and growth culture. Many change interventions assume that such an environment is inherent. They neglect to notice whether the cultural ingredients necessary to enable learning and growing are present. All of these conditions rarely exist; this shortcoming limits an organization’s ability to achieve the desired behavior changes.

THE PRACTICE OF EMPOWERMENT

The Empowerment Model focuses on both the individual and the collective enterprise. As individuals grow and achieve outcomes important to them, they also benefit the whole. At the same time, the group serves as a resource to enable the individual to achieve these outcomes.

Empowering the Space

Using the analogy of nature, for new seeds (behaviors) to take root, grow, and thrive, they need fertile soil (a learning and growth culture). I call creating this fertile soil “empowering the space.” An empowered space enables individuals to feel safe and trusting enough to risk true growth. It has five characteristics: affirmation, choice, trust, courage, and aspiration. What follows are the practices that enable a space to be empowered. These practices become more refined as they move from a cultural-change level to one-on-one relationships.

Cultural Practices for Empowering the Space

• Self-Responsibility: At the organizational level, individuals take responsibility to have their job, team, function, and organization the way they wish them to be. This is the counterpoint to being a victim within the organization.
• Authentic Communication: Individual communication is open, honest, transparent, and vulnerable. Individuals are talking about the real issues going on in the organization.
• Trust: Individuals feel safe enough to try out new behaviors and take risks without fear of reprimand or putdown by superiors or colleagues if they make mistakes. A genuine sense of goodwill pervades the organization.
• Learning and Growing: Within the framework of the organization, individuals are encouraged to work on the real behaviors they need to change. Individuals are encouraged to challenge themselves and support each other to both learn and grow.
• Interpersonal Process Skills: Individuals within the organization have established protocols and developed skills that they regularly deploy to resolve interpersonal issues and build high functioning relationships.
• Caring: The organizational leadership demonstrates concern for individuals in tangible ways. Individuals feel valued and are inspired to give their best effort on behalf of the organization.

The role of the empowerment practitioner is to create an environment where these practices are first embodied in the group experience.

Once the group has personally experienced that growth is possible – in themselves and in their organization the practitioner then helps them establish the practices to take root over the long term.

The change process originates at the individual level and is reinforced by group members, who recognize that it furthers their own collective development. The process involves three “shifts” and requires a support system to sustain it. These shifts are outlined in the three-part “Empowerment Model” below.

Empowerment Model

Shift from a Pathological to a Vision-Based Approach to Growth

The first part of the empowerment model looks at where we direct our attention when we attempt to create change. The model’s premise is that where we place our mental attention determines what we create. If we focus on our problems or pathologies, we gain insight into them. If we focus on solutions, or what we want, we gain insight into those. It is a more efficient use of our time and enables more dynamic growth to focus on solutions or a vision of what we want. Otherwise, we can get trapped in the paralysis of analysis.

Shifting our focus from what doesn’t work to what can work also motivates us to take action. We are inspired by our vision rather than enervated by our problems. It’s the difference between planting a garden by concentrating on removing rocks, roots, and weeds rather than by envisioning the flowers and vegetables in full bloom. One seems laborious, the other engaging. You still need to remove the rocks, but you have a vision of a bountiful garden to sustain you. This part of the model can be summarized as a shift from a pathological to a vision-based approach to growth.

Shift from Static to Organic Growth

The second part of the empowerment model describes an approach to personal growth derived from observing the natural world. Something that is alive, such as a tree, is always growing. The precise place where this growth is just coming into existence is the tree’s growing edge. That is where the tree is most active and vital. Similarly, the places where you feel your greatest aliveness and vitality are your growing edges.

The alternative view of growth is static: There is a place to get to, and I’m either there or not. Until I get there, I’m frustrated or discontent. When I get there, my growth around that issue is over. Such a perspective is a fixed approach to the process of growth. This part of the model can be summarized as a shift from static to organic growth (the growing edge).

Shift to Integration of Self-Awareness and Behavior Change

The third part of the empowerment model looks at the mechanism for enabling us to actually adopt the desired behavior change. Many growth processes assume that if we are aware of something we should do, we will do it. These processes concentrate on increasing our self-awareness. While awareness increases our self-knowledge, by itself, it rarely leads to a change in behavior. If you need proof, think of all the things you know you should do, but don’t.

On the other hand, we can set a goal for something we want, harness our wills to achieve it, and then discover, to our chagrin after we reach our goal, that it wasn’t really what we wanted after all. We did not have enough self-awareness and were acting out someone else’s vision for our lives, not our own. We can summarize this third part of the model as the integration of self-awareness with the ability to achieve behavior change or a desired outcome.

Getting from Here to There

Four steps, each with a corresponding question, make the Empowerment Model’s growth strategy operational:

1. Self-Awareness: Where do I want to go?
2. Vision Crafting: Where do I want to go?
3. Transformation: What do I need to change to get there?
4. Growing Edge: What’s my next step?

The process of changing behavior is a result of the individual moving through these four steps. It culminates in an individual intention statement and image that represent the next place of growth around the desired behavior or outcome. These intention statements evolve and deepen through daily attention, participation in a facilitated peer support group, and coaching. Within the context of an empowered space, this process enables new behaviors to be adopted and sustained over time (see “Transformative Change Intervention Process”).

A group at American Express, led by Bob Franco, Vice President of the Global Talent Division, faced a key challenge: how to move individuals to higher levels of performance, especially when building partnerships within complex organizational systems. Using the Empowerment Model, he and his group went through an intense, personalized learning experience. As a result of a series of guided exercises around each of the four steps listed above, Bob and his team were able to adopt the key behavior of self-responsibility: They moved from being victims within a dysfunctional organization to being accountable for how they wished it to be and making things happen. In Bob’s words:, “This process moved us away from the crippling power of ‘problems’ to a new power – one inside us, one focused on what we want to create.”

Here is how this behavior change process transpired. First, the group participated in a self-awareness exercise. Bob discovered that he was going through the motions and had lost a lot of passion for his consulting and leadership. The roadblocks his team encountered and a highly politicized environment had sapped his enthusiasm.

As Bob went through the visioning exercise, he began to imagine his team developing a skill set that could more effectively serve their internal clients. He also saw that, through building their consulting and transformative change leadership skills, they could develop a value proposition that enabled them more independence and autonomy. Bob began to realize that, rather than being trapped in a dysfunctional system, he could operate on a higher level by increasing the capability of his current group. This vision was liberating and inspirational. Bob actually saw possible ways to gain control of the situation.

However, he saw that achieving his vision would require a lot of work. Were he and his team up to it? Would his clients be willing to participate in a transformative process? Would the rest of his division be threatened and try to sabotage this new initiative? Did he have the energy to go through it all?

Bob discovered that his growing edge was believing in his teammates and being willing to engage in this transformation process. He knew it wouldn’t be easy, but he was willing to give it his best effort. Meanwhile, each of his team members was going through transformations as well. As they revealed their growing edges, it became clear that, unlike in the past when Bob needed to lift everyone by the force of his vision and will, they were developing the capacity to do so on their own. Not only did he not need to lead in his usual way of making it all happen, he was being inspired by the collective sense of empowerment.

To put it in Bob’s words:, “This process helped us separate the circumstance around us that is charged with a disempowering ‘pathology’ to focus our own personal accountability toward what we can accomplish and what we are ultimately capable of attaining. The results were a clearly defined value proposition and an ability to be successful despite any organizational barriers. We moved away from the crippling power of ‘problems’ to a new power – one inside us, one focused on what we want to create. This team now has daily practices focusing on their vision.”

Bob’s intention statement was:, “I help my team build our consulting skills and leverage our collective talent to create business results. I lead and am led by an empowering team who knows what it wants and gets it!” Bob and his team then participated in a support system of coaching and peer support teams to help sustain the behavior changes (see “Flow and Timing of Activities”).

Measuring Results

This is a robust and proven methodology for changing behavior in organizations. Discerning results is quite straight-forward because the client and practitioner determine the behaviors that need to change and desired growth outcomes. They then create metrics to measure if they have changed. They follow through by analyzing the behaviors against the business results to which the behaviors are tied.

Measuring results is a key component of the empowerment process. Visions are always translated into measurable outcomes, albeit sometimes they are changes in attitude. To effectively achieve empowerment outcomes, one needs to translate awareness into behavior change that can be measured. Part of this process is also about learning from feedback. People need to see the manifestation of their efforts to determine how they did/are doing and then make adjustments accordingly. Another way to describe this is iterative learning or the growing edge.

The empowerment process also has the added benefit of being able to catalyze deep cultural change. Because it is about the achievement of specific behaviors tied to key business outcomes, it avoids one of the major problems of many cultural change initiatives and trainings: hoping that skills or competencies taught translate into business outcomes. Once leaders view initial results, they can then scale up the effort to eventually include every-one in the organization.

David Gershon (dgershon@empowermentinstitute.net) is the founder and CEO of Empowerment Institute. He is the author of nine books, including Empowerment: The Art of Creating Your Life as You Want It (High Point Press, 1989), which has become a classic on the subject. David co-directs the Empowerment Institute Certification Program, which specializes in transformative change leadership. He has lectured on his behavior change and empowerment methodology at Harvard, MIT, and Duke and served as an advisor to the Clinton White House. for further information, go to www.empowermentinstitute.net.

The post Changing Behavior in Organizations: The Practice of Empowerment appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

This article deals with these questions and many more. We’ll be using insights ranging from the latest research in cognitive psychology to recent scholastic discussion about the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. And we will present a story model, known as PHAAT (for Passion, Hero, Antagonist, Awareness, and Transformation), that we developed after years of working in the world’s most story-centric corporations — the entertainment industry. But before we do, we’d like to tell you a story:

A senior vice president from a Fortune 50 energy conglomerate recently contacted us. Let’s call him John B. John was the type of client we love to work with. He had just left a high-level position in his company’s petroleum division and moved to a new division focused on alternative fuels.

John wanted to make a difference and he had a problem. He needed to give a presentation at a government conference on alternative energy policy. His audience would consist of competitors, government regulatory agencies, and environmental watchdog groups. His talk was titled “Developing the Hydrogen Economy Infrastructure.”

Some in his audience were technical experts; others knew almost nothing about this particular subject. An engineer and chemist himself, John was concerned that his presentation might prove too dry and technical. He told us he had two goals. One was his corporate mandate: to turn competitors into collaborators in what would prove to be a multibillion-dollar investment in R&D. The other was personal: to impress his boss. We suggested he use the power of story.

Storytelling’s Genetic Roots

Why story? First, because telling stories is what we do best, and second, because as cognitive psychology is proving, narrative is the most powerful way humans have to communicate and remember information. It is something we all do all the time. In fact, according to some scientists, storytelling may be hardwired into us, perhaps through a gene called FoxP2.

Discovered in 2001 by Anthony Monaco and his research team at Oxford University, FoxP2 is now thought to be only the first in a constellation of genes that make language and narrative possible. FoxP2 specifically enables the subtle physical and neurological skills needed to speak words rapidly and precisely; it is probably linked to the use of complex syntax as well.

Linguists have argued for years about when and where language began. With the specific genetic marker of FoxP2, scientists at the Max Planck Institute began to look for a date in the DNA record. Through statistical analyses, they determined that the characteristics of the FoxP2 gene that support sophisticated articulation of speech likely occurred within the last 200,000 years.

That date is significant, because around 50,000 years ago, there was an explosion of knowledge worldwide. Humans moved off the plains of Africa and into Eurasia, beginning the migrations that would eventually populate the entire globe. Hunting became more complex and productive; tools became much more specialized; the first signs of trade were seen; ritual burial started; collaborative cave paintings appeared; and what we think of as “culture” was born. Archaeologists can trace the paradigm shift from valley to valley.

Animal-1

Animal-2

Some scientists assert that this sudden, accelerated advancement in technology, art, and commerce is attributable to humankind’s newly found ability to retain and convey complex knowledge in the form of stories. As evidence, they point to the fossil record, which shows that human physiology remained the same during this period of vast cultural change. Some have advanced the hypothesis that the cultural changes were the direct result of the spread of the enhanced FoxP2 gene.

Dr. Savante Paabo, who led the Max Planck team, speculates that the changes to FoxP2 spread so rapidly because they gave humans a survival advantage; he said, “Perhaps by singing more beautifully, or by spinning more engaging stories, they were more sexually attractive.” However it happened, the mutations to FoxP2 spread so quickly that now everyone has them. From a cellular level on up, we are all born storytellers.

From the Mouths of Babes

To understanding the ubiquitous power stories have in organizing our experience, all we need to do is look at children. In the winter of 1968, Jerome Bruner, one of the founding fathers of cognitive psychology, was at the Harvard School of Education’s experimental nursery school observing the behavior of 9 to 18 month-old children who did not yet have the ability to speak. As Bruner watched and interacted with these babies and toddlers, he realized they were doing much more than enjoying random play. They were organizing their lives into stories with plots, characters, and themes. Even before they learned language, they had developed sophisticated stories with distinct points of view, obstacles to overcome, and new awareness and transformations. In fact, Bruner concluded that children are motivated to learn language because they already develop powerful stories that they need to communicate to the people who inhabit their world.

Bruner observed that young children develop different kinds of stories — stories of completion, stories of concern, and stories of pleasure. The young child says (by means of gesture and facial expression) “All gone” when her bottle is empty, “Uh oh” when she feels she has made a mistake, and “Ohh!” when she is surprised or pleased.

These stories are short but complete, and they meet the definition we have developed: Stories are facts, wrapped in emotions, that compel an awareness with which we transform our world.

Take the story, “All gone.” The fact is that the bottle is empty. The baby wraps this fact in an emotion either satisfaction or desire for more that she expresses. Depending on which emotion is expressed, the parent becomes aware of the situation and takes an action either burps the baby and settles her down, or refills the bottle. Either way, the baby has transformed her world for the better. Brunner went on to assert that infants develop meaning through narrative and that the need to create stories precedes language itself.

Thus, story is not simply the content of what we think, it is the how of how we think. It is one of the key organizing principles of our mind.

Five Key Elements

So if story is something innate in each of us, something we all know how to do, why are some of us so much better at it than others? Why are some stories so powerful and compelling that they lead to change, while others fail to have an impact?

A NARRATIVE SYSTEM FOR LEADERSHIP

Having spent the bulk of our careers in the entertainment industry (as actor, writer, producer, coach), we have dealt with literally thousands of professionally crafted stories and have come to realize that successful stories contain five key elements. They are told with Passion and vitality. They have a clear point of view most often expressed as a Hero. The hero confronts an Antagonist or overcomes obstacles, and in this process gains new Awareness with which he or she Transforms the world. To make it easy to remember, we call this narrative process PHAAT (see “A Narrative System for Leadership,” p. 3).

Why five elements and not, say, six or seven? To answer, we need to take just a short hop back in time (then we promise to return to our story about John B. and hydrogen technology).

Since culture is transmitted from generation to generation through story and fable, it is not surprising that the key to understanding how story is structured as a communication system would lie at the beginning of our own culture. Pythagoras was the first great systems thinker in Western culture. Unfortunately, he left no writing behind. So our study begins with his student, the philosopher and poet Empedocles.

From Empedocles, we first get the concept of the world being made up of four elements: Fire, Earth, Water, and Air. A fifth element, implied by his theory but unstated, was added a generation later by Plato and his student Aristotle. Sometimes called “Ether,” this fifth element is perhaps more accurately referred to as “Space,” because it is the field in which the other elements occur.

Until recently, conventional wisdom viewed Empedocles as a natural philosopher in essence, a proto-scientist primarily trying to describe the material world. More recent scholarship (by Pierre Hadot, Peter Kingsley, and most preeminently by contemporary philosopher Oscar Ichazo) has shown that the four elements of Empedocles were not solely material but also described inner psychological states. Empedocles considered these elements divine, because he saw them as part of the eternal nature of consciousness itself.

In that archetypal psychological sense, Empedocles’ elements relate to our understanding of story. They are keys that allow us to see narrative holistically, with each element contributing its own unique quality to the overall system of the story. The image of these elements is so deeply engrained in our culture that we intuitively understand what each contributes to the whole and how they interact. Ichazo goes so far as to call the elements “ideotropic,” in the sense that they are ideas that attract our mind to an inner truth in the same

Every powerful narrative vibrates with passion, the energy that makes you want, even need, to tell it.

way that a plant is attracted to the sun. We often refer to these elements as a way to help people see story as not just a product of language, but as the expression of something deeper and even more powerful (see “Elements of a Successful Story”).

PHAAT Stories

So how do the five archetypal elements of Empedocles and Plato relate to the narrative elements of PHAAT?

There is a direct correlation, which brings us back to our story.

When John B. came to us with his problem, we did what we always do: We listened to his story. We asked him, “Why did you leave the most stable and secure division of your corporation — petroleum — and move to an alternative fuel division that is still experimental?”

John responded by saying he wanted to make a difference. He told us about the places he had visited in his life, places of great natural beauty that he feared would not be there for his children because of global warming. John told us that he honestly felt that the project he was involved with — the development of a hydrogen alternative to fossil fuels might be a big part of the solution. And as a businessman, he was convinced there was real money to be made by being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Passion

John’s recounting had the first element of any successful story: He had passion. Every powerful narrative vibrates with passion, the energy that makes you want, even need, to tell it. It is the essential spark, the irreducible cohesive core from which the rest of the story grows. Passion relates to Empedocles’ element of Fire, in that it ignites the story in the heart of the audience. It is passion that calls the listener’s attention in the first place, particularly if the story is aimed at more than one person.

Every audience is composed of separate individuals with differing needs, desires, and distractions. Theater people call such an audience “cold.” They know it needs to be “warmed up” before it can absorb new material. That is what passion does: It kindles our interest and makes us want to hear more.

In any given situation, you either have passion or you don’t (although sometimes people simply need help finding it in their story and being comfortable expressing it). John B. had it. It was easy for us to guide him in molding his passion into a warm and welcoming message that served as a gateway into his presentation.

Hero

All the passion in the world won’t do your story any good unless you have someplace to put it. That is where the hero comes in. The hero relates to the element Earth and, as such, grounds a story in reality and gives it a clear point of view. By hero, we don’t mean Superman or a grandmother who rushes into a burning building to save a baby, although these are examples of heroes. We mean the story’s POV (point of view). The hero that embodies this point of view needs to be substantial enough to give the story “a leg to stand on,” but also of a scale that allows the audience to identify with him or her. The hero is both our surrogate and our guide through the narrative. His or her vision of the world creates the landscape our story inhabits.

One of the things that made John B. such a good hero was that he was willing to take a stand and express his point of view. Many in the corporate world find doing so very threatening. They have been trained for years in corporation speak, hiding behind the corporate “we.” In some cases, this distancing is appropriate. But when you are going for the gold, you have to embrace what you are saying and let the audience see it through your eyes.

Being a hero requires courage. If you passionately believe in what you are saying, you will find you have the courage to communicate it. Here are a few simple cues for making an impact:

• Remember the ground you are standing on (if you are speaking to a group).
• Remember to be specific (if you are communicating in writing).
• Remember to connect your thinking to the big picture (a hero conquerors the world, not just the front yard).

We always ask, “Can other people identify with this story? Is it the right story for this audience? Does it have a point of view they will be willing to share?” John’s story did. We have all seen things in our lives that we want to protect. We all want to leave our children a better world. Expressing this kind of point of view makes you a hero, too.

Antagonist

Problems are like Water — without them, a story dries up and blows away. In stories, problems are often personified by an antagonist. Antagonists, and the conflict they represent for the hero, are the beating heart at the center of the story. By antagonist, we mean the obstacle the hero must overcome. The antagonist doesn’t have to be a person — if the hero is struggling to climb Mount Everest, the antagonist might be the mountain itself — but every successful story must have at least one. If the hero faces no obstacles, there really is no story. It is the struggle to overcome impediments that creates the story’s emotional reality.

The hero is struggling to climb Mount Everest

Stories often personify conflict as a villain, someone we love to hate. Two time Academy Award winner William Goldman says you only need to answer three questions to start a good screenplay: “Who is your hero? What does he want? Who the hell is keeping him from getting it?” This is the technique Goldman uses to help find and define conflict. The Dalai Lama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his understanding of how to deal with international conflict, put it in more universal terms: “Each one of us has an innate desire to seek happiness and overcome suffering.” He also said, “Your enemies are your best teachers.”

Great stories mirror this reality. Such tales are fun because, instinctively, humans are interested in how others deal with their problems. A narrative is compelling and memorable when it wraps emotions around facts to engage a listener’s curiosity. Research, including high-tech, real-time brain scans, is now showing that emotions, triggered in the limbic area of the brain, are what lock a story in memory (Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens, Harcourt &Brace, 1999). Discovering the emotions underlying a message is an essential step to releasing a story’s power.

John B.’s project, developing a hydrogen energy infrastructure, faced tremendous obstacles. His company was literally proposing to restructure the primary transportation system for a large portion of the planet. The initiative posed tremendous technical, political, and economic difficulties, and a lot was riding on it.

John’s talk carefully delineated each potential problem. As he offered specific avenues by which these obstacles might be overcome, his audience became more and more emotionally committed to the project. They liked his idea and wanted it to succeed.

Awareness

So what allows the hero to prevail and overcome a daunting obstacle? In great stories, it is a moment of awareness. This flash of inspiration lets the hero see the problem for what it is and take the right action.

There is something magical about these “aha” moments. Like Air, they are almost impossible to get your fingers around. Awareness is not always easy or comfortable, but if you want your stories to make a difference, something needs to be learned.

John B. and his company had learned that no single corporation or government could accomplish the goal of developing hydrogen fuel alone, especially in the crucial time remaining before we reach the global warming tipping point. Collaboration is our only hope. And as John was careful to point out to his corporate competitors, the shift to a hydrogen economy is potentially enormously profitable. All it takes is seeing the opportunity and seizing the moment becoming aware of the problem and the promise. John and his corporation were more than willing to share the wealth with others.

Transformation

Transformation is our last story element; it corresponds to Space. If you’ve taken care of the other elements in a story, it just naturally happens. Our heroes take action to overcome their problems; as a result, they change, as does the world around them. Change is the playing field (the space) on which stories are told. Like a playing field, stories contain goal posts, and the audience feels satisfied when they see their hero overcoming obstacles and scoring big.

So how did our hero, John B., do? How did he transform his world by telling his story? As a result of his 20-minute presentation, he was approached by representatives of four other major players in the energy field who wanted to explore the possibility of strategic partnerships. John’s boss liked the speech so well that he sent John to Davos, Switzerland, to present it to that year’s convocation of world thought leaders a move that doesn’t hurt anyone’s career path. But most important, John’s project for building a hydrogen economy infrastructure, which we think really might be a big part of solving the problem of global warming, is moving full speed ahead.

Fine-Tuning Your Story

If your story is weaker in one area than in another, then work on the weak element. For example, you feel very powerful emotions about the scientific facts underlying global warming, and you think you know the solution, but you’re not able to provide the audience with a point of view than allows them to feel comfortable accepting those facts. As a result, they find your story, well, science fiction. What your story needs is a good hero. A hero your audience can relate to and accept as authentic and whose problems mirror their own. It shouldn’t be hard to find one. There are plenty of heroes out there, and once your story has a good one, it will be grounded in the experience of your audience and easily accepted and understood.

Or let’s say you are giving a presentation to an interdepartmental meeting within your corporation. You’ve carefully marshaled your facts so each department can see what relates to its particular interests. You’ve laid out the steps needed to overcome the obstacles ahead. There is no doubt the overall result will be a positive transformation.

But you finish speaking and notice a distinct lack of interest in your audience. You think you may have even seen your boss stifle a yawn. Your problem may be that you haven’t connected your passion to your presentation.

Remember, according to our definition of story, it is emotion that makes facts compel people to take action. You need to ask yourself why you care about the project you are suggesting. What feelings does it bring up? If you find your own emotional anchor to the project — why you want to suggest it — and can be open and honest about those feelings without histrionics, that passion will transmit to your audience. At the very least, it will provoke a heated discussion of the topic. With passion, your presentation will fire your audience up, and that beats cold stares anytime.

Of course, story-telling is an art, and no one element of the PHAAT paradigm can ever be considered in total isolation. For example, you might have problems connecting to the passion of a story because you really don’t feel comfortable with the transformation it produces. Analyzing problems in corporate communication requires subtlety and experience, but the PHAAT model and its grounding in the five elements of the ancient Greek philosophers is an excellent place to begin.

Like John B., your story will be remembered — and make a difference if it contains the five essential PHAAT elements.

The post Changing Our Organizations Through the Power of Story appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Sometimes the mechanics of managing change overshadow relationships and compromise people’s dignity, respect, and trust. The manager in this vignette was insensitive to the needs of his employees. He was going to rush into informing them that they were losing their jobs and then send them immediately into a workshop about résumé writing.

Organizational change doesn’t have to happen this way. The betrayal people often experience is a result not of change itself but of how it is managed. Employees want to be a part of the process, not apart from the process. They want to hear the truth and have an opportunity to ask questions and become informed. How leaders manage change affects whether trust will be built or broken and desired outcomes achieved. Fortunately, most leaders are conscientious, trying to do the right thing in the face of all odds. How do they preserve or rebuild trust within their organizations, given the changing business landscape?

Change as Loss

People may experience change as a loss the loss of relationships with those laid off or the dissolution of the “family” company environment that once existed. They may resent that they are doing more work for the same pay with fewer benefits. Often the organization is no longer the same place employees “signed on for.”

In a world where everything is changing rapidly, many people who previously looked to their workplace as a source of stability now regard it as out of control. It frightens them.

Sometimes the mechanics of managing change overshadow relationships and compromise people’s dignity, respect, and trust.

On the other hand, the people initiating the changes often gain from them. If I am the one gaining, it can be hard for me to see how the other person loses. Many leaders are uncomfortable watching people experience the pain of change and are uncomfortable experiencing their own pain. They often consider this to be touchy feely stuff, not the stuff of “real business.” During times of change, leaders tend to retreat to the “hard side” of business for many reasons: It is where they are most comfortable, where their role is more tangibly defined, where they are skilled, and where they are the safest. But in their retreat to the safe side, they fail to honor themselves, their relationships, and the real needs of the people they serve. Their search for safety results in a betrayal of themselves, their role, and those they serve.

Such betrayal damages individuals, relationships, and performance. It robs people of their ability to believe in themselves and diminishes their capacity to contribute wholeheartedly to the organization. When people feel betrayed, they pull back. Morale declines, as does productivity.

Effective leaders acknowledge their employees’ feelings of fear and loss and work to restore their confidence. Otherwise, the betrayal continues, and people’s trust in their leaders and their organization further plummets. Survivors go into a state of resignation: They take fewer risks, blame others, go through the motions, and are not as productive as they once were. If employees have been burned before, they are less willing to give their all and come through when needed. If leaders do not deal with feelings of betrayal, they will unwittingly destroy two of the very qualities they need to be competitive: their employees’ trust and their performance.

Healing from Betrayal

Healing from betrayal — whether intentional or not begins when we observe and acknowledge that betrayal has occurred and that we understand its impact on others. As a leader, you can take certain actions that can have a positive impact on people, as outlined below. These seven steps will help you and others remain aware of the behaviors essential to healing and provide a common language and perspective that engages people in rebuilding trust (see “Seven Steps for Healing” from The Reina Trust & Betrayal Model®).

Step 1: Observe and Acknowledge What Has Happened

“Mr. Smith needs to effectively address the ‘pay package’ issue at the organizational level. If benefits or merit pay are going to be negatively affected, he needs to manage the message through an effective and timely information program. I think he underestimates the level of awareness and impact this change will have on employees.”

• Acknowledge the Negative Impact of Change. Aware leaders realize that employees are whole human beings with feelings. They know that people who do not feel supported in dealing with their feelings and concerns are less able to heal from their experience of betrayal. As a first step, these leaders acknowledge the potential downside of the change process.
• Start with Awareness. One of the greatest mistakes leaders make in challenging times is to assume that, once a major change has taken place, trust will return on its own. This view is both unrealistic and irresponsible. Similar to healing at the individual level, the next step to healing at the organizational level is awareness that trust has been eroded.
• Assess the Health of Your Organization. Leaders can learn a lot by observing and assessing the climate within the organization. Notice what your people are experiencing and acknowledge it. Pay attention to what is building and breaking trust. Find out what is important to people. Listen to what they are saying at the water cooler, in the break rooms, and on the shop floor. When witnessing anger, don’t just notice it; listen to it. Quite often, anger represents deeper feelings of hurt and disappointment. Remember, people in pain need to be listened to. They need someone they can trust to turn to for support and understanding. They need help to understand their own experience.
• Acknowledge Feelings. Effective leaders consciously acknowledge their employees’ feelings of frustration, disappointment, and betrayal. It is only after acknowledging the feelings of betrayal that leaders are able to respond to them. Leaders must work very hard not to get defensive or try to justify or rationalize what happened. They must remember that people are entitled to their feelings. It is the role of a leader to listen, observe, and acknowledge.

SEVEN STEPS FOR HEALING

These seven steps will help you and others remain aware of the behaviors essential to healing and provide a common language and perspective that engages people in rebuilding trust.

Step 2: Allow Feelings to Surface

“I don’t always feel heard — that I can address my concerns directly with certain managers and be taken seriously. It is important to me that I am able to do so. There are occasions when my supervisor has to address issues with a particular manager on my behalf, because I wasn’t deemed ‘important’ enough by him to talk to. This attitude discourages me and other employees from addressing serious concerns in the future.”

• Give People Permission to Express Their Concerns, Issues, and Feelings in a Constructive Manner. Create safe forums, staffed by skilled facilitators, that support the expression of fear, anger, and frustration. Giving your employees a constructive way to discuss their feelings and experiences helps them let go of the negativity they are holding, freeing up that energy for rebuilding relationships and returning their focus to performance
• Help People Verbalize. Help employees give voice to their pain — pain they are afraid or unable to share. When you give your attention to understanding your employees, you let them know that you respect their pain. This is difficult work for leaders, but it is important and necessary for facilitating healing and navigating change. Your employees don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care — about them and their well-being. People in pain need to have their feelings heard. They need to know that you are able to relate to what they are saying and feeling. When you do not acknowledge your employees’ emotions, they feel unheard, resentful, and distrusting toward you. Another layer of betrayal occurs.

Step 3: Give Employees Support

“Our leader took the time to hear our story. She really listened and asked us questions. It helped to tell her how we felt. She heard how frightened we were about what was happening around us. It feels good to know that she understands our needs. When she shared her views, I was able to see things in a much different way. I am beginning to have hope for the future.”

• Recognize Your Employees’ Transitional Needs. People have needs that must be met before they can adapt to change. They have informational needs regarding the new direction the organization is taking and the strategies it proposes to get there. They have relationship needs associated with belonging and their role in the new organization. And they need their skills and abilities to be valued. When leaders expect people to embrace change without having these fundamental needs addressed, people feel betrayed.
• Back Your Employees. Your leader-ship position allows you to be your employees’ advocate. Represent their interests, defend them from unwarranted criticism, and lobby for resources critical to their jobs. By backing your people, you are building contractual trust and meeting the implicit expectations people have of leaders. Furthermore, you demonstrate that you can be trusted to fulfill future commitments and that people can count on you to do what you say you will do.

Step 4: Reframe the Experience

“Our president, Mr. Allen, took the time to visit every field office in our region to explain the business reasons for GNP Industries’ downsizing the eastern division. This helped us put the change into perspective. It lessened the communication gap between the headquarters and the field branches. His actions let us employees know that he cared. We believed he was going to do everything he could to lessen the impact the changes were having on our jobs, our families, and our lives. We understood the direction the company was taking and knew our leader would continue to tell us the truth.”

• Put the Experience into a Larger Context. Helping your employees work through their emotions makes it possible for them to begin to heal.This movement gives you an opportunity to rebuild trust and helps employees reframe their experience by discussing the bigger picture: the business reasons for change. Honestly acknowledge the changes the organization went through and why. In doing so, you must continue to acknowledge what people have experienced. Only then will employees be in a position to accept the new direction in which the organization is headed and to see their role in it.
• Engage in Inquiry. The questions that people ask will guide their journey. Responding to their questions honestly will provide employees with understanding, awareness, truth, and renewed hope for a trusting relationship with you and the organization.Something quite powerful occurs when we tell the impeccable truth — with no exceptions, no justifications, no rationalizations.
• Help Employees Realize There Are Choices. Experiencing betrayal leaves employees feeling very vulnerable and at the mercy of the forces of change.They may need help seeing that they have choices regarding how they react to their circumstances. The more people are aware that they can choose their actions, the more they are able to take responsibility for those actions. Employees may need help in examining their assumptions, breaking out of their self-limiting beliefs, and exploring options and possibilities.
• Embrace Mistakes. Some of the behaviors discussed that aid in healing may be new for you, and you may not trust your competence in exercising them. It may take some practice to develop these skills and become comfortable using them. During this time, you may make some mistakes. That does not automatically make you a failure. Embrace these mistakes as opportunities for learning, thereby turning them to your own benefit.

After all, they provide valuable feed-back regarding what works and what does not.

Just as leaders must be sensitive to employees’ needs, employees need to be sensitive to leaders’ needs. This may mean having some patience and understanding that the leader is grappling with change as well. Therefore, if a leader makes a mistake, it is not necessarily evidence that the leader can’t be trusted. It is evidence that the leader is stretching, growing, and learning. When someone is practicing new ways of relating, people need to be supportive and understanding of his or her learning.

To gain support and understanding, you might find it helpful to share with people that you are learning new skills. Sharing this aspect of yourself demonstrates your trust in them and further extends the invitation to rebuild your relationship with them.

It is possible that you as the leader feel betrayed as well. It is as important that your feelings of betrayal be acknowledged and that you get support to help people see that.

Step 5: Take Responsibility

“Leaders need to take responsibility for how change was implemented. The restructurings took people by surprise and left departments with minimal coverage to do the work. Questions were not answered and needs not addressed. It’s difficult to imagine the distress this has caused. Employees were in great distress and felt quite isolated.”

• Take Responsibility for Your Role in the Process. It is not helpful to try to spin the truth or cover mistakes. It does not serve you or the relationship. Something quite powerful occurs when we tell the impeccable truth with no exceptions, no justifications, no rationalizations. Telling the truth is the fundamental basis for trust in workplace relationships. It demonstrates one’s trustworthiness. We take responsibility when we acknowledge our mistakes. Three simple words, I am sorry, reflect taking responsibility and go a long way to rebuilding trust.
• Help Others Take Responsibility for Their Part. When people are in pain, they tend to blame leaders and behave in ways that contribute to betrayal. We support others in taking responsibility when we help them see their role in creating the climate of betrayal. Employees may not have control over change, but they do have control over how they choose to respond. Even though people may feel betrayed, those feelings do not make betraying in return acceptable.
• Make Amends and Return with Dividends. It is the leader’s role to break the chain of betrayal and reverse the spiral of distrust. Because actions speak louder than words, it is important that you take the first step in mending fences with your employees. Remember that rebuilding trust does not simply mean giving back what was taken away. It means returning something in better shape than it was originally in. You must not only replace but also make things better. If this is not possible, be honest about the realities of the situation and what you can do to make amends.
• Manage Expectations. To safeguard you and your employees against future betrayals, keenly manage expectations. Employees want to know what is expected of them and what they can expect in return. Emphasize the need to negotiate with them when their expectations cannot be fulfilled. Doing so strengthens contractual trust between you and your employees.
• Keep Your Promises. Managing promises is important in relationships. Trust is the result of promises kept. Don’t make promises that you know you can’t keep; doing so just sets up you and everyone with whom you have a relationship for a downfall. When you realize that you cannot keep promises, renegotiate them; don’t break them.

Be careful of what you promise and what you appear to promise. When you are attempting to rebuild trust, it is essential that you not try to justify past actions and that you address the perceptions of those who feel betrayed. According to Frank Navran in Truth and Trust: The First Two Victims of Downsizing, “It is enough for an employee to have believed that a promise was broken for trust to be violated.”

Step 6: Forgive

“Many employees feel that they have been intentionally misinformed and lied to. They do not trust management. It will take time for forgiveness to happen. We need to bring in support to help us understand the surrounding circumstances and allow us to say what needs to be said, to ‘get this off our chests.’ This will help us shift from blaming management to focusing on problem-solving the issues, so we can begin to forgive.”

• Recognize That Forgiveness Is Freedom. Forgiveness is a gift we give ourselves. It is about freeing ourselves and others from the anger, bitterness, and resentment that can deplete our individual and collective energy and spirit and interfere with relationships and performance. When we help people forgive others, we help them free themselves. With forgiveness, they heal for their future by changing their attitude about the past. We help them see new possibilities.For most people, forgiveness takes time, and it happens a little at a time. Over time, employees may be willing to forgive, but you cannot expect them to forget. You can help them heal from the pain they felt, but you cannot erase the events of the past. Occasionally, employees may still be a bit angry after they forgive. It is natural that they may experience lingering feelings of anger for the perceived wrongs they experienced.

  Occasionally, you as a leader may need to forgive yourself. You did the best you could, and for whatever reason, it still wasn’t enough. Beating yourself up mentally and emotionally is worthless and self-defeating.

  Acknowledge for yourself what needs to be said or done to put your mind and this issue to rest. Then just do it! Be compassionate and cut yourself some slack during the healing process!

• Shift from Blaming to Focusing on Needs. Because forgiveness is a personal matter, it is difficult for people to forgive a system. However, leaders can work to cultivate a more personal and trusting climate where healing and forgiveness can take place. They can begin to do this by helping people shift from blaming the organization or its leaders to focusing on their personal needs as they relate to the business.It is important to address persistent resentment and blame in an organization, as they are toxic to the individuals involved and to the whole system. They undermine trust, morale, productivity, creativity, and innovation. People continue to blame when they perceive that those who are responsible have failed to take responsibility. At the same time, they feel that they do not have to take action and are therefore not responsible.

  It is essential for leaders to help people shift from a blaming mode to a problem solving focus. What do employees need to resolve the issues, concerns, fears, and pain they are feeling? What conversations need to take place? What still needs to be said? What needs to happen for healing to occur? What will make a difference right now?

Step 7: Let Go and Move On

“Our leader brought in outside skilled facilitators to provide the needed support through the transition. During the small group discussions, they were neutral and made sure we were all heard. They held a tough line, helping us see our leader’s point of view. The facilitators really drove home the responsibility we all shared. We had painful but powerful discussions. What a relief it was when we were able to forgive ourselves, because we were no angels. But things really shifted when we also forgave our leader. Wow — we have moved on and are all on board with our organization’s new direction.”

• Accept What’s So. Leaders can help people accept what has happened. Acceptance is not condoning what was done but experiencing the reality of what happened without denying, disowning, or resenting it. It is facing the truth without blame. It is helping employees separate themselves from their preoccupation with the past and helping them invest their emotional energies in the present and in creating a different future.
• Realize That You Won’t Always Accomplish Your Goal. Although you may not always accomplish your goal, it is important that you make a good faith effort and that your intentions are honorable. It is quite acceptable for leaders to disagree with their employees or not support a particular cause. Effective leaders do so with honesty and integrity.
• Take the Time and Make the Commitment. Building trust takes time and commitment. When trust is lost, it is regained only by a sincere dedication to the key behaviors and practices that earned it in the first place. The road back is not easy. However, by listening, telling the truth, keeping your promises, and backing your employees, you will play an instrumental role in assisting your employees and organization to heal from betrayal, rebuild trust, and renew relationships.
• Give Support! Providing support is a sign of your dedication to the healing and rebuilding process. The number one mistake leaders make is expecting people to immediately move from step 1 (observing and acknowledging what has happened) to step 7 (letting go and moving on) without doing the necessary work of the other steps. We aren’t built to work this way. People in pain cannot simply move on. They need to fully go through the healing process. When people are willing and able to do the work, it will lead to renewal!Your commitment to practicing these seven steps, and engaging your people in the same, will lead to transformation. Imagine the possibilities!

The post Rebuilding Trust Within Organizations appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Before answering these important questions, let us make this claim: Truth is one of the most important competitive advantages there is in building a business. Truth is the most vital element an organization has in fostering collective learning. When we are able to explore and then tell each other the truth, we can improve performance, both individually and collectively.

Imagine trying to build an organization without the ability to tell each other the truth. We would not be able to correct mistakes, learn from past performances, adjust our processes, and better understand the reality in which we are engaged. In fact, a glaring statistic is that over 50 percent of businesses fail within their first three years. The reason they fail is that they don’t know what is going on in reality, which may include their financial position, their impact on the market place, the nature of their customers’ real motivations, and other key factors. Had they known the truth, they would have had a far greater chance of success. Without perceiving reality, it is next to impossible to succeed because invariably decisions are made in a vacuum.

There are many steps for improving performance: training, creating reinforcing reward systems, instituting effective computer systems, holding offsite planning meetings, developing the right hiring practices, and so on. Each step has its place in creating better performance, but the managerial moment of truth is the essential step that makes all the others work. Unless reality is penetrated, very little significant improvement can occur. It’s sad to see time and energy invested in performance improvement, only to have it thwarted by what is missing in action people speaking truthfully and honestly with one another. That is the indispensable step in any organization that hopes to achieve greater capability, professionalism, and alignment.

Truth is one of the most important competitive advantages there is in building a business.

A Common “Pitch”

Some would argue that human beings are incapable of objectivity because of the nature of perception, which they see as idiosyncratic. We can understand the world only through our senses, which we then interpret. We are left with opinion at best, and, therefore, no one is right or wrong.

These ideas are interesting, but they don’t hold up to scrutiny. If we look to the aural realm of a musical pitch, we can see how universal human perception is, because not only can we hear the pitch that is sounding, we can also see it on an oscilloscope. If two musicians are playing out of tune with each other, most people can hear the dissonance. Yet even if they are tone deaf, they can see the actual waveform the dissonance creates on an oscilloscope. In a discipline like music, people don’t talk about “my pitch [truth], and your pitch [truth]” when they have to play together. There is an objective reality they can understand, and because of that objectivity, more than one hundred people can play together in a symphony orchestra and all play in tune.

In this article, we talk about truth (small t) as objective, factual, and observable. A due date was made on time or it wasn’t. The performance was adequate or it wasn’t. The numbers are the numbers.

We also talk about areas that are not so clear cut, questions that may be subject to differing opinions, such as acceptable levels of quality, personal alignment within a team, one’s capabilities, skills, or attitude. What is important is the spirit of inquiry we adopt. We see the process as one of pursuing, as best we can, the actual reality under consideration.

We are not content with simply sharing impressions or opinions. With what rigor do we seek to understand reality, even if what we find contradicts our pet theories, our years of experience, our outlook, philosophy, or worldview? Our personal notions notwithstanding, what is the actual reality and how do we know it?

The Blind Men and the Elephant

The managerial moment of truth approach is one of mutual exploration and learning. Together, we are backing up and studying reality. “Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Am I seeing what you are seeing? And where we are seeing reality differently from each other, how are we to understand why we are seeing it differently?” Rather than fight about who is right and who is wrong, together we are dedicating ourselves to observing reality and trying to better understand what we are seeing.

The old chestnut of the blind men and the elephant suggests that we can’t explore reality, only piece together differing opinions, all of which are valid.

In case you haven’t heard the original story for a while, here it is: Four blind men encountered an elephant. They began to reach out to touch the elephant to understand its shape. One blind man, who found the elephant’s tail, said, “An elephant is like a rope!”, “No,” said another, who put his arms around the legs, “an elephant is like a tree trunk.”, “Nonsense,” said another, who found the elephant’s trunk, “the elephant is like a hose.” Still another one of the men touched the elephant’s tusks:, “The elephant is like large teeth.”

But when we think about it, shouldn’t we rename the story “The Stupid Blind Men and the Elephant”? After all, these people were arguing about each person’s perception, but they weren’t asking each other how it came to pass that they had such vastly different ideas. The story is meant to tell us that everyone has a piece of the truth. Even though we may have vastly different ideas, they all reflect an aspect of reality.

Perhaps. But an elephant is more than something like a rope, a tree trunk, a hose, and big teeth. These are but elements that are seen from a fragmented and limited point of view. I may have wheels, doors, seats, and an engine, and yet I may not have a car. To understand that we are considering a car, we need to see the gestalt the parts in relationship to the whole.

Let’s change the story to “The Smart Blind Men and the.” In this story, one of the blind men says, “An elephant seems like a tree trunk,” and his friends say, “Okay, keep feeling around and then report what it’s like.” Over time, the team would be able to describe what an elephant is like by sharing their insights and then further exploring the parts of the elephant they haven’t yet encountered.

The Foundation of Opinions

In management, truth telling too often has come to mean simply sharing opinions. This is not what truth telling means to us. Trading opinions doesn’t usually lead to greater under-standing. What’s missing is the discipline to understand the foundation of various opinions. We do that by measuring conclusions against reality. When we are objective, we don’t pick only the facts that support our opinions to the exclusion of facts that don’t. We are able to look at everything and allow ourselves to change our minds, alter our impressions, and abandon outdated ideas for ones that fit the facts.

Most of us have been taught to study reality in relationship to our theories, experiences, concepts, ideals, and so on. The thought process then is one of comparison. We compare reality against our ideas about reality. This approach limits our ability to see those things that are inconsistent with our previous notions. When we think we know all the answers, we don’t ask targeted questions that enable us to explore new territory. But if we look anew, without presuming we know the answers to questions under consideration, we can discover new insights and relationships, rethink our assumptions, and go well beyond our basic suppositions.

Seeing reality objectively requires a large degree of rigor. Within the context of the organization, it also requires a process of collective inquiry. How can we bring people into the process? How can we consistently be willing to look at the hard facts? What would motivate us to strive for greater understanding, even when the exploration shines light on our own failings? How can we become better at our jobs and profession? How can we do that as a team and a company?

Telling the Truth

Unearthing the truth accurately is one thing. Telling it is yet another thing entirely. The classic line that reflects many managers’ reservations to call it like it is comes from the film A Few Good Men when the Jack Nicholson character says, “You can’t handle the truth.” Most of us have the general impression that the unabashed truth is hurtful and devastating. We have grown up in a society that agrees with the Jack Nicholson character.

Yet study after study has shown quite an opposite story. When there is a choice between knowing the unvarnished truth or not, people would rather know than be in the dark. Psychological studies consistently show that those who are in command of the facts are healthier than those who are not. One such study demonstrated that teenage pregnant girls who were flat out rejected by their families were more able to deal with their situation in a healthier and more productive way that those who were rejected but never told that directly.

The fact is we need to know where we stand with each other, not only teens in trouble, but managers from every level of the organization. Can people handle the truth? The resounding answer is Yes!

Having said that, we need to talk about the real world. The idea here is not just to tell the truth, but to have the telling of it be productive and helpful, and to lead to a positive change in the future. Telling the truth certainly involves a recitation of facts. But there is much more to communication than some clinical and cold statement of information. Motive makes a difference. What are we after? What do we want to accomplish? What type of relationship do we want with the people we work with? We need to make a clear distinction between attempting to manipulate a person and making a potentially tough conversation as accessible as we can make it.

Subtle and Overt Manipulation

The attempt to control the inner experience of another person to get him to do what we want him to do is the aim of manipulation. The underlying assumption here is that the person, left to his own devices, would not want to accomplish the goals. And because of that, the manager needs to make the person fall into line. Whether through charm or threats, the manager sees the job as getting a person to do what he hasn’t freely chosen to do.

Managers can’t build capacity through a manipulative approach because people react by becoming less self-generating. At best they can comply with directives. They cannot truly align with the direction leadership has chosen. This creates profound limitations to growth, development, and advancement for everyone.

If we think people can’t handle the truth, we soften it. That’s a manipulation. Or we sneak in the harsh facts between a series of compliments. That’s a manipulation. Or we try to instill the fear of wrath to create a sense of urgency. That, too, is a manipulation. Manipulation can work to produce favorable results short term. Long-term the strategy backfires. Manipulation is one of the worst management approaches anyone can take because it undermines a sense of relationship and credibility between the manager and the person managed.

Yet too often managers feel they have no other choice if they are to be true to their accountabilities. So with the best of intentions, they try to find out what the market will bear and then play the game for all it’s worth. The limitations to this approach are these: You can’t build capacity over time, and you can’t build real relationships with the people you manage.

Those organizations that cannot “handle the truth” will be left in the dust.

Manipulation harms relationships. This statement is true in every type of relationship, from the most intimate to the most professional. Rather than a sense of authentic relationship, people develop counterstrategies such as don’t show all your cards, hold back some level of involvement, don’t care, and avoid truthfulness. Under these circumstances, people pretend to have true relationships, but they are simply playing the hand they feel was dealt them. In an unfair game, no one plays fairly.

Can You “Handle” the Truth?

Telling the truth means finding a platform from which to tell it. Not everyone takes in information the same way. As managers, we need to be sensitive to how best to tell the truth. For example, if we are talking to the chief financial officer, we can easily run through the accounts. But if we need to talk about the numbers with someone not steeped in accounting disciplines, we may have to alter what we say, how we explain it, how quickly we can move through information, and so on. Our change in approach is not a manipulation. Instead, we are varying our approach because we understand that this person cannot understand the financial content we are communicating as easily as would an expert.

When it comes to truth telling within the organization, we want to be sensitive to how the person to whom we are talking takes in information, but we never want to soften the truth. We want to make the truth understandable, accessible, and comprehensive. We want to join with the person in an exploration of how the situation is, how it got to be that way, and how we can do better next time. As managers, we try to find ways to better communicate to those with whom we work. We are not in favor of abusing people by using the truth as an excuse to beat them up. We are in favor of telling people the unvarnished truth in ways that are accessible, kind, and supportive.

It is not supportive to distort reality just so people do not have to feel badly about situations they have managed. Of course, we feel badly when we do not succeed. But feeling badly comes with the territory of being a professional who is reaching to accomplish goals that are not always within one’s means. It’s appropriate to feel badly when the situation calls for it. Yet our motive for improving isn’t simply to restore a feeling of equilibrium. Rather, it is because we want to do a better job, succeed for ourselves, the team, and the organization that we are willing to face the truth, feel whatever we feel, and figure out what we can learn to improve next time out.

The subject of truth, particularly within the organization, is enormously challenging. But it is also extraordinarily worthwhile, positive, and practical. Today, organizations are faced with sudden shifts in marketplace realities, migrating economics, and the lightning speed of globalization. The organizations that can deal with these changing realities have the best prospect of survival. Those organizations that cannot “handle the truth” will be left in the dust. Learning how to tell each other the truth, as hard a discipline as it is within the organization, will make all of the difference.

The post The Managerial Moment of Truth appeared first on The Systems Thinker.