When errors such as these surface, blaming seems to be a natural reflex in many organizations. Even those individuals who wish to learn from mistakes fall into naming culprits. Once we figure out who’s at fault, we then try to find out what is wrong with the supposed offenders. Only when we discover what is wrong with them do we feel we have grasped the problem. Clearly they are the problem, and changing or getting rid of them (or simply being angry at them) is the solution.

There’s a problem with this common scenario, however: Where there is blame, there is no learning. Where there is blame, open minds close, inquiry tends to cease, and the desire to understand the whole system diminishes. When people work in an atmosphere of blame, they naturally cover up their errors and hide their real concerns. And when energy goes into finger pointing, scapegoating, and denying responsibility, productivity suffers because the organization lacks information about the real state of affairs. It’s impossible to make good decisions with poor information.

In fact, blame costs money. When the vice president of marketing and the vice president of R&D are blaming each other for quality problems in product development, they can’t focus on working together to bring the best products to market. Their finger pointing results in lost sales potential.

Blame rarely enhances our understanding of our situation and often hampers effective problem solving. So how do we avoid the tendency to blame and create organizational environments where we turn less frequently to blame? Clarifying accountability is one option. This process of assigning responsibilities for a situation in advance can help create a culture of real learning.

Accountability comes from clear contracting, ongoing conversations, and an organizational commitment to support accountability rather than blame. The contracting focuses on tasks to be accomplished, roles to be taken, processes to be used, standards sought, and expected results. Periodic conversations over time review both explicit and tacit contracts in order to verify shared understanding. This communication becomes most useful when people are willing and able to discuss their common difficulties within a larger setting that values accountability.

The Differences Between Accountability and Blame

The dictionary helps clarify the differences between accountability and blame. To be accountable is “to be counted on or reckoned on.” To blame is “to find fault with, to censure, revile, reproach.” Accountability emphasizes keeping agreements and performing jobs in a respectful atmosphere; blaming is an emotional process that discredits the blamed.

A focus on accountability recognizes that everyone may make mistakes or fall short of commitments. Becoming aware of our own errors or shortfalls and viewing them as opportunities for learning and growth enable us to be more successful in the future. Accountability therefore creates conditions for ongoing, constructive conversations in which our awareness of current reality is sharpened and in which we work to seek root causes, understand the system better, and identify new actions and agreements. The qualities of accountability are respect, trust, inquiry, moderation, curiosity, and mutuality.

Blaming, on the other hand, is more than just a process of allocating fault. It is often a process of shaming others and searching for something wrong with them. Blaming provides an early and artificial solution to a complex problem. It provides a simplistic view of a complex reality: I know what the problem is, and you’re it. Blame thus makes inquiry difficult and reduces the chances of getting to the real root of a problem. Blame also generates fear and destroys trust. When we blame, we often believe that other people have bad intentions or lack ability. We tend to excuse our own actions, however, because we know firsthand the challenges we face. The qualities of blame are judgment, anger, fear, punishment, and self-righteousness.

The Organizational Consequences of Blame

Blame Slows Information Flow and Reduces Innovation. People sometimes use blame as a strategy to get others to take ownership of problems. But this approach often backfires because people begin to equate acknowledging mistakes and surfacing bad news with punishment. When this happens, two reinforcing sets of behaviors may emerge: one by managers who are ostensibly seeking information and then punishing those who bring bad news, and the other by groups of employees who hide information and try either to protect each other or to blame each other. People who feel compelled to protect themselves can’t admit mistakes-and therefore can’t learn from them. Under these conditions, individuals spend time denying problems rather than solving them, and

The Reinforcing Cycles of Blame

Blame causes fear, which increases cover-ups and reduces the flow of information. The lack of information hinders problem solving, creating more errors (R1). Fear also stifles risk taking and discourages innovation (R2).

As shown in “The Reinforcing Cycles of Blame,” blaming leads to fear, which increases cover-ups and reduces the flow of information by stopping productive conversation. The lack of timely and accurate information about an organization’s current reality hinders problem solving, leading to more errors and more blame (R1).

Blaming and the fear it generates also discourage innovation and creative solutions. Frightened people don’t take risks, which are essential for innovation. Lack of innovation, in turn, leads to an inability to solve problems effectively and an increase in errors (R2).

Blame “Shifts the Burden.” In a “Shifting the Burden” situation, a problem has multiple solutions. People often grab onto the most obvious, short-term fix rather than search for the fundamental source of the problem. The lack of a permanent, long-term solution reinforces the need for additional quick fixes. Blame is a fix that actually diverts the blamers’ attention away from long-term interpersonal or structural solutions to problems (see B1 in “The Addiction to Blame” on p. 3).  Although blame provides some immediate relief and a sense of having solved a problem (“It’s their fault”), it also erodes communication (R3) and shifts the focus even further from accountability (B2), the more fundamental solution.

Blaming can also be addictive, because it makes us feel powerful and keeps us from having to examine our own role in a situation. For example, Jim, a brewery manager, got word that things were slowing down on line 10, a new canning line. He left his office and headed to the plant floor. “Grady, you’ve got to get this line going. Get with it,” he told his line foreman. Grady replied, “Jim, you know those guys on the last shift always screw things up.”

This is a familiar conversation to both men. Each walks away thinking something is wrong with the other. Jim thinks, “That Grady, I give him responsibility and he just can’t get it together.” Grady thinks, “Why is he always on my case? Can’t he see this is a tough issue? He’s so simplistic and short-sighted.”

In this scenario, Jim can walk away feeling relieved because he knows what the problem is-Grady is a lousy supervisor and may need to be replaced. Grady, on the other hand, can blame Jim for being a shortsighted, run-the-plant-by-the-numbers manager. Both get some initial relief from blaming each other, but neither solves the ongoing problem.

Moving from Blame to Accountability

How, then, do we move from blame to accountability? Even within carefully designed systems, people may fail at their work. And even with a knowledge of system dynamics, we still often look for an individual’s failure as a way to explain a problem. One leverage point is to understand the organizational dynamics of blame as described above. There is also leverage in changing how we think about and conduct ourselves at work.

There are three levels of specific behavioral change in moving from blame to accountability-the individual level, the interpersonal level, and the group or organizational level. First, individuals must be willing to change their own thinking and feelings about blame. Second, people need to become skillful at making contracts with one another and holding each other accountable for results. Third, groups need to promote responsible and constructive conversations by developing norms for direct conflict resolution between individuals. These behavioral changes-and the use of systems thinking to focus on the structures involved and not the personalities-can help create a constructive organizational culture.

Individual Level

Below is a list of ways to start breaking the mental models we hold about blame. When you find yourself beginning to blame someone else for a chronic problem, refer to this list and to the sidebar “Distinctions Between Blame and Accountability” (see p. 4).

1. Remember that others are acting rationally from their own perspective. Given what they know, the pressures they are under, and the organizational structures that are influencing them, they are doing the best they can. Give others the benefit of the doubt.

2. Realize that you probably have a role in the situation.Your behavior may be influencing this person’s behavior and may be producing some unintended effects. Keep in mind that you will tend to justify your own actions and point of view and discount the other person’s perspective.

3. Remind yourself that judgment and criticism make it very difficult to see clearly. Judgments are mental models that limit the ability to take in new data. They tend to increase the likelihood of anger and make it difficult to learn. The following questions may help stretch your thinking and ease angry feelings. Ask yourself:

• What information am I missing that would help me understand this person’s behavior?
• How might this behavior make sense?
• What pressures is he or she under?
• What systems or structures might be influencing this behavior?

4. Use a systems thinking perspective to explore the pressures on the players involved. Notice that there are some larger forces at work that are probably having an impact on both of you. For example, when organizational goals, strategies, and values aren’t clear, groups will sometimes work toward different objectives. A group that values customer service over cost will conflict with a group that is trying to lower expenditures. Identify some key variables and their interrelationships, and ask, Is this situation an example of a vicious cycle, “Shifting the Burden,” or “Accidental Adversaries”?

5. Be willing to be held accountable. This means that, when an issue comes up, you are willing to consider whether you have lived up to your end of an agreement or expectation. Ask yourself:

• Did I have a role in this situation?
• Did I take some actions that seemed right at the time, but that had unintended consequences?

6.Work constructively with your anger. Sustained anger may point to personal issues that have been triggered by the current situation. Broken agreements, mistakes, and blame all have difficult associations for most people. However, in a learning environment, constructive resolution of conflict can also lead to significant personal growth. The guiding questions here are:

• What am I learning about myself in this situation?
• What does this remind me of?
• What new behaviors or thoughts does this situation call for that may be a stretch for me?

Interpersonal Level

Initial Contracting. At the beginning of any working relationship, it’s vital to come to some basic agreements defining the nature and scope of the work, specific and yet-to-be-defined tasks, deadlines and related outcomes, processes or methods to be used, interim checkpoints and expectations at those checkpoints, standards, and roles.

It’s also helpful to discuss what to do in the event of a misunderstanding, a lapse in communication, or a failure to keep an agreement. Imagine possible breakdowns and design a process for handling them. If breakdowns do occur, be prepared to remind others of the plan you had prepared.

When lapses do take place, they need to be brought to the collective attention as soon as possible. Misunderstandings and broken agreements often promote anger, frustration, and blame. Allowing unaddressed misunderstandings to fester can hamper productive conversations. By contrast, raising issues early can minimize escalation of problems.

Accountability Conversations. Once any project or working relationship is under way, it’s useful to check in periodically on the state of the partnership through accountability conversations. You may or may not have clear recollections of the initial contract regarding the task, roles, standards, processes, and expected results. Either way, it’s productive to establish or reestablish these agreements and explore what is working or not working as you take action together to create envisioned results.

Accountability conversations aren’t always easy. However, the skills they require can be applied and developed over time. Some of the basic tools of learning organizations come into play here-the ladder of inference, for example, can be used to create a conversation of inquiry rather than inquisition. The accountability conversation is also the perfect setting for practicing left-hand column skills to surface assumptions blocking honest and productive discourse. In addition, admitting the tendency to

Distinctions between blame and accountability

Here are steps for initiating an accountability conversation:

1. Find out whether the person you are working with is interested in seeing problems as learning opportunities. If so, when a problem occurs, include other people who are also interested in the situation. Other people’s perspectives can be helpful because often two people in conflict are actually mirroring the conflict of a larger system within the organization.

2. Create a setting that is conducive to learning.

• Allow plenty of time to address the issues.
• Reaffirm with each other that the goal is to learn, not blame.
• Establish confidentiality.
• Be truly open-minded.
• Listen hard to the other person’s perspective

3. Have a conversation in which the two (or more) of you

• Clarify your intention for the meeting.
• Identify the data and any assumptions or conclusions you have drawn based on that data.
• Identify the pressures each of you is experiencing in the situation.
• Identify any stated or unstated expectations. If implicit agreements were not jointly understood, this is a good time to clarify and reestablish shared agreements.
• Analyze the problem from a systems perspective. Clarify how your mutual beliefs and actions might be related and are perhaps reinforcing each other.
• Identify some new ways to address the problem.

Group Level

How people talk about one another in an organization affects the levels of accountability and trust. Often, because people are reluctant to discuss accountability issues directly, they go to a third party to relieve their discomfort and get support for their point of view. The complaint does not get resolved this way, however, although the person with the complaint gains some relief. Bringing a complaint to a third party to clarify a situation can be a much more productive alternative.

To see how this works, let’s take a situation where Tony is angry with Lee because Lee wasn’t fully supportive in a meeting. Tony complains to Robin that Lee is unreliable. Robin sympathizes with Tony and agrees that Lee is unreliable. Tony and Robin now feel closer because they share this point of view. Lee does not yet know that Tony has a complaint. Later, though, Robin, busy with other projects, puts off one of Tony’s requests. Now Tony complains about Robin to Lee, and Robin doesn’t get the necessary feedback. Over time, all of these relationships will erode.

What is the alternative to this kind of dysfunctional blaming and resentment? The solution is a deep commitment on the part of all these people to work through their reluctance to give and receive difficult feedback. In addition, they need to learn how to hold one another accountable in an ongoing way. Now, when Tony is angry with Lee and goes to Robin, the purpose is to get coaching on how to raise the issue with Lee, not to get Robin’s agreement on what is wrong with Lee. In addition, Robin’s role is to make sure that Tony follows through on raising the concern directly with Lee.

To resolve conflict directly:

1.Bring your complaints about someone else to a third person to get coaching on how to raise your concerns.
Valuable questions from the coach include:

• Tell me about the situation.
• What results do you want?
• What’s another way of explaining the other person’s actions?
• How might the other person describe the situation?
• What was your role in creating the situation?
• What requests or complaints do you need to bring to the other person?
• How will you state them in order to get the results you want?
• What do you think your learning is in this situation?

2. Raise your concerns directly with the other person. Reaffirm your commitment to maintaining a good working relationship and find a way to express your fundamental respect for the person. The ladder of inference can be a helpful tool for focusing on the problem. Start by identifying the data that is the source of your concern. Then spell out the assumptions you made as you observed the data and any feelings you have about the situation. Finally, articulate your requests for change. During the conversation, remind the other person that reviewing the concern is part of learning to work together better

3. Let the coach know what happened.

4. Outside of this framework, refrain from making negative comments about people

5. For listeners who frequently hear complaints about a third party and want to create a learning setting, it can be helpful to say something like: “I’d like to help, but only if you want to create a constructive situation. We can explore these questions; otherwise, I prefer not to listen to your complaints.”

Organizational Accountability: The IS Story

Systems thinking provides useful tools for surfacing and breaking reinforcing cycles of blame within an organization. In the story below, a group was able to use causal loop diagrams to help them move beyond blame and craft a constructive, long-term solution.

The Information Systems group of a manufacturing plant was meeting to discuss their lack of progress on a large project to overhaul the department. Initially, the IS group decided that top management’s actions caused the group’s ineffectiveness. The plant management team (PMT) kept adding projects to the group’s already full plate. Members of the PMT responded to “squeaky wheels” by giving otherwise low-priority projects the force of their support. Also, the PMT didn’t reinforce plant wide policies the IS group had developed. Most important, the team didn’t give group members the support they needed to stick to the IS overhaul they had committed to, and wouldn’t give them the budget to hire the additional staff they sorely needed.

But when the group mapped out their current situation in a causal loop diagram, they gained a new perspective on the problem. They found that the situation resembled a “Success to the Successful” story, in which two or more projects or groups compete for limited resources.

The diagram “Success to the Squeaky Wheel” shows how, in this case, the IS group’s attention to urgent requests diverted resources away from prioritized items. Because rewards for completing urgent requests were heightened, the urgent tasks continued to receive greater attention (R2).  At the same time, the rewards for and focus on prioritized tasks decreased (R1). Finally, as people realized that urgent requests received greater attention than prioritized items, the number of “squeaky wheels”-or people promoting their own agenda items to management-proliferated. This development was followed by an increase in management’s efforts to get action on those agenda items, which further promoted urgent items over prioritized ones (R3).

After examining the causal loop diagrams, the group realized that they had played a role in the stalled progress on the overhaul project. Although IS team members encouraged each other to blame the PMT, no one in the group had given the PMT feedback concerning the impact of their requests and lack of support.

Armed with a systems view, the group identified several actions they could take to shift these unproductive dynamics. They decided to tell the PMT that they recognized that the IS overhaul was a top priority for the plant as a whole. They would point out that they couldn’t make progress on the overhaul if they continued to respond to “squeaky wheels. “The group would also let the PMT know that when they received additional requests, they would ask:

• How much of a priority is this request for you?
• Are you aware that there is a tradeoff in priorities?

The group concluded that they would issue a memo to the PMT describing their priorities and soliciting the PMT’s support of those priorities. They would also request that the PMT clearly communicate the priorities to the rest of the plant. In the memo, they would indicate the tradeoffs they were making and identify how their choices would help the company as a whole. The group felt that, with the PMT’s support, they would have the authority to focus on the prioritized project instead of responding to urgent requests.

Conclusion

Developing accountability skills is challenging; it takes courage and the willingness to learn new ways of thinking and acting. So why is moving from blame to accountability worthwhile? Because blame is like sugar – it produces a brief boost and then a let-down. It doesn’t serve the system’s long-term needs and can actually prevent it from functioning effectively. On the other hand, developing accountability skills and habits on every level of your organization can be an important element in maintaining your organization’s long-term health.

Marilyn Paul, PhD, is an independent organizational consultant affiliated with Innovation Associates, an Arthur D. Little company. She has sixteen years of experience facilitating organizational change. One focus of her work is peer mentoring and capacity development.

The post Moving from Blame to Accountability appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

We clearly need ways of improving our thought processes, especially in groups where finding a solution depends on people first reaching a common formulation of the problem. Dialogue, a discipline for collective learning and inquiry, can provide a means for developing such shared understanding. Proponents of dialogue claim it can help groups reach higher levels of consciousness, and thus to become more creative and effective. The uninitiated, however, may view dialogue as just one more oversold communication technology.

I believe that in addition to enhancing communication, dialogue holds considerable promise as a problem-formulation and problem-solving philosophy and technology. It is a necessary vehicle for understanding the cultures and subcultures in which we live and work, and organizational learning will ultimately depend upon such cultural understanding. Dialogue thus becomes a central element of any model of organizational transformation.

If dialogue is to become helpful to organizational processes, it must be seen as accessible to everyone. In order to demystify dialogue, therefore, I’d like to focus on the process — how to get started, and how and why dialogue often breaks down — while exploring some of the issues that groups must address if they are to create an effective dialogue process.

We clearly need ways of improving our thought processes, especially in groups where the solution depends on people reaching a common formulation of the problem.

Dialogue vs. Discussion

To understand the different phases of the dialogue process, I have found it helpful to draw a road map based on Bill Isaacs’ basic model (see “Ways of Talking Together,” p. 2). The diagram maps different forms of conversation in terms of two basic paths — dialogue and discussion.

One basic question that all groups must face before entering into dialogue is, “How do we know whether discussion and/or debate is more or less desirable then dialogue? Should we always go down the dialogue path?” I would argue that discussion/debate is a valid problem solving and decision-making process only if one can assume that the group members understand each other well enough to “talk the same language.” Such a state of shared understanding, however, probably cannot be achieved unless some form of dialogue has previously taken place. The danger in premature discussion is that the group may reach “false consensus”: members assume they mean the same thing in using certain terms, but only later discover subtle differences in meaning that have major consequences for action.

Dialogue, on the other hand, is a basic process for building common understanding. By letting go of disagreement, a group gradually builds a shared set of meanings that make much higher levels of mutual understanding and creative thinking possible. As we listen to ourselves and others, we begin to see the subtleties of how each member thinks and expresses meanings. In this process, we do not strive to convince each other, but instead try to build a common experience base that allows us to learn collectively. The more the group achieves such collective understanding, the easier it becomes to reach a decision, and the more likely it is that the decision will be implemented in the way the group meant it to be.

Getting Started

In the groups that I have observed, the facilitator started by arranging the setting and then describing the concept of dialogue. The goal is to give the group enough information to understand dialogue sufficiently to begin the conversation. Next, small group discussion and reflection is used to link dialogue to past experiences of “real communication” (see “Role of the Facilitator: Setting the Context,” p. 3). This introductory session has several objectives which frame the session and allow a more effective dialogue to occur:

• Make the members feel as equal as possible. Having the group sit in a circle neutralizes rank or status differences in the group, and conveys the sense that each person’s unique contribution is of equal value.
• Give everyone a sense of guaranteed “air time” to establish their identity in the group. Asking everyone to comment ensures that all participants will have a turn. In larger groups, not everyone may choose to speak, but each person has the opportunity to do so, and the expectation is that the group will take whatever time is necessary for that to happen.
• Set the task for the group. The group should understand that they have come together to explore the dialogue process and gain some understanding of it, not to make a decision or solve an external problem.
• Legitimize personal experiences. Early in the group’s life, members will primarily be concerned about themselves and their own feelings; hence, legitimizing personal experiences and drawing on these experiences is a good way to begin.

The length and frequency with which the group meets will depend upon the size of the group, the reason for getting together, and the constraints on members. The meetings that I participated in at MIT were generally one-and-a-half to two hours long and occurred at roughly two-to-three-week intervals.

After watching various groups go through a first meeting, I often wondered how the second meeting of each group would get going. I found that the best method was to start by asking everyone to comment on “where they were at” and to go around the circle with the expectation that everyone would speak. Again, what seems to be important is to legitimize “air time” for everyone and to imply tacitly that everyone should make a contribution to starting the meeting, even though the content of that contribution can be virtually anything (see “Check-In, Check-Out: A Tool for ‘Real’ Conversations,” May 1994).

WAYS OF TALKING TOGETHER

The facilitator has a choice about how much theoretical input to provide during a dialogue session. To determine what concepts to introduce when, I have drawn a road map of the dialogue process based on Bill Isaacs’ model, which describes conversation in terms of two basic paths — dialogue and discussion.

Deeper Listening

As a conversation develops in the group, there inevitably comes a point where we sense some form of disconfirmation. Our point is not understood, or we face disagreement, challenge, or attack. At that moment, we usually respond with anxiety and/or anger, though we may be barely aware of it. Our first choice, then, is whether to allow that feeling to surface and trust that it is legitimate.

As we become more aware of these choices, we also become aware of the possibility that the feeling might have been triggered by our perception of what the others in the group did, and that these perceptions could be incorrect. Before we give in to anxiety and/or anger, therefore, we must determine whether we accurately interpreted the data. Were we, in fact, being challenged or attacked?

This moment is critical. As we become more reflective, we begin to realize how much our initial perceptions can be colored by expectations based on our cultural learning and past experiences. We do not always accurately perceive what is “out there.” What we perceive is often based on our needs, expectations, projections, and, most of all, our culturally learned assumptions and categories of thought. Thus the first challenge of really listening to others is to identify the distortions and bias that filter our own cognitive processes. We have to learn to listen to ourselves before we can really understand others. Such internal listening is, of course, especially difficult if one is in the midst of an active, task-oriented discussion. Dialogue, however, opens up the space for such reflection to occur.

Once we realize that our perception itself may not be accurate, we face a second, more fundamental choice — whether actively to explore our perception by asking what the person really meant, explaining ourselves further, or in some other way focusing specifically on the person who produced the disconfirming event. As we have all experienced, choosing to confront the situation immediately can quickly polarize the conversation around a few people and a few issues.

An alternative choice is to “suspend” our feelings to see what more will come up from ourselves and from others. What this means in the group is that when I am upset by what someone else says, I have a genuine choice between (1) voicing my reaction and (2) letting the matter go by suspending my own reaction. Suspending assumptions is particularly difficult if we perceive that our point has been misunderstood or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, I have found repeatedly that if I suspend my assumption, I find that further conversation clarifies the issue and that my own interpretation of what was going on is validated or changed without my having actively to intervene.

When a number of members of the group begin to suspend their own reactions, the group begins to go down the left-hand path toward dialogue. In contrast, when a number of members choose to react by immediately disagreeing, elaborating, questioning, or otherwise focusing on a particular trigger that set them off, the group goes down the path of discussion and eventually gets mired in unproductive debate.

Suspending assumptions allows for reflection, which is very similar to the emphasis in group dynamics training on observing the “here and now.” Bill Isaacs suggests that what we need is proprioception — attention to and living in the moment. Ultimately, dialogue helps us achieve a state in which we know our thoughts at the moment we have them. Whether proprioception is psychologically possible is debatable, but the basic idea is to shorten the internal feedback loop as much as possible. As a result, we can become conscious of how much our thoughts and perceptions are a function of both our past learning and the immediate events that trigger it. This learning is difficult at best, yet it lies at the heart of the ability to enter dialogue.

Group Dynamics

The dynamics of “building the group” occur parallel to the process of conducting the dialogue. Issues of identity, role, influence, group goals, norms of openness and intimacy, and questions of authority all have to be addressed, though much of this occurs implicitly rather than explicitly. The group usually displays all of the classical issues that occur around authority vis-à-vis the facilitator: Will the facilitator tell us what to do? Will we do what we are told? Does the facilitator have the answers and is withholding them, or is he or she exploring along with the rest of us? At what point can we function without the facilitator?

Issues of group growth and development have to be dealt with if they interfere with or confuse the dialogue process. The facilitator should therefore be skilled in group facilitation, so that the issues can be properly sorted into two categories: those that have to do with the development of the dialogue, and those that have to do with the development of the group. In my own experience, the dialogue process speeds up the development of the group and should therefore be the primary driving process in each meeting. A major reason for this acceleration is that dialogue creates psychological safety and thus allows individual and group change to occur, assuming that some motivation to change is already present (see “Containment”).

The group may initially experience dialogue as a detour from or a slowing down of problem solving. But real change does not happen until people feel psychologically safe, and the implicit or explicit norms that are articulated in a dialogue session provide that safety by giving people both a sense of direction and a sense that the dangerous aspects of interaction will be contained. If the group can work on the task or problem using the dialogue format, it should be able to reach a valid level of communication much faster.

Task vs. Process

Once a group experiences dialogue, the process tends to feed on itself. In several cases, I have been in groups that chose to stay in a circle and continue in a dialogue mode even as they tackled concrete tasks with time limits. I would hypothesize, however, that unless a dialogue group is formed specifically for the purpose of learning about itself, it eventually needs some other larger purpose to sustain itself. Continuing to meet in a dialogue format probably does not work once members have mastered the basic skills.The core task or ultimate problem, then, is likely to be the reason the group met in the first place.

Dialogue is, by definition, a process that has meaning only in a group.

The best way to think about dialogue is as a group process that arises initially out of the individual participants’ personal skills or attitudes. Dialogue is, by definition, a process that has meaning only in a group. Several people have to collaborate with each other for dialogue to occur. But this collaboration rests on individual choice, based on a certain attitude toward how to get the most out of a conversation and on certain skills of reflection and suspension. Once the group has gained those attitudes and skills collectively, it is possible to have even highly time-sensitive problem solving meetings in a dialogue format.

Most people have a general sense of what dialogue is about and have experienced versions of it in their past relationships. Therefore, even in a problem-solving meeting, a facilitator may suggest that the group experiment with dialogue. In my own experience, I have found it best to introduce early on in a meeting the idea that there are always assumptions behind our comments and perceptions, and that our problem-solving process will be improved if we get in touch with these assumptions. Consequently, if the conversation turns into too much of a discussion or debate, I can legitimately raise the question of whether or not the disagreement is based on different assumptions, and then explore those assumptions explicitly. Continually focusing the group on the cognitive categories and underlying assumptions of conversation is, from this point of view, the central role of the facilitator.

One of the ultimate tests of the importance of dialogue will be whether or not difficult, conflict-ridden problems can be handled better in groups that have learned to function in a dialogue mode. Because severe conflicts are almost always the result of cultural or subcultural differences, I would assume that initial dialogue in some form will always be necessary. Dialogue cannot force the conflicting groups into the room together, but once they are there, it holds promise for finding the common ground needed to resolve the conflicts.

Edgar H. Schein is Sloan Fellows professor of management emeritus and a senior lecturer at the Sloan School of Management. He chairs the board of the MIT Organizational Learning Center and is the author of numerous books on organization development, such as Process Consultation, Vol. 1 and 2 (Addison-Wesley, 1987, 1988).

This article is edited from “On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning” by Edgar H. Schein, which appeared in the Autumn 1993 issue of Organizational Dynamics. Reprinted with permission of the publisher, American Management Association, New York, NY. © 1993.All rights reserved.

The post The Process of Dialogue: Creating Effective Communication appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

One reason is that each team member brings to the group fundamental differences in his or her way of working and seeing that are usually not recognized and accommodated. These differences can create discomfort or conflict that consumes energy rather than releasing it for creativity and new learning. When the differences are known and understood, however, they can be utilized for superior team functioning.

For example, imagine that a four person team has been assigned the task of creating a human resource development training program for their organization. It becomes clear from the outset that each member has a distinctly different point of view. Even before they get into the assignment, one team member wants definitions — he wants to know precisely what is meant by the terms “human resources” and “development,” and what the long-term purpose of the training is.

Another person believes it is more critical to know what has been done in the past — she wants more data to set the context for considering next steps. She asks what has worked in the past and what the measurable results have been.

The third member of the group is most focused on assessing and promoting the comfort level of each team member, including himself. He wants to feel that the group is harmonized before they discuss the task. He is concerned with the individual relevance of the proposed program, and the personal implications for the people who will participate in it.

Finally, the fourth member of the team simply wants to move forward. She can’t understand why the team doesn’t just begin with something innovative and untested. It is evident to her that human resources requires sustained development, so she thinks, “Why all the discussion? Let’s put out some ideas and take some action.”

As each team member works to resolve his or her own needs, conflict builds within the group. None of the members can understand why the others are not “hearing” them. The frustration gradually builds until it reaches a point at which the group may not be able to address the task effectively.

Human Dynamics

Underneath the dynamics described above are some fundamental distinctions in the way people function. The study of Human Dynamics, which began in 1979 and has involved more than 40,000 people from over 25 cultures, is devoted to understanding these distinctions. It has resulted in new awareness — both of individuals’ unique personality systems and of the interactions of these systems in the larger contexts of the family, the classroom, the workplace, and the community. With such an understanding, we can begin to build on the synergy of different learning processes to enhance our dialogues and to create more effective teams and organizations.

The Core Universal Principles

Human Dynamics focuses on exploring the interaction of three universal principles: the mental, the emotional (or relational), and the physical (or practical). Each of these principles is critical in the development of a complete and balanced person.

The mental principle in the human system is related to the mind — to thinking, values, structure, focus, objectivity, and perspective. The emotional principle is more subjective. It is concerned with relationships — with communication, organization, feelings, and putting things together in new ways (creativity). The physical principle is pragmatic. It is the making, doing, and operationalizing part of ourselves.

These three principles combine in nine possible variations to form distinct ways of functioning, which we term “personality dynamics.” Five of these personality dynamics predominate in Western cultures, while two of the five predominate in the Far East. Each constitutes a whole way of functioning, characterized by distinctive processes of learning, communicating, problem-solving, relating to others, contributing to teams, maintaining well-being, and responding to stress. Each has distinctive ways of handling change, and each has a characteristic path of development.

The personality dynamics appear in every culture, characterize males and females equally, and can be observed at every age level. One of the many distinguishing features of the Human Dynamics perspective is that it is possible to identify the personality dynamic in childhood, even in infancy, thus providing invaluable information for parents and teachers on the specific educational and developmental needs of their children and students. Part of the research has involved tracking the development of children over the course of many years. The personality dynamic remains consistent over time, but is expressed with increasing maturity.

It is essential to understand that Human Dynamics is a developmental paradigm. Every personality dynamic has an embedded capacity for maturation, though the path of development toward wholeness is distinct for each. A spiritual dimension, termed the Deep Capacity, is also recognized. Maturation involves integration and development of the mental, emotional, and physical aspects of each personality dynamic, and fuller expression of the Deep Capacity.

Another distinctive feature of the Human Dynamics approach is that no testing is required. People identify their own personality dynamic through a process of discovery, and are helped to recognize the personality dynamics of others through sensitive observation and participation.

It is important to note that each personality dynamic is of equal value. Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, compassionate, skilled, or gifted. It is the way in which each dynamic functions that is entirely distinct.

The implications of recognizing these distinctions for the development of learning communities is profound. People really do learn, communicate, relate, and develop in fundamentally different ways. Awareness and understanding of the distinctions offer new opportunities for self-understanding and growth; for improved communication and positive relationships; and for teamwork that utilizes the gifts of each member in conscious synergy. Each whole system potentially complements the others, enhancing the overall functioning of a team or organization.

Personality Dynamics

Below are thumbnail sketches of each of the five predominant personality dynamics, with particular emphasis on their functioning in teams:

Mentally Centered. The mentally centered plan from the top down, from the abstract to the particular, and back again. They usually have a gift for long-range perspective and for logical planning to achieve long-term goals. They ask the essential questions, often beginning with “Why?”

Their sensitivity to basic principles and precepts enables them to offer “course correction” should a group begin to stray from its purpose or vision. Because of their natural objectivity and affinity for perspective, they are often able to articulate the principle or overarching consideration that unifies seemingly disparate views.

However, they may often be silent in a group. One reason for this is that they typically feel no need to articulate a point if someone else is making it. Also, because they process internally, think logically, and like to articulate their point of view precisely, they may have difficulty finding space to contribute in a less orderly group process. Their silence should not be interpreted as aloofness or non-involvement. They can be helped to contribute if asked questions.

Phrases commonly used by mentally centered people include: “What exactly is the purpose?” “What are the long-term implications?” “What exactly do you mean by…?”

Emotional-Mental (also called Emotional-Objective.) Emotional objective people are emotional about their ideas, which they often express with great intensity. One of the main functions of this group is to initiate; they light the fires of new endeavors. Movement is their inner directive. They want to establish the direction of a task, its purpose and value, and then move into action as soon as possible, learning as they go. They are usually adept at creating beginning structures that allow a process to take form.

Theirs is a brainstorming, experimental, open-ended “R&D” process in which new possibilities and lines of inquiry are offered and explored, typically directed toward the short-term future. It is often assumed that this group wants to “take charge,” when in fact they are usually simply living their natural function of breaking new ground.

The processing of emotional objective people is primarily external — they think on their feet. In teams, this group frequently begins the discussion, facilitates the interplay of ideas, and wants to keep the process moving forward. Phrases you may hear from emotional-objective people include: “Let’s put all the ideas on the board and prioritize.” “The details can wait–first let’s create a general structure.” “It’s good enough.” “Let’s go!”

Emotional-Physical (also called Emotional-Subjective). Emotional subjective people respond to tasks (as to all of life) in a personal way. They feel the personal implications of any undertaking, both for themselves and for others who may be involved or affected. In order to explore, understand, and become comfortable with these implications, they need time to engage in extensive intrapersonal and interpersonal processing. They require dialogue that involves exploring their own feelings and those of others, as well as related personal experiences, while at the same time dealing with the problem or assignment itself. They learn most readily through interpersonal exchange.

One of the core motivations of emotional-subjective people is to create and sustain harmony. In a team situation they therefore have a double task — that of maintaining group harmony while simultaneously addressing the team’s purposes and issues. Emotional-subjective people are usually highly insightful regarding the “people issues” involved. They are highly intuitive, but are not always able to explain these feelings rationally in the moment. Given time for processing, the emotional-subjective person will usually come to a rational understanding of his/her intuition and be able to recommend an appropriate action. The intuitive capacities and creative skills of emotional-subjective people are natural resources that organizations often waste.

Phrases that are familiar to emotional-subjective people are: “Is that comfortable for you?” “I need time to process before I can take another step.” “My gut feeling is…”.

Physical-Emotional. Physical-emotional people are natural systems thinkers. In any undertaking, they spend the longest time gathering data, assimilating and synthesizing it — an organic process that mostly takes place internally, and takes its own time. The result, if sufficient time is allowed, is a plan or product that is detailed, comprehensive, and systemically linked.

On teams, physical-emotional members are often people of few words, preferring communication that is factual, down-to-earth, and pragmatic. It is sometimes difficult for them to contribute to a team process if the pace is not sufficiently deliberate, but because they see and think in terms of whole systems, they may have a great deal to say on any particular issue if they are given the opportunity. They absorb enormous amounts of factual information, and their capacity to remember detail is usually prodigious. They are capable of summing up the content of any meeting because they are natural recorders of everything said. However, they may not be ready to give their conclusions regarding the meeting until a later occasion, when they have had time to assimilate all that has occurred.

Phrases you might hear from a physical-emotional person include: “I need some sense of the parameters.” “Can you give me more context?” “We need to expose them to the actual experience, not just talk about it.”

Physical-Mental. The physical-mental group shares many of the characteristics of the physical-emotional group. They, too, are pragmatic, need a considerable amount of context, and take in a great deal of information. However, they are more selective of the data they take in and begin to structure it more quickly around the purpose, which they want to clearly establish from the beginning. Like the physical-emotional, they think and plan systemically, but in less detail. They therefore tend to move to action more quickly.

Like the mentally centered, they have natural gifts for objectivity, structure, and long-range strategic planning. Unlike the mentally centered, however, they tend to work from the concrete to the abstract — from current reality to future outcomes — so they gather more factual detail. Phrases you might hear from a physical-mental person include: “What is the purpose?” “What is the current reality?” “Let’s make a model to clarify this…”.

Human Dynamics and the Five Disciplines

Human Dynamics provides a foundation of human understanding and development that facilitates implementation of each of the five disciplines identified by Peter Senge as crucial in building learning communities.

Systems Thinking. Human Dynamics offers the opportunity for including in any process the most fundamental system of all, the human system. Human Dynamics looks at people as distinct learning systems. Each individual is acknowledged as representing a specific whole system of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual interaction and expression. Further, each personality dynamic system is recognized as functioning as an essential component of an interactive system that includes all of the personality dynamics. Not only are the needs and gifts and processes of all of the individual personality dynamics taken into account, but so is their dynamic complementarity. Groups on any scale, whether a family unit, project team, organization, or even the human race, can be viewed as a system of interaction of the different personality dynamics.

Mental Models. Human Dynamics demonstrates how each of the personality dynamics operates from a fundamentally distinct experiential base. Therefore, each brings to any discussion or endeavor a specific perspective and set of assumptions that differ from those of the other personality dynamics. One purpose of the Human Dynamics work is to make these distinctions clear, so that an individual’s words or actions can be understood in the context of that person’s basic “way of being.” This helps assure greater mutual understanding and more empathic communication.

Personal Mastery. Every aspect of Human Dynamics is concerned with personal mastery, beginning with the most essential requisite of all — knowledge of oneself. Human Dynamics programs involve a voyage of discovery — about oneself, others, and the different processes of communication, problem-solving, learning, and developing, and about what can be done in light of these discoveries to optimize how we live and learn and work together.

Human Dynamics looks at people as distinct learning systems. Each individual is acknowledged as representing a specific whole system of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual interaction and expression.

Shared Vision. The quality of a shared vision depends upon the visionary capacity of the individual participants. From the perspective of Human Dynamics, the capacity for vision is an attribute of the mental principle. However, the vision must also include people’s needs (emotional principle) and a way to bring the vision into being (physical principle). Combining exercises for the development of the three principles in a visioning session can produce a much more inclusive and qualitative personal or collective vision, in which head, heart, deep aspiration, and actualizing intent are all represented.

Team Learning. Awareness and understanding of the different personality dynamics is an essential ingredient in qualitative team functioning.

The team developing the human resource training program, for example, would have begun their process at a completely different place of understanding, respect, and empowerment if they had had a framework for understanding each other’s ways of learning and operating. This particular team was fortunate to have the diversity of perspective of one mentally centered, one physical-emotional, one emotional-subjective, and one emotional objective person. However, without a framework for understanding and integrating their distinct gifts so as to achieve a common goal, the group became mired in a frustrating and unproductive process.

Not only can existing teams learn to function more harmoniously and productively, but balanced teams can be consciously assembled in which the various personality dynamics are all represented. As many organizations are currently discovering, such a team can turn its attention to almost anything with success because the results will integrate the natural gifts and way of seeing of each of the personality dynamics.

When teams (or families, groups, or communities) are conscious of the distinctions, the differences become assets rather than liabilities, and the performance of the team indeed becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Human Dynamics programs are currently being disseminated in the fields of business, education, healthcare, and community development.

Sandra Seagal is founder and president of Human Dynamics International (Topanga, CA) and executive director of Human Dynamics Foundation. Both organizations are devoted to the development, empowerment, and sustainment of individual and collective human potential.

David Horne has been involved in the development of Human Dynamics since 1983.Together they coauthored Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations (Pegasus Communications, 1997).

The post Human Dynamics: A Foundation for the Learning Organization appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Network thinking has brought about vast improvements in efficiency in all these sectors. But while such ideas have had an enormous impact on technology, we have yet to see comparable gains in understanding social systems. Social networking software and websites such as MySpace claim to provide a meaningful way to bring people together from around the world in virtual communities. However, these Internet-based solutions have gained a negative reputation for harboring child predators and others who take advantage of the web’s anonymity to deceive their victims. The purpose of this article is to introduce the history, scientific theory, and research behind how true value is created in social networks — and to provide ideas for starting to leverage this knowledge for the good of organizations and beyond.

Not in My Space!

Over the past few years, social networking websites have exploded seemingly out of nowhere. MySpace, which was founded less than four years ago, now has more than 100 million users. PC Magazine defines social networking as “a web site that provides a virtual community for people interested in a subject. It provides a way for members to communicate by voice, chat, instant message, videoconference and blogs.” The use of social networking software to form relationships online is a logical extension of the Internet’s communication capabilities. All indicators suggest that social networking providers will continue to flourish, even as new technologies emerge that improve virtual connections, such as Web 2.0 (web-based communities and hosted services that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users) and telepresence services.

But the popularity of existing services is being shadowed by concerns of child predation and social deception. Four families are suing MySpace after their underage daughters were sexually abused by adults they met through the site. Congress introduced the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, and although it did not pass the Senate, it is likely to be considered again by the 110th Congress.

Beyond concern over legal liability for the actions of people who use their services for criminal purposes, technology companies need to take into account their brand image. Over the long run, those that allow antisocial behavior to flourish — even if it’s through benign neglect — will likely be less successful than those who promote social well-being. In an ever-more crowded marketplace, the adoption of socially responsible technologies will become an important new competitive differentiator.

While technologies such as MySpace claim to be novel social networking solutions, the science of studying and understanding social networks has been developing for at least 100 years. By applying this rich body of work to the business world, I have found that value is created in collaborative social systems that run across a company’s traditional organizational chart. Enterprises that learn how to create an environment that accelerates the functioning of such networks through mutual acceptance, respect, and co-inspiration will realize large gains in performance and the well-being of their workforce. While current social networking technologies are likely to become passé as new technologies emerge, our understanding of social networks will become a core competency for organizations that find themselves in an integrated global economy.

Social Network Mapping vs. Social Network Analysis

The father of social network measurement was J. L. Moreno, M. D., an Austrian gestalt psychiatrist who, in 1915, began charting social relations by drawing “sociograms” that showed group relations as line drawings connecting people. In developing “sociometry,” now referred to as social network mapping, Moreno sought to study social groups in order to recognize and acknowledge the value of each person. Moreno was influenced by George Herbert Mead, who developed qualitative research methods, and by the American educator John Dewey. Dewey saw individuals as inseparable from their social context, just as society is meaningless apart from its realization in the lives of its individual members. Additionally, just as Dewey influenced W. E. Deming and Walter Shewhart in the creation of continuous quality improvement processes, he also influenced Moreno to use social measurement as an action science to continuously improve social well-being.

Sociologists and anthropologists use social network measurement to uncover the overall structure of a social system. In this context, a system can be small, like a family or a manufacturing line, or large, like trade balances among nations. With this knowledge of the interrelationships and social rules in a given culture, social scientists can better understand, for instance, the spread of HIV, with the goal of stopping the epidemic.

Analysis is defined as the decomposition of the whole, so social network analysis, as practiced today, generally focuses on individuals and their roles. For example, someone with many more social connections than others might be described as a “hub.” In contrast, I have followed the path of what I call social action research in order to understand the science of social systems and how human communities generate social, biological, and financial well-being. Instead of observing a network from the outside, following Moreno’s methodology, social action researchers invite everyone in a group to join them in reflecting on their daily actions by employing qualitative research practices, such as participant observation and unstructured interviews, to generate survey questions.

This process is useful in at least two ways. First, managers can refer to the maps when creating strategies and planning work processes to ensure that they enhance rather than detract from the working of the social networks involved. Second, when employees are asked for their views on how they are creating value for their organization, they feel respected, important, and inspired to perform at an even higher level.

Construction of Social Network Graphs

In business, the survey questions employed in social action research typically refer to the creation of value. For example, the following questions were used in studies at Hewlett Packard:

“With whom have you collaborated on the_______________?”

• reduction of quality escalations in inkjet supplies
• ink-elastomer chemical interaction studies
• development of HP’s first digital projector
• creation of product detection software
• sale of computers and servers

The quality of social network data depends on the relevance, timeliness, and validity of the questions used. The survey is designed for individuals to complete. It includes the name of the person completing the survey, the date, the question, and a table for them to identify those with whom they collaborate, how often they collaborate, and the role or location of those they have identified. As surveys are returned, the individuals named are also sent the same survey to complete. This process continues until no new people have been identified (snowball sampling) or until the group decides to suspend the surveying.

The collected data is then compiled. Usually, a social network with a given kind of interaction among a group of people is graphically depicted by a number of points connected by lines. In traditional graphs, each point is called a “node,” representing a person, and each line is called a “connection,” representing relationships between people. In social action research, dots are replaced with the names of people. The lines also have arrows indicating who identified whom as a network member. Finally, each connection can be associated with a value, which usually is the frequency of contact or interaction.

In this example, the social network data shows a relationship between Dennis, Maria, and Yan. Dennis and Maria, and Maria and Yan, have the strongest connections because they meet most frequently and share reciprocal interactions. At the same time, the relationship between Dennis and Yan is the weakest, because it is unidirectional and less frequent.

But we must be careful in making sweeping generalizations using social network graphs. For example, there can be value in weak ties. In our example, it could be that Dennis had valuable information that Yan needed to complete a work assignment. Our explanations of social network graphs must be validated by those involved in the study, which is again why the qualitative research is so important in preceding the social network survey.

Study of Social Network Graphs

Once the social network graph is constructed, it is shared with those participating in the study. This is a reflective process, as those involved in the network validate the quality of the data and in turn respond to its findings. Perhaps the study reveals that an important position is missing from the network, and participants take action to “fill the hole.” In response to another study, employees may choose to expand the number of connections within a social network; for example, a company that becomes more customer centered by shifting the structure of their social networks to include customers.

Following are some of the traditional features of social network graphics that can offer valuable information about their functioning and sources of leverage for change:

Density

Density is a measure of overall connectedness. It is arrived at by dividing the number of ties by the number of possible ties between people.

In this example, there are 5 ties between Maria, Peter, Dennis, and Katy out of 12 possible ties, so the density of this social network is .42. Density measures fall between 0 and 1.0, with 1.0 representing the greatest density or connectedness. The higher the density, the stronger the connections between team members. A low density score could potentially show conflict in the group or structural barriers that prevent members from communicating effectively.

Centrality

Centrality is considered a measure of power, importance, or influence in social networks. It is derived simply by counting the number of connections a person has. In this example, Maria is the most “central” person in the network, followed by Chris and Darla, with Dennis, Katy, and Peter being the least central. Here again, we would rely on the qualitative interviews to learn more about Maria’s role. In some studies, we have found that the person in Maria’s position is a program manager that everyone depends on to keep them on track. Perhaps Maria is the supervisor of Dennis, Katy, and Darla and peer of Chris and Peter. In yet another context, Maria might be the creator of a rumor that is circulating about the office.

Structural Holes

When I use social network mapping as a learning process, those in the network construct and examine the maps themselves. Participants commonly observe structural holes — individuals missing from the diagram who have the potential to contribute to the network’s performance. In one case, a manager was called in to mitigate conflicts between Hewlett-Packard and a plastics supplier. He witnessed long, grueling meetings between the two organizations where little if anything was accomplished. The manager opened his journal and drew this picture representing the engineers in his organization and in the vendor’s organization:

His sociogram showed connections within the organizations but more importantly showed structural holes between the two organizations. With engineers from both organizations present, the manager drew connections for all to see, suggesting that team members from both organizations should work as one team. As the age-old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, quite literally the picture was worth thousands of dollars. Engineers from the two companies immediately began to fill the “holes” by collaborating, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next year.

Social Systems and Living Systems

I have presented a number of traditional social network concepts. When looking at social network graphics, it is important to realize that, like photographs, they are snapshots of how social networks have formed. Social networks are constantly changing, and our greatest leverage lies in understanding them from a perspective of living systems. As currently practiced by many consultants using tools such as those described above, social network analysis is the separation of a social network into its component parts. It attempts to describe or make comments about an individual’s role within a network. So, going back to the social network in which Maria played a central role, an analysis might conclude that Dennis is an isolated “node” in the network and should be more of a team player. Or from a knowledge management perspective, Maria may be seen as a “hub” in the network and therefore should be promoted.

This approach can have value, but to me, it doesn’t go far enough in generating a systemic understanding of social networks. I have found that insights from the study of living systems and cognition provide the philosophical explanations for a deep understanding of social systems.

In 1951, social scientist Gregory Bateson reconceived psychiatric practices by describing a way of viewing the world that shifted from focusing on:

1. parts to the whole,
2. categorization to integration,
3. the individual to interactions,
4. systems outside the observer to systems that include the observer.

This shift was an initial step in leading us away from analysis and separation to systems thinking. But from my perspective, the most profound contributors to understanding social systems are the co-founders of the Matriztic Institute, Dr. Humberto Maturana and Professor Ximena Davila. They explain in great detail how human beings are born to collaborate and how we can move from a culture of pain and suffering to a culture of well-being through what they describe as “liberating conversations.” To me, this perspective offers new questions and insights into the value and practice of studying social networks. Based on their work, we begin our research with a simple statement: “Everything that is said is said by an observer.” We follow up with a fundamental question: “How do I do what I do as an observer of systems?”

This last question in particular is vital, because it brings forth the role of the observer in the social system they are reflecting upon. When someone interested in a particular network realizes that, whatever they do to the network, they do to themselves, too, they are likely to take socially responsible actions. In studying the work of Maturana and Davila, we also learn that social systems are dynamic and that anything that occurs in the social system is determined by its underlying structure.

Studying social systems is an important departure for organizations. Since the late 1800s, we have been accustomed to see organizations as machines. In the Industrial Age, the physical sciences became the frame of reference for guiding economic growth. Using scientific tools of separation, specialization, analysis, and reductionism, a new image of organizations emerged: the organizational, or org, chart. The org chart depicts hierarchy and areas of specialization. Although some still believe that organizations function based on the structures shown in these charts, many people are finding that the life sciences lead to a more valid understanding of social systems in organizations today. This shift in perspective raises new possibilities by leveraging the concepts of self-organization, collaboration, inter- and intra-organizational social networks, and multidimensionality.

Self-Organization

Are social networks static or dynamic? This is not a trivial question. Managing an organization’s effectiveness will depend on the answer to this question. If you believe that social networks are static, you will presume that relationships are always the same. If, however, you believe that social networks are dynamic, you will want to continually refresh your assumptions about how value is being created. Social action research or practices such as management by walking around become critical learning processes for understanding collective knowledge.

By mapping social networks over time, I have found that they are dynamic and constantly changing, even if the members stay the same. People self-organize as employees create new connections, weaken old connections, and so on in response to new opportunities. Self-organization is an important systemic principle, because performance and productivity are maximized as those within the social network have the freedom to organize their own relationships. You might think of self-organization as the antithesis of bureaucracy. Research has shown that the greatest reward for employees is making a timely contribution to their company, and self-organization is the group process for doing so. (See illustration above.)

Collaboration

Humans are social beings. We can pick out a familiar face among hundreds of pedestrians. At a very early age, infants recognize facial patterns. Biologically, facial recognition stimulates a neural network in the amygdala region of the mid-brain, which is also the center of our emotions. Neuroscientists claim that more than 90 percent of the information we receive from others we obtain through facial expression and body language. Unlike any other species, humans are neurologically wired to be social.

As Maturana and Davila have described, we humans are loving beings and are biologically structured to collaborate. This relationship of mutual acceptance expanded as humans formed groups to survive. Through this innate social behavior, we can accomplish tasks without having to spend time deciding on what group structure is most fitting. While companies spend a fortune on organizing their workforce, social systems require no funding or intervening because of their biological nature.

Social network structure varies. Some networks are based on command and control or dominant and obedient relationships. Other networks are distributive in nature, such as the rumor mill that exists in most organizations. Collaborative social networks are social systems in which everyone is accepted as a legitimate member by everyone else. They are cohesive and natural, and are the source of social capital or optimal group productivity. These systems are also the source of value creation, innovation, and performance breakthrough. This illustration shows optimal cohesion, as every member of the social network is connected to every other member in a seamless support system they created for a man with disabilities.

Whenever I have studied how value is created in the workplace, I have mapped collaborative social systems. In our expanding global economy, the performance challenge for executives is to create the conditions for collaboration to occur. Research has shown this can be done by (1) giving employees the freedom to organize themselves and (2) generating reflective conversations on how value is created.

Inter- and Intra-Organizational Social Networks

The theory that underlies most org charts is that work flows from the top of the organization down through the ranks. However, studies of how work actually gets done have consistently shown that it happens in social systems that span the organizational chart horizontally, not vertically. For a department in a large enterprise, I have plotted the collaborative social networks across the organization chart, shown above in blue shading.

The boundaries of value-creating social systems do not end within the organization. I have also studied collaboration in social systems that include two or more organizations. The rejection of plastics created by outside vendors for Hewlett-Packard’s inkjet cartridges was completely eliminated during the most aggressive inkjet cartridge launch in HP’s history, in part due to a collaborative network that included four Hewlett-Packard sites, two formerly competitive plastic suppliers, and subject matter experts. These parties worked closely in developing the use of transducers in plastic injection molding processes.

In another instance, in Puerto Rico, a network of HP engineers and engineers from their supplier Nypro joined forces on a project that refurbished worn manufacturing line parts instead of throwing them into local landfills. This network of collaboration had multiple effects. First, the initiative created social well-being by giving participants the freedom to innovate and the joy of accomplishment. Second, it generated biological well-being, as the factory no longer dumped heavy metals into Puerto Rico’s already taxed landfill waste dumps. Finally, it led to financial wellbeing by saving HP hundreds of thousands of dollars. You might recognize this example as the one cited earlier in the article in which the manager identified structural holes and asked engineers from both organizations to collaborate. In doing so, they saved HP more than $700,000.

Multidimensionality

As social beings, we coordinate our actions in conversations within closed systems that include other business units, vendors, universities, family, and friends in a continuously changing present. This statement challenges our traditional thoughts of the org chart network, isolated internally and externally, as the source of value creation. In his 1982 book, Out of the Crisis, W. Edwards Deming drew an alternative value-production system as a network of suppliers->producers->consumers. In my work, I have found that our networks are multidimensional; for example, in the HP example cited above, those in the social system generated business results but also social and biological well-being.

The illustration at the bottom of page 5 shows the social system of people supporting a man with disabilities who grew up in a state institution. By providing this man with the support he needed to have a job, the network brought his productivity to 100 percent with perfect quality. In doing so, they improved his wages from $0 at the state institution to more than $1,500/month plus benefits, enabling him to leave welfare and public assistance. This shift allowed the man to move from the institution, which cost tax-payers $80,000/year, to his own community, where he became a taxpayer and owned his own condominium. His case is a prime example of how to leverage living, multidimensional, collaborative systems and, in the process, create value and well-being.

Systems Laws

The work of the Matriztic Institute goes a step further to describe systemic laws that can expand our understanding and application of social systems thinking.

Structural Determination

Imagine going to the stadium to watch your favorite sports team, or perhaps you are at a concert hall getting ready to listen to a symphony. You anticipate an extraordinary performance and then learn that an exemplary player has been replaced. Your immediate response may be incredulity. You may think, “How could they perform without this person?” If you do not find an adequate explanation for your question or if you aren’t satisfied with the substitute, you may become disappointed and critical.

Your disappointment in this instance stems from an innate understanding of the law of structural determination. As explained by Maturana and Davila, structural determination states that everything that occurs in a system is determined by the system’s structure. Engineers will immediately understand this concept. They are experts at developing new products as a system and making sure that the interconnected parts are structurally compatible. The same law can be applied to social systems, such as a team, an orchestra, or a workplace. In these settings, performance is determined by the structure of the social network. If critical people are missing, performance will suffer. If there is a lack of collaboration among members of the network, group productivity will diminish, and cost will increase. Emotions will turn from excitement to disappointment as participants and other stakeholders realize that the output may not be of the caliber they had anticipated.

These things often occur in the workplace through restructuring, reorganization, and voluntary workforce reductions. In one case, I mapped a social network that was generating new IT products. First one person and then two others were assigned new roles in the company. The executive in charge of the new IT products noticed a slowing of performance, and it took those remaining in the network months to reorganize their efforts. By understanding social network mapping and the systemic law of structural determination, executives can anticipate how changes to a network will affect its efficiency and overall performance.

Conservation

To exist in the rapidly growing global economy, companies are told they need to keep up with the competitive environment they find themselves in. New management concepts and abstractions are continually emerging to guide organizations through these complex, dynamic challenges. To capitalize on these innovative methodologies and perspectives, managers are told they must promote an internal culture of change. But the management literature tends to focus on new concepts instead of understanding how work is done.

I propose that managers must learn how value is created in our networked world. Although change is inevitable, it is equally important to conserve those practices that improve efficiency, value creation, and well-being in collaborative social systems. When initiatives inadvertently disrupt the network of relationships through which work is accomplished, they can backfire and leave the company even more vulnerable to outside pressures than before.

Research has shown that value is created in dynamic, collaborative social systems that connect people across business units, companies, continents, and cultures. To be successful in the global economy, organizations will need to develop new practices based on understanding social systems.

Although change is inevitable, it is equally important to conserve those practices that improve efficiency, value creation, and well-being in collaborative social systems.

Unfortunately, technological developments labeled as social networking can actually obscure our understanding.

The work of Humberto Maturana and Ximena Davila expands our knowledge of social systems. This knowledge will have positive effects on organizations of all kinds. First, by developing practices that support self-organizing social systems, managers will improve organizational efficiencies through productivity gains. Second, because the quality of our social systems translates to the quality of our knowledge, reflective studies of social systems will lead to financial, social, and biological well-being. Finally, as we reflect on our social nature, we discover that we too live our lives in social networks. Through this insight, we become socially responsible and generate greater social well-being.

Dennis Sandow is president of Reflexus Company, a research company studying performance and knowledge creation in collaborative social systems. Prior to starting Reflexus, Dennis conducted research on social networks and social capital at the University of Oregon. Dennis is a research member of the Society for Organizational Learning and lives in Oregon with his wife and two adult children.

The post Extending Systems Thinking to Social Systems appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

What Is Human Dynamics?

Human Dynamics is a body of work that identifies and illuminates innate distinctions in the way people function as whole systems that include mental, emotional, and physical dimensions. It is the result of an ongoing investigation launched 24 years ago that has so far involved more than 80,000 people from over 25 cultures. From this research, we discovered that three universal principles – mental, emotional, and physical – combine in people in specific patterns characterized by distinctly different ways of processing information, learning, communicating, relating to others, solving problems, undertaking tasks, and, as a result, exercising leadership and contributing to groups or teams. These different “ways of being” appear to be so foundational in the human make-up that they can be seen the world over, identified at every age level (even in infancy), and observed in males and females equally. In other words, these distinctions are more fundamental to who we are and how we function than age, race, culture, or gender.

We have identified nine of these distinct human systems, or “personality dynamics.” Of these, five appear to be by far the most prevalent. The individuals representing these groups have characteristic gifts and affinities for certain ways of functioning. They flourish and contribute best under certain conditions. Most importantly, they have their own distinctive paths of development.

Being aware of and understanding these natural, inherent differences is significant for developing successful and effective human relationships of all kinds – for leading and partnering with others in the workplace, for developing loving and supportive family relationships, and for successful teaching and learning. When we don’t recognize and take into account these differences, we fall prey to misunderstanding others and misinterpreting their behavior; poor communication; less than optimum teamwork; and, in class and training settings, teaching approaches that do not “match” students’ specific learning processes. When we do understand the differences, the way is open for us to acknowledge and appreciate diverse ways of functioning; to see and adapt to others’ needs; and to relate, manage, and teach in ways that enable each group member to perform at his or her best. We are able to consciously utilize our own and others’ distinctive processes and capacities to achieve optimal individual and group performance.

The Three Principles

Let us first briefly explain what we mean when we refer to each of the three principles – mental, emotional, and physical. The Mental Principle is related to the mind. It is expressed in thinking, seeing things from a detached perspective, formulating a purpose or vision, seeing the overview, setting structure, and establishing principles and values.

The Emotional Principle is concerned with forming relationships. It is the subjective part of us that knows and values the world of feelings in ourselves and others; that needs and offers personal communication; and that relates, organizes, and collaborates. We express the Emotional Principle when we make new connections among diverse elements and exercise our creative imagination.

The Physical Principle is that part of us that is most down-to-earth and practical. It is expressed in making, doing, actualizing, and operationalizing. The Physical Principle has to do with the realm of the senses, rather than that of the mind or the emotions. It is concerned with understanding the operation of systems, both natural and human-made, and with creating effective systems of operation.

All of these dimensions are active in all people, but to varying degrees and in various combinations (see “The Mental, Emotional, and Physical Principles”).

It is also important to note that each of these principles is of equal value. They are all needed in the functioning and development of a whole and balanced person. We could also say that all are equally needed for the functioning of a whole and balanced organization.

At this point, pause and ask yourself, “With which of these principles am I most comfortable and familiar? Which do I express most easily and naturally? Could I benefit from some development or help with one of these areas?” As we shall see, individuals are generally more comfortable and familiar with two of the principles, while the third is often less known, developed, and utilized.

Mental, Emotional, and Physical Centering

While all of us have mental, emotional, and physical dimensions, we have discovered that people seem to be “wired” in such a way that one of these three principles is central in each individual’s functioning. People are “centered” mentally (rationally), emotionally (relationally), or physically (pragmatically) (see “Centering”).

Of course, each human system comprises a continual interplay of mental, emotional, and physical life. Nevertheless, each person is characterized by a central process that is specific and consistent. The principle at our core determines how we typically take in and process information.

Mentally centered people process information in a logical and sequential way. They are also characterized characterized by an innate detachment. They experience life as if they were standing on a hilltop, so they naturally maintain a birds-eye view on events and a long-term perspective.

Emotionally centered people, on the other hand, process information in a non-linear, associative, interactive way that incorporates feelings and intuition, rather than through a strictly rational process. This relatively spontaneous way of proceeding often results in the generation of new ideas and the exploration of new avenues of thought or action that might not have emerged through a more linear process. For emotionally centered people, engaging in dialogue with others is essential as a means of clarifying thoughts, feelings, and intuitions, as well as for establishing the sense of personal connection with others that makes life meaningful for them.

Finally, physically centered people process information in a systemic way – they gather and assimilate large amounts of data, and think in terms of the interconnections that make up whole systems of functioning. Because of their affinity for the systemic, they may be fascinated by the patterns they observe in the flow of events across time, from past to present and projected into the future, or they may have a keen interest in, and sense for, how things work mechanically.

Five Predominant Personality Dynamics

We have found that there are three variations on each of these major themes. Mentally centered people may be “mental-mental,” “mental-emotional,” or “mental-physical.” Emotionally centered people may be “emotional-mental,” “emotional-emotional,” or “emotional-physical.” And physically centered people may be “physical-mental,” “physical-emotional,” or “physical-physical,” making nine personality dynamics in all. Whereas the first principle indicates how one processes information, the second indicates what one processes – the kind of material that is the natural focus of attention. (This interaction will become clearer when we outline particular personality dynamics.)

CENTERING

While all of us have mental, emotional, and physical dimensions, people seem to be “wired” in such a way that one of these three principles is central in each individual’s functioning. People are “centered” mentally (rationally), emotionally (relationally), or physically (pragmatically).

Of these nine possible systems of functioning, we have found that five are by far the most prevalent – mental-physical, emotional-mental, emotional-physical, physical-mental, and physical-emotional. Any group of people – the members of a management or project team, a department, the students in a classroom, family members seated around the dinner table, a meeting of heads of state – will include some combination of these five different ways of being “wired,” with their distinctly different natural processes of learning, communicating, problem-solving, relating, developing, and so on.

Following are brief thumbnail sketches of each of these five most commonly encountered personality dynamics. These summaries provide a basic sense of their similarities and distinctions, and also of the misinterpretations of each that commonly arise as a result of their particular ways of functioning.

Mental-Physical. As we have already indicated, the thinking process of mental-physical people is linear, logical, and sequential (mental principle), and it is focused upon operations in the external world (physical principle) – as opposed to emotional data. Because of their “hilltop” perspective, they tend to focus on the long term and to think in relation to enduring principles and values. Because of their innate detachment, their emotional life is typically extremely even. Mental-physical people offer teams emotional stability, objectivity, and their gift for selecting and articulating what is essential – key points, principles, values, goals, and information. They value clarity; for this reason, they often prefer written communication. They are usually precise and meticulous in any task that they undertake.

Mental-physical people often ask the questions “Why?” and “What do you mean by…?” But they are frequently silent in groups, either because they feel no need to speak if others are saying what needs to be said, or because they think carefully before speaking and cannot find the space to participate if a process is less than orderly. Because of their natural detachment and reticence, and because they do not readily express their feelings, others may interpret mental physical people as being aloof, disengaged, uncaring, or unwilling to be approached. None of these interpretations is necessarily true. If you want to know how a mental-physical person is really thinking or feeling, just ask. Such questions will help him or her to connect and communicate.

Emotional-Mental. Emotional mental people process in a non-linear, associative way (emotional principle) the world of ideas (mental principle). They deeply enjoy a highly interactive brainstorming kind of communication, in which one idea triggers another, leading to the generation of new ways of thinking or acting. Emotional-mental people typically love movement and change. They are often innovators, drawn to the new and untried. They intuitively sense new possibilities in people, situations, and events, and endeavor to make them happen.

In undertaking new projects, emotional-mental people can move into action with the strong sense of a general direction to be taken, but with minimal data and little or no real prior planning. This experimental movement leads to new experiences, which suggest next steps that may be entirely unanticipated at the beginning. They repeat this process until they reach a satisfactory outcome.

Because emotional-mental people concentrate on the future, they typically recollect very little about the past. They do, however, remember data required for any project that is their current focus of attention – but only until the project is completed. Emotional-mental people usually have little awareness of physical signals from their bodies. They may be able to work long hours with great concentration because they are unaware that they are hungry or tired.

Others may misunderstand emotional-mental people as being either pushy or, because they will initiate movement with little or no prior planning, irresponsible. Instead, they are following their natural instinct to move things forward and light the fires of new endeavors, often relying on others to execute the details.

Emotional-Physical. Emotional-physical people also think in a non-linear, associative way (emotional principle), preferably through dialogue with others, but their focus is on the physical world (physical principle) – especially people! They experience constantly changing emotional responses to their environment and all the objects, people, and events in it. They are sensitive to others’ feelings and often can sense those feelings in their own bodies, even when others aren’t outwardly expressing them. This ability can be a gift, providing helpful information and insights; it can also be a burden, affecting the emotional physical person’s sense of well-being in negative circumstances, or creating confusion about whether feelings experienced are his or her own or those of someone else.

Emotional-physical people value personal connection and communication with others. They bring to teams both a high degree of creative thinking and a concern for creating harmony among group members. The quality of the group’s process is as important to them as the outcomes. However, they can only offer their full capacities if they feel comfortable and “safe.” If they feel threatened or judged in any way, they may withdraw and stay silent.

Emotional-physical people can relive emotion-laden events from the past as if they were occurring again in the present. Sometimes others judge them as “too sensitive,” “using too many words,” or insufficiently logical. The truth is that their sensitivity is a gift to be valued – they use it for understanding individuals and interpersonal situations. Their sometimes extensive communication results from their need to establish personal connections and to ensure that misunderstandings don’t arise. And their non-linear thinking has an emotional logic, frequently reflecting a “knowing” that they cannot rationally explain. Their intuitive gift is often a wasted resource in organizations.

Physical-Mental. Physical-mental people think systemically (physical principle), with a focus on ideas, purposes, and structures (mental principle). They plan consciously, strategically, and systematically. They want to know the purpose of any endeavor and then create a logical step-by-step plan for achieving that purpose. They tend to have a conscious strategy for almost everything they do.

Physical-mental people value efficiency and create systems of operation to achieve it, then refine those systems to make them even more efficient and, if possible, broadly applicable. They like to use models, diagrams, and charts to assist their thinking or communicate their ideas. Physical-mental individuals gather considerable data as a basis for their planning and put it into logical structure quite quickly. They have a capacity for seeing patterns in varied data or in the flow of events, from which they make projections into the future and devise action plans.

Physical-mental people have a detailed memory for data in areas that interest them. In communicating with others, they are always looking for the action to be taken or problem to be solved. They like communication to be factual and organized.

A common misunderstanding about physical-mental people is that they do not care about people or their feelings. This misperception can occur because they may be so focused on results that they may sometimes fail to consider human factors in their planning. Also, they usually find it difficult to express personal feelings. They typically express their caring through their actions rather than their words.

Physical-Emotional. Physical-emotional people process in a systemic way (physical principle) the connections (emotional principle) among data, events, and people in order to comprehend or create whole systems of operation. Their natural process of thinking, planning, and learning is not systematic but organic. When approaching any new endeavor, they immerse themselves in gathering and absorbing data without initially sorting or prioritizing it. (Because for them everything is connected to everything else, they do not always know initially what might be relevant). They then assimilate, sort, and link all of this information in a process that may be as much unconsciously as consciously directed. This process, like digestion, takes its own time, until suddenly everything comes together in a highly detailed, systemic understanding of a situation, plan of action, or product. Because the entire process takes place internally, others may think that “nothing is going on,” when in fact very much is “going on,” though the person may not be able to clearly articulate what it is until the process is complete.

Physical-emotional people are sometimes labeled “slow” in a negative sense. In classrooms they may be categorized as “slow learners,” with the implication that they may not be as smart as other students who respond more quickly. They are not really slow at all, but rather thorough. Their organic process takes time, but they are typically able to assimilate and synthesize more data and comprehend and handle more complex situations than people of any other personality dynamic.

Physical-emotional people typically have a prodigious capacity to remember data. They can recollect events from even the distant past in which they were fully engaged in extraordinary sensory detail. Because physical-emotional people think and experience in terms of interconnections, they appreciate communication that provides “the whole story,” and they often convey information through detailed stories.

Distribution of Personality Dynamics

The personality dynamics that we have identified are not equally prevalent or evenly distributed. Of the five dynamics that we have described, mental-physical people are encountered most rarely – they seem to constitute no more than about 3 percent of the population. The great majority of the world’s people appear to be either emotionally or physically centered.

Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, more or less compassionate, more or less contributive, more or less gifted.

It has been fascinating for us to experience over the years that in the Western cultures in which we, or the facilitators we have trained, have worked extensively (such as North America, Europe, South America, and Israel), we have found a slight majority of people to be emotionally centered and the rest to be physically centered. In Eastern countries in which we have worked, such as Malaysia, China, Singapore, and Japan, we have found by far the great majority of the people to be physically centered. These findings apply even to people of Asian descent whose families have lived in the West for many generations.

We have no explanation for the fact that the two physically centered personality dynamics seem to predominate in the East and the two emotionally centered ones in the West. We simply offer our findings. However, we emphasize that no value judgments adhere to this observation. All of the personality dynamics are equal in value. It is not “better” to be one more than another. Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, more or less compassionate, more or less contributive, more or less gifted. What is different is how they “are,” think, experience, and go about things. Indeed, we can say that each needs the others for results that are optimal and whole.

Nature vs. Nurture

We have often been asked if we think that this distribution of personality dynamics could be the result of cultural influence. Our experience has led us to believe otherwise, for a number of reasons:

The cultural explanation does not account for the many physically centered people in the West or the emotionally centered people in the East.

If culture created the personality dynamics, then one would expect the many people of Asian background who have been assimilated over generations into Western cultures, and who are not part of an Asian community within the larger community, to show the characteristic processes of the majority in their adoptive cultures. However, we have not observed this to be the case. Although many Asian Americans, for instance, may have adopted more characteristically Western values, their foundational processes of handling information, learning, problem-solving, and so on remain those characteristic of physical centering.

We have come up with the same findings in following infants adopted from the East into families in the West in which both of the adoptive parents were emotionally centered. As these youngsters develop, they may exhibit their parents’ influences in some aspects of their outer behavior – for example, by being somewhat more expressive of their feelings and individually oriented than is typical of their Asian-raised counterparts – but their fundamental processes remain those we have described as characteristic of physical centering.

The evidence indicates, therefore, that while there is a continual interaction between any individual’s personality dynamic and the external environment, the latter neither determines the basic natural processes nor fundamentally alters them. It may influence what one thinks or learns, but not how one naturally thinks or learns.

We are led to assume, therefore, that the distinctions we have identified are inherent and genetically determined. This conclusion is reinforced by our findings that people almost always identify at least one parent as having the same personality dynamic as themselves or, if not, a grandparent.

Implications for the Workplace

These different ways of being and functioning are represented wherever people live, learn, and work together. They are present in every work environment, among management and project teams, in boardrooms and training rooms, in meetings with staff or potential clients, in conference calls with colleagues or strangers from around the globe, and, of course, in classrooms (see “Human Dynamics in Education”). It has been said that 90 percent of the difficulties that organizations face can be attributed to dysfunctional relationships among people. When people develop awareness and understanding of the different personality dynamics, much interpersonal misunderstanding and conflict is avoided. Also a groundwork is laid for developing optimal communication, teamwork, coaching, mentoring, and training. A shared base of understanding enables colleagues to work together more effectively and to consciously leverage one another’s gifts and capacities.

Sandra Seagal and David Horne are the founders and directors of Human Dynamics International, an organization that disseminates unique training programs in the fields of organizational development, education, healthcare, and cross-cultural bridge-building. They are also the founders and directors of the Human Dynamics Institute, which is engaged in original research into the personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal functioning and development of people. Sandra and David are coauthors of Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations (Pegasus Communications, 1997) and are working on a new book directed toward parents, teachers, and all who care about children. For more information, go to www.humandynamics.com.

The post Human Dynamics for the 21st Century appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

This kind of “trust walk” is one example of what we might call experiential learning, but other examples abound. Facilitators use energizers, brief activities to get participants’ blood and creative juices flowing at the outset of meetings. Managers practice techniques derived from Aikido to better understand physically and metaphorically their patterns of interaction with others. Workshop participants walk ancient labyrinths as a meditative way of seeking solutions to vexing problems. Marketing and distribution specialists play games designed to help them understand the consequences of various decision-making strategies. Long-range planners use powerful software programs to play out different scenarios in cyber-space before they try them in the real world. And, leadership teams practice working with risk and fear by rappelling from rocky cliffs. All these experiences were designed to capitalize on the human brain’s remarkable capacity to learn in tandem with the body.

Experiential learning engages the entire physiology, by design.

What is experiential learning? With such a wide variety of activities that fall under a common heading, the definition can be elusive. After years of talking about the difference between process and content and relating elaborate tales about the power of learning by doing, I have come to rely on this simple and straightforward response: Experiential learning engages the entire physiology, by design.

The significant elements of this definition lie in the qualifier, entire, and in the phrase, by design. In other words, experiential learning involves questions of degree and intent. So, it follows that instructors who use an experiential approach should intentionally engage as much of the physiology as possible in the learning process. Indeed, some exciting new discoveries about the mind/body connection suggest that we should attempt to infuse all learning with experience.

A Sedentary Lifestyle

In the future, we will come to rely more and more upon experiential learning because of the double-edged sword of technological advances. Technology has eliminated large portions of the physical work that daily living used to require, such as chopping wood and carrying water. The upside to this change is that we now have more time to pursue other kinds of work and leisure. The downside is that it has also lopped off a fair amount of the activity that grounds us in the natural world and, in the long run, keeps us healthy.

We are an active species, just a few twists of DNA away from the rest of the mammals. And unless the family dogs have become addicted to reruns of Lassie, you will not find any other animals that sit stone-faced in front of CRTs. Nor will you find them staring at each other all day across tables made of plastic laminate. Rather, they spend their waking hours playing, stretching, exploring, and learning. They engage the world continuously with their entire beings. We, on the other hand, have conditioned ourselves to suppress the urge to move around and experience things, instead confining our existence to small boxes surrounded by profoundly uninteresting scenery and sensation-deadening appliances.

The information age has converted us into a sedentary culture that has forgotten the powerful synergy of mind and body working together. We have relegated physical activity to the role of stress and health-management techniques that serve the sole function of enabling us to remain productive workers and consumers. As a culture, we have not yet found the appropriate blending of action and contemplation that will lead to the next curve of our evolution. This leap to the next curve will require a robust society whose individuals have reestablished the connection between mind and body in their working lives.

If we are to pay attention to an entire system, be it organizational, national, or global, we must begin with the system that lies within each of us. This step will require a rich infusion of experience to recapture the capacities of our natural learning systems. Let’s look at some of the scientific underpinnings for experiential learning and think about ways we can increase the amount of day-to-day experience in our organizational lives.

The Corporal Self in Cognition

A Sea of Hormones. Recent research on consciousness, most notably by Antonio Damasio, suggests that our attention and arousal systems emerge from complex interactions between the central nervous system and chemical activators that surge continually throughout the body. Even the title of his book on this topic, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (Harcourt Brace, 1999), hints at a revolutionary perspective on the role of the corporal self in cognition. Sure, we still need the cognitive and language areas of the brain to recall facts and manipulate variables as we solve problems. But the emotions are essential players in the attention system and, by direct consequence, in the learning system. Without emotions, we would not engage ourselves in, or for that matter even recognize, the problems at hand.

Here is an example: If you narrowly miss striking a child on a bicycle who has veered in front of your car, for 20 minutes after the event, your heart pounds, your muscles shake, and your anxiety levels remain high. You are so distracted, you might miss your turn into the office’s parking lot. This disturbance to your equilibrium results from your adrenal gland’s releasing a tiny amount of epinephrine into your system. This hormone produces a state of mind and a level of physical readiness that enable you to take evasive action, but it leaves you with a bit of a hangover.

Mercifully, these attention-getting chemical alarms do not activate often. The real news is that powerful but very subtle chemical states influence virtually all of our cognitive functioning! Below the level of our recognition, human consciousness floats on an ever-changing sea of hormones and peptides. Here is a case in point: Low-level stress, the kind that is our near-constant companion in Western civilization, produces cortisol, a hormone that stays with us for hours. Cortisol interferes with learning and memory, ultimately causing the axons and dendrites in a part of the brain associated with long-term memory to atrophy and, in extreme cases, to die. Stress breaks down the neural networks that keep us in touch with ourselves. As we lose touch with ourselves, we lose touch with those around us – something that should be of great concern to managers.

Try not to let this information drag you down (remember, all that cortisol is not good for you). Better to ask how we can create working environments that support rather than inhibit learning. Our internal chemical environment determines not only what we learn, but also how well we learn it. Thus, our first task should be to attend to the physical/emotional status of learners. By acknowledging the primacy of biology, good experiential design works toward this end.

Mirror Neurons. On another research front, scientists have opened up an entirely new field of investigation that may have extensive ramifications for learning and teaching. Cutting-edge imaging technology affords researchers the ability to study brains at work. It should come as no surprise that certain areas of the brain become active when we make different motions. What is very surprising is that Giacomo Rizzolatti and his partners at the University of Parma have discovered a collection of neurons in higher primates that light up when an action is merely observed. Shortly after this announcement in the late 1990s, another Italian team confirmed the existence of a similar structure in humans.

Dubbed mirror neurons, these cells fire when we watch someone else perform an action, say picking up an apple. For example, if a dozen people are in a room with a single apple, only one person can pick up and taste the fruit, but 12 brains will mimic the action and activate salivary glands to begin digestion. Mirror neurons could account for a whole host of behaviors related to the power of suggestion, including the contagious nature of yawns, and are most likely linked to things such as the learning of tasks, intuition, empathy, and language acquisition.

In humans, mirror neurons are associated with the portion of the brain most directly connected to speech production. Rizzolatti and others speculate that the physical mirroring capacity in this area allows sophisticated human communication to develop and evolve. In other words, one’s abilities to perform an action and then to talk about that action may develop in tandem. This mutual emergence of experience and language holds great importance for us in that it suggests we are biologically programmed to employ thought and action simultaneously.

The speculation that talking and doing are inextricably entwined in our brains has mind-boggling implications for educators and facilitators. If true, then role playing, drama, energizers, and other experiential activities should take a central role, equal with lectures and written material, in any learning endeavor. An ancient proverb reminds us that a picture is worth 10,000 words. By extension, might an experience be worth 10,000 pictures?

Furthermore, imaging technologies are showing researchers that seemingly unrelated functions of the mind interact with and influence one another. In other words, an action can influence a mood, and a change in mood can affect your perspective on an issue. Laughter may truly be the best medicine. Of course, the subtle interplay of various portions of the body and mind is much more complex than we may ever understand. But the current research suggests that if we are serious about tapping all our learning capacities, we will seek physiologically engaged learning. In short, get out of your seat and act!

The Learning Continuum

At one end of the learning continuum, the subject is passive; the emotions lie dormant; few senses are engaged; and the ideas are abstract. At the other end, the learner is physically active; is emotionally involved; is sensorially alive; and is grappling with tangible things. Any learning event may be placed along this continuum. I believe that our current understanding of learning suggests that, to the extent possible, we should be striving toward the experiential end of the spectrum.

When I mention the learning environment in an organization, I’m referring to much more than typical training settings. I include all those events where two or more come together for collaborative work. In any organization really trying to be a learning organization, every daily encounter should create the conditions in which learning best occurs. These conditions include a high challenge/low threat environment, a minimum of distractions, sufficient time for quiet reflection, and physical activity.

As we begin to appreciate the complexity of the learning process, the challenge of designing an instructional experience that engages the entire physiology can feel overwhelming. How can we attend to the thousands of factors that can be manipulated to influence a person’s learning? How can we incorporate some of the wonderful work that has been done involving learning styles and multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner, Daniel Goleman, MelLevine, Dawna Markova, and others?

Fortunately, the task need not be daunting. One possible path through the complexity is a simple approach that stems from the early work of Geoffrey and Renate Caine, whose classic Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain(Addison-Wesley,1994) has helped many educators come to a better understanding of how humans learn (see the reinforcing loops of “The Experiential Learning Cycle”). As a place to begin, this framework ensures that three essential ingredients for effective learning are added to the curriculum: paying attention to the learner’s biology, providing an engaging experience, and assisting the learner to make meaning of the experience.

Relaxed Alertness. The circle begins with relaxed alertness. Creating a warm and welcoming atmosphere is important and not as simple as merely providing fresh coffee and a box of Krispy Kreme donuts. In fact, every sensory stimulus in the environment, planned or not, will either contribute to or detract from your purpose. Traffic noise, cooking smells, and other peripheral distractions make a difference.

At a more sophisticated level, the emotional and physical status of individuals and the group will affect outcomes. With the discovery of mirror neurons, we now have tangible evidence that one person’s emotional state will affect the entire group. For this reason, facilitators should create a warm and supportive tone, in effect modeling a relaxed and attentive approach to the session. Beyond that, they can choose from a host of techniques aimed at relaxing the body and preparing the mind, including progressive relaxation, guided imagery, and balancing and centering techniques. None of this suggests that facilitators should lull participants to sleep. Rather, the intent is to remove threats and in so doing allow the participants to focus exclusively on the challenging work of learning something new.

With the exception of on-the-job coaching, all structured learning events are to a certain extent artificial. After all, they are not intended to be real life/make-or-break events. Instead, I think of them as learning laboratories where participants may increase their skill, understanding, and capacity to better meet the challenges that lie ahead. Because the facilitator is creating the environment, it must be the facilitator’s role to prepare learners to enter that environment.

THE EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING CYCLE

This model captures the flow of three essential components in the learning process. Beginning at relaxed alertness will always remind us to attend to the learner’s biology first.(Adapted from Education at the Edge of Possibility, Caine and Caine (ASCD,1997))

This means creating safe physical and emotional spaces in which to begin an activity. It also means being clear about expectations for levels of participation and attending to the physical needs of the people in the room. Remember that during any learning session, participants will, for their own reasons, “check out” from time to time. Sitting in a classroom or meeting, they can do so unnoticed and then refocus on the session when ready. In any experiential work, “checking out” becomes obvious to the entire group. Making this need for downtime acceptable from the outset is part of the facilitator’s role. One way to do so is to acknowledge that everyone learns differently and that some people may choose to step out of an activity and merely observe for a while.

Immersion in Complex Experience. The circle continues with orchestrated immersion in complex experience. One of the grand paradoxes of designing rich learning environments is that we are never sure what learning is going to emerge. The richer the design, the more room for creativity and insight. In fact, aside from the teaching of essential skills and the conveyance of rote information, any attempt to limit or control the outcome of an event will likely impede the progress of the learners. Why limit participants only to what we know or expect? Also, complex activities provide opportunities for all learners to find a point of access that suits their particular learning style or intelligence.

By now, you are wondering if I’m going to say anything about the actual design of an activity. Because of space limitations, the answer is “no.” There are many excellent resources and books that, combined, provide thousands of activities aimed at specific learning outcomes. The key is to always let your intent drive your search for activities rather than the other way around.

Here are a few questions that may help guide you in increasing the “experience” factor in designing your own context-specific activities:

• What do I want the learners to learn?
• What do I want the learners to be able to do?
• How can I inspire the learners to become emotionally engaged in this activity?
• How can I involve their senses in the process?
• How can I engage them with another person?
• How can I encourage the learners to physically move, even if it is just to make a gesture?
• How can I increase the richness of the experience?

To the extent that you move learners along the continuum toward more experience, you will increase the potential for learning.

Active Processing. The next step along the circular path is active processing. All learning that arises from direct experience is felt by the learner. It lies inside his or her body, perhaps locked in some complex chemical mix that he or she cannot express verbally. Meaning may be hidden from the learner and, by logical extension, from the rest of the group. Processing is the act of teasing into consciousness and giving language to those feelings in the body. This process may begin as a solitary task employing a bit of quiet reflection. Things will eventually begin to emerge, such as creative solutions to difficult problems, new ways of framing essential questions, or insights about patterns of interaction in a work group. Tapping into the body’s innate intelligence takes time and patience but can lead to great rewards.

At some point, the facilitator may encourage participants to share their thoughts with the group, asking questions such as: What happened during the experience? What meaning does that hold for us? And, now what do we do with our new understanding? As observations come to the fore, the group can consider them and arrive at some shared learning. Often the understandings that emerge involve underlying assumptions about how the world works. (One advantage to participating in structured experiences that are not directly related to the bottom line is that they can allow learners to feel and speak very freely without fear of criticism or reprisal.)

Once the group has processed and assimilated the learning from an activity, it is ready to continue its journey through the cycle again (see “Guidelines for Experiential Learning Design”).

Initial Resistance

When you introduce experiential activities to a group, you may encounter some initial resistance. Here are some arguments I have heard against experiential learning, as well as some responses:

“We don’t have time for this; just tell me what I need to know.” Because we tend to separate physical activity from the intellectual work many of us do to make a living, assumptions about what it means to spend productive time on the job may lead some to question the appropriateness of physically and emotionally engaged learning. Despite all attempts to make it something else, learning is a biological process that takes time. The expedience of just telling people what they need to know often undermines their actually learning it.

“We don’t want to get into how people feel about this.” Deep learning profoundly touches people. When we employ experiential methods that require high levels of commitment and involvement, emotionally charged issues will emerge. Unless the group is a highly functioning and trustworthy team, or unless a skilled facilitator is present to help manage these difficult situations, the quality of interaction can deteriorate and the session may be counterproductive.

“None of that touchy-feely stuff for me.” Experiential learning often involves sharing emotions and, in some cases, physical touch. Some participants, especially if they are old enough to remember the encounter groups of the late 1960s, will react with everything from reluctance to disdain. This guilt by association is unfortunate. Well-designed experiences in work settings should not involve coercion, expectations to participate outside one’s level of comfort, or inappropriate physical touch. Facilitators must also remain aware of particular cultural differences regarding the appropriateness of different forms of touch. And although facilitators may sometimes borrow from the language of counseling, experiential learning is not about psychotherapy or probing into participants’ personal lives.

“You can’t prove to me this works any better than just having a meeting.” That is probably true, at least in the short term. The process is messy. Outcomes are often unpredictable, and evaluation can be difficult. Of course, we can measure whether or not learners have acquired some new understanding or skill. But the deeper learnings that involve changes in perception, behavior, or fundamental assumptions about how the world works are always in process. Perceptions shift, and meaning emerges over time. Traditional forms of assessment do not measure these things well, if at all.

“This stuff just doesn’t apply in the real world.” Some people will criticize an experiential approach because the game-playing nature of many activities and the emphasis on relaxed alertness do not seem to adequately mirror the difficult lives they lead in the work world. They wonder, justifiably, how a consciously constructed model or simulation relates to the chaotic nature of today’s business environment.

In response to this concern, I refer to the most stressful environment I know: emergency medicine and rescue. In training people to work under severe stress, where life and death decisions are often necessary and complex techniques and equipment must be employed, the training is often fun, laid back, infused with humor, and highly experiential. Although their jobs are loaded with real-world stress, these professionals generally build skills and capacities in an arena that supports learning.

Nevertheless, the issue of context raises legitimate concerns. Research and practical experience suggest that learning is highly specific to the environment in which it was acquired, and we must be very careful about assuming that learning will somehow magically transfer from one setting to another. Processing, by raising issues to the conscious level, may help us to frame questions differently or experiment with options, but with no guarantees of crossover.

A Seamless Whole

I’ve said nothing new. Experiential learning predates the emergence of Homo sapiens. But we need only to look at the state of most public schools to recognize that the techniques and technologies supporting learning have reached a bit of a standstill in the past century.

Brain research, still in its infancy, promises to help us gain some insight into natural learning propensities we have lost. Even now, it is providing good reason to do away with some of the dualistic thinking about human behavior that informs our culture. Paired opposites such as physical/mental, affective/cognitive, and hard skills/soft skills may drop from usage in the next generation.

Upon reflection, even the term experiential learning feels a bit dated. Science is now offering us a new way of framing experience that dramatically illuminates the relationship between head and heart. Perhaps as our understanding evolves, we will invent new language that honors the complex relationships that weave human experience into a seamless whole.

We have, with our technology, created a complex and challenging future – a future that will demand increasingly sophisticated learning to negotiate. But however advanced we become, we must remember that learning will always remain rooted firmly in our biology.

Kenneth L. Thompson is chair of the department of Experiential Education at Albuquerque Academy, an independent secondary school in New Mexico, where he coordinates wilderness programs and project-based learning. His 20-year career in education includes university teaching and work in corporate and organizational consulting.

The post Learning As a Biological Process appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Family life, like organizational life, is filled with challenges and complexity. We begin family life with great hopes of love and warmth. We dream about learning and growing as we build our lives together. Yet for numerous families, and friends living together as families, learning together seems rare. Too often, people are stymied when faced with the complexity and difficulty of actual family living.

Part of the reason for this difficulty is that couples and single parents often lack the perspective, skills, and tools for mastering the increasing rate of life changes. One essential perspective that we often miss is that our families are complex systems and, as such, are more than a group of individuals. Even divorced partners who are now co-parenting find that family dynamics persist. Any kind of shift for one member — such as a new job or a bad grade on an exam — has an impact on the family as a whole.

In the face of life’s inevitable changes and the complexity of our relationships, how can we thrive even when family dynamics become challenging? How can we pay attention to our difficulties in such a way that our relationships grow together, not fall apart? We believe that the five disciplines can help to create a learning family at home as much as they can build a learning organization at work.

Two Essential Capabilities

Family life is one setting where people can become more skillful at navigating life transitions in order to fulfill their aspirations. To do so, they need to feel a sense of safety, believe that what they want is important, and trust that the hard times, including painful feelings and difficult exchanges, can actually be sources of growth and healing. Two essential capabilities help families cultivate these experiences: 1) living in a creative orientation and 2) building a powerful context or “container” for speaking and listening deeply. Let’s take a closer look at these two capabilities.

Living in a Creative Orientation. Many families dwell in what author Robert Fritz calls a “reactive orientation.” They feel overwhelmed by forces that they believe are beyond their control, such as lack of time for family and friends, work and financial pressures, lack of support, and violence in the schools and media. These pressures tend to pull families apart even when members wish to be closer to each other. In addition, family life has its own inherent challenges such as working out differences between spouses, parenting children through different ages, and facing critical life passages such as birth and death. In a reactive mode, people start to blame themselves or others for their difficulties, or they simply feel helpless.

Fritz contrasts this with the concept of a “creative orientation.” In a creative orientation, we deepen our understanding of ourselves, we turn toward the possible, and we look for our own contribution to a current situation. In this way, we restore the sense of purpose and efficacy that we forget when we are in a reactive mode. Through our families, we also have the opportunity to deepen our understanding of others, their values, and their dreams. We learn to give what’s needed and to hold fast to each other’s aspirations, even when despair sets in. Together we learn how to stop blaming each other; clarify the values, aspirations, and talents that unite us; and affirm the kind of contribution we want to make to the outside world.

Building a Container. Building a container involves developing the capacity to listen and speak deeply together. In discussing the concept of a container, Bill Isaacs, author and organizational consultant, suggests the image of a sturdy vessel that holds its bubbling hot contents without cracking, allowing them to transform into something of profound value. Too often, our families are the last people we turn to when we want to be heard, because of the intensity of emotions involved in intimate relationships. However, we can change that through carefully creating this kind of a container. A strong container can help us bring stability and resilience to life’s difficult situations instead of rushing in to fix them prematurely or running away from them. To build a container:

• Develop ground rules for engaging in difficult conversations.
• Establish uninterrupted times and places to explore and resolve tensions.
• Meet the challenges you and others are facing with commitment, courage, and curiosity.
• Slow down and reconnect with your heart.
• Respect other family members’ feelings, and seek to understand the thinking that leads them to feel the way they do.
• Agree on how to behave with each other on a daily basis.
• Trust that difficulties, when handled well, can lead to genuine growth.

The Five Disciplines at Home

We believe that the five disciplines point to actions that families can take to build such a container and to create fulfilling and loving lives together. A virtuous cycle can unfold in which applying the five disciplines enhances our ability to live in a creative orientation and build our containers, which in turn strengthens our ability to practice the five disciplines. Personal Mastery. In the early years of Innovation Associates’ Leadership and Mastery Program, participants’ spouses were encouraged to attend the training in recognition that a leader’s professional vision can be achieved only within the context of his or her personal aspirations. As an individual in a relationship, you have a responsibility to both yourself and your family to fulfill your potential. You also have a responsibility to help your partner and children realize their potential.

We suggest four ways to explore the path of personal mastery within your family:

The five disciplines point to actions that families can take to build such a container and to create fulfilling and loving lives together.

1. Make compromises and avoid sacrifices. Psychologist Nathaniel Branden suggests that compromising means being willing to change what you do in service of another. It is an essential aspect of family life. By contrast, sacrifice means trying to change who you fundamentally are to satisfy another, which is ultimately a disservice to both parties. Learning who you are and knowing what you really care about enable you to make compromises and avoid sacrifices.

2. Appreciate others for what they contribute to you and to the world around them. A relationship counselor we know asks each clients to list 25 things in their lives for which they are grateful. Her premise is that you cannot create joyful intimacy without appreciating all the gifts you already have. Being grateful for your life and for each family member’s place in it helps you reconnect with how unique and valuable they are. For example, we find it helpful to reflect with each other at the end of every day on what has enriched us, and what we appreciate about each other, ourselves, and our relationship.

3. Adopt the perspective that family challenges can help us grow. It’s easy to get distracted by the idea that family members are being a pain in the neck and are keeping us from moving toward our vision. However, psychologist Harville Hendrix observes that we attract a mate who is different from ourselves in precisely the ways in which we need to grow, and that our children’s behavior presents an opportunity for us to parent in just those ways that we were not parented ourselves. The key is to recognize relationship challenges as stemming from our own innate desire to heal and grow, rather than from faults in other people.

4. Remember that we are all more than the sum of our successes and failures. Focusing only on successes can be difficult for everyone in the family. It can be difficult for the successful ones because they may feel that people care about them only when things are going well, and difficult for others because failures then become a source of shame. Supporting a partner or child through failures entails seeing his or her good qualities under all circumstances. A learning family can learn much from failure and can come to celebrate successes in inclusive ways.

Shared Visioning. “What are we about as a family? What do we envision for ourselves this year . . . five years from now? What do we deeply care about?” Our visions and dreams can easily get lost in the everyday pressures of errands, to-do lists, and piles of laundry. It’s hard to envision making a difference when you can’t find a pair of matching socks.

Shared visioning is a conversation that helps people open their hearts to hearing each other’s deepest wishes and loves—their hearts’ desires. As children get older, shared visioning can help a family see what they have in common and how they can inspire each other to pursue their desires and create more of what they want in life. When people open their conversation to visioning, they can recall the hopes, dreams, values, and images that brought them together. Sharing these moments is particularly powerful during difficult times because these memories restore the energy of loving connection:

“Now I remember, that is why we are together!”

In visioning together, we explore what we can do together and how we can be together. We imagine how to spend our time together, how we want to be involved in our community, where we want to live, how we want to socialize, and where we want to travel. We can share our visions yearly, monthly, or daily. For example, Mark and Ellen take a walk together each week, during which each one reflects on the lessons of the past week and identifies a vision for the coming one. They then share their visions with each other, allowing both partners to feel support in the growth and learning they are embarking on. The ritual itself becomes a strong container of trust and respect that increases their ability to create what they want in their lives individually and as a partnership.

Mental Models. The discipline of mental models helps us gain a greater understanding of how our minds work. With careful observation, we begin to see that our beliefs have an impact on our perceptions, which in turn influence our actions, and then our reality. Our mental models serve us when they enable us to focus on what we want. However, they are always simplified, and therefore incomplete, views of reality that can hurt us when we miss something important or when the conditions under which we created them change.

Family life provides a great setting to develop skill in surfacing and testing our beliefs, revising them when necessary (see “Surfacing Mental Models of Family Life”). Not only do families offer ample opportunities to explore differing perceptions, but also the love on which they are based encourages people to take risks in exploring these differences and misunderstandings. Home is a place to experience humility and to learn.

The tools of the discipline of mental models, such as the ladder of inference, balancing advocacy and inquiry, and the left-hand column, can be useful when tried out at home. For example, recognizing that there might be a difference between how you experience your partner’s or child’s behavior and what he or she intends can help you accept that certain actions are not intended to hurt you (or make you mad or jealous), no matter how hurtful they might feel. This assumption can lead you to ask several questions when you are experiencing conflict:

• What pressures is my partner or child facing?
• What might he or she be intending to accomplish?
• How might my behavior appear to him or her?
• How can we share our respective intentions and learn about the impact we have on each other?

As you consider these questions, you might find yourself growing calmer. Then you can raise your frustration in such a way that the other party is more likely to listen to you with interest and speak with compassion. For example, Brad would sometimes leave his breakfast dishes in the sink on his way out the door, assuming that he would just do them later. However, Michelle perceived the dirty dishes as a chore that she was obligated to do. When they discussed the issue, she learned that he did not intend for her to do his dishes. At the same time, he learned that, because her office was at home, the dishes were an imposition on her space. With this new understanding, both were able to change: Brad usually did not leave his dishes in the sink out of respect for Michelle’s work space, and Michelle was more willing to do his dishes occasionally, knowing that she had a choice.

Another helpful tool is to use the ladder of inference to provide feedback. This approach consists of a series of statements. The first describes observable behavior; it begins with “When you do or say [the observable data].” The statement then continues with “I feel [a particular feeling, such as angry, hurt, jealous].” The feedback continues with “I think [or the story I tell myself is],” which explains my assumption based on that observation and feeling. It concludes with “What I want is ____,” and makes a specific request of the other person. Adhering to this structure, however clumsy at first, can open a genuine dialogue.

For example, Larry and Aisha were returning from a party where Aisha had felt ignored by him. Her initial reaction was to want to tell him, “You abandoned me, just like you always do at parties, and I’m sick and tired of being ignored when we go out.” Instead she said, “When you spent an hour looking at Joe’s Australia photos and didn’t invite me to join you [data], I felt hurt and angry [feeling]. I think you were ignoring me [interpretation]. I want to figure out with you a way we can enjoy parties together [request].”

Team Learning. Meaningful conversation takes time, skill, and intention. Weeks, even months, can go by without a family’s carving out the time to sit and simply explore what is going on with its members. If there are tensions between family members, it becomes even easier to postpone “family council” time. Yet, gathering regularly to listen to each other may defuse tensions before they build to a crisis, help the family to identify issues that people are grappling with, or simply offer a time for parents and children to be together and listen to each other’s thoughts and concerns. To create a “learning conversation,” set aside time and find a private space. Then identify some guidelines and a purpose. Even for two people, some of the following guidelines may help shape a surprisingly rich and gratifying conversation:

• Be fully present.
• Be open-minded.
• Listen, listen even more deeply, and then respond.
• Acknowledge the other person’s feelings and reality as true for him or her.
• Speak from your heart instead of from your head. Try breathing slowly, and notice how you are feeling.
• , “Lean into” discomfort. Discomfort is a spark of enlivening energy that is a clue that something can be learned here. “Leaning in” suggests receiving that tension with a quality of alert inquiry.

Team learning offers a way for people to open themselves to learning together. This is a time to practice listening for insight, for something fresh, for a way to reach below our familiar everyday clamor to the surprising wisdom that we carry inside. By practicing team learning, we can listen to one another with a renewed interest and focus.

A learning conversation can be a good time to revisit our vision of family and remind each other of what our family stands for or what we are grateful for. For example, one family gathers after their Thanksgiving meal to ask the question, “What are you thankful for this year?” Each person then has 3-5 minutes of uninterrupted air time as everyone else listens quietly. Then, they reflect together on what they heard.

Bringing the five disciplines home involves identifying and changing well-entrenched patterns of behavior, which can be both rewarding and painful.

Systems Thinking. Systems thinking encourages us to see our family and our role in it in a new light. Every family is a system. When you and other family members fall into typical, ongoing struggles, consider how your behavior is likely to affect theirs and vice versa. After all, you are deeply connected, although in moments of conflict, you might want to deny that fact!

We use two simple tools to help us out of binds: interaction maps and the “Accidental Adversaries” archetype. Interaction maps were developed by Action Design to show how two parties become locked in a vicious cycle by thinking and acting in particular ways. Party A thinks something negative about Party B, which leads Party A to act in either a defensive or an aggressive manner toward Party B. As a result, Party B develops negative thoughts about A, acts out toward A, and reinforces A’s negative thinking. The result is a vicious cycle.

The parties can break this dynamic first by noticing its existence, then by testing the mental models they have of each other, and finally by developing more effective ways of behaving in support of their more complete understanding of the other person’s reality. For example, Rachel thought her partner Carol was too close to her parents and asked her to limit her weekly phone conversations with them. This led Carol to think that Rachel was jealous of her relationship with her parents, prompting her to defend them. Her impassioned defense, in turn, reinforced Rachel’s belief that Carol was too close to her folks. When Rachel and Carol recognized this dynamic, they were able to test their mental models. They discovered that Carol felt pressured by her parents’ insistence on regular weekly contact. When she understood Carol’s position, Rachel was able to relax her own concerns and actually share some of the responsibility for maintaining contact with Carol’s parents.

Many family members become “accidental adversaries”; that is, they possess an enormous potential to cooperate with and serve each other, but tend to end up in conflict because each is subconsciously trying to address a personal hurt, fear, or discomfort. For example, when Bill believes that he will not get something he wants, he becomes aggressive and insists that he has to have it. This behavior gets him what he wants in the short run. However, Joan then becomes concerned that she will not be able to achieve what is important to her. She withdraws from Bill, which makes him feel that he can’t rely on her to support him. For that reason, he finds himself being even more aggressive the next time he thinks he won’t get what he wants. To break out of this negative pattern of behavior, both Bill and Joan need to reaffirm their commitment to supporting each other in achieving their individual and shared visions. Then they can identify their individual needs and reflect together on how they can both help each other meet those needs in ways that don’t make life more difficult for the other person.

Systems thinking also enables us to appreciate some of the challenges in bringing the five disciplines home. For instance, applying the disciplines to family life often means breaking out of a powerful “Success to the Successful” archetypal structure (see “Bringing the Five Disciplines Home”).

Because many of us spend more time at work than with our families, we tend to become more successful in our professional lives than at home (R1, R2, R3). However, using some of our time at work to develop new interpersonal skills can not only lead to more success at work (R4), but can also provide us with tools to support our success at home (B5). It is helpful to realize that, until we experience more success in the family, we might be tempted to convince ourselves that we are too busy at work to apply the skills back home (R6).

First Steps

Bringing the five disciplines home involves identifying and changing well-entrenched patterns of behavior, which can be both rewarding and painful. We suggest that you start small, be patient, and let your new successes at home naturally shift your work/family balance over time. You might begin by reviewing what you are grateful for in your own life. Then continue by looking at your relationship with one family member. Consider the areas of conflict with that person as a systemic issue, rather than as a problem with him or her. Engage in a learning conversation to begin to shift the dynamic. Over time, you might work toward creating a shared vision with your family, one that combines success at work and success at home to shape a life where each domain energizes and enriches the other.

Marilyn Paul is an independent organization consultant in Lexington, MA with a PhD in organization behavior from Yale. Peter Stroh is a founding partner of Innovation Associates and a principal in its parent company, Arthur D. Little. Marilyn and Peter are a married couple interested in supporting learning families. We welcome learning more about your own experiences in applying these tools, or any others you find helpful. Please send us your stories by e-mail to mbpaul@erols.com.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Betty Byfield Paul.

For Further Reading

Branden, Nathaniel and Devers. What Love Asks of Us. Bantam Books, 1987.

Fritz, Robert. The Path of Least Resistance. Ballantine Books, 1989.

Hendrix, Harville. Getting the Love You Want. Henry Holt and Company, 1988.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home & Home Becomes Work. Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

The post The Learning Family: Bringing the Five Disciplines Home appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

You are an engineer working on two projects within your business unit. These are demanding projects, and you give them your best. You respect your teammates and are accountable to your project managers. But when you face a problem that stretches your knowledge, you turn to people like Jake, Sylvia, and Robert. Even though they work on their own projects in other business units, they are your real colleagues. You all go back many years. They understand the issues you face and will explore new ideas with you. And even Julie, who now works for one of your suppliers, is only a phone call away. These are the people with whom you can discuss the latest developments in the field and troubleshoot each other’s most difficult design challenges. If only you had more time for these kinds of interactions.

You are a CEO and, of course, you are responsible for the company as a whole. You take care of the “big picture.” But you have to admit that for you, too, the company is mostly an abstraction: names, numbers, processes, strategies, markets, spread-sheets. Sure, you occasionally take tours of the facilities, but on a day-to-day basis, you live among your peers — your direct reports with whom you interact in running the company, some board members, and other executives with whom you play golf and discuss a variety of issues.

We frequently say that people are an organization’s most important resource. Yet we seldom understand this truism in terms of the communities through which individuals develop and share the capacity to create and use knowledge. Even when people work for large organizations, they learn through their participation in more specific communities made up of people with whom they interact on a regular basis. These “communities of practice” are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units (see “Communities of Practice” on p. 1).

Although we recognize knowledge as a key source of competitive advantage in the business world, we still have little understanding of how to create and leverage it in practice. Traditional knowledge management approaches attempt to capture existing knowledge within formal systems, such as databases. Yet systematically addressing the kind of dynamic “knowing” that makes a difference in practice requires the participation of people who are fully engaged in the process of creating, refining, communicating, and using knowledge. Thus, communities of practice are a company’s most versatile and dynamic knowledge resource and form the basis of an organization’s ability to know and learn.

Defining Communities of Practice

Communities of practice are everywhere. We all belong to a number of them — at work, at school, at home, in our hobbies. Some have a name; some don’t. We are core members of some, and belong to others more peripherally. You may be a member of a band, or you may just come to rehearsals to hang around with the group. You may lead a group of consultants who specialize in telecommunication strategies, or you may only stay in touch to keep informed about developments in the field. Or you may have just joined a community and are still trying to find your place in it. Whatever form our participation takes, most of us are familiar with the experience of belonging to a community of practice.

Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together — from participating in lunch-time discussions to solving difficult problems—and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities. A community of practice is thus different from a community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice. A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:

• What it is about: its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
• How it functions: the relationships of mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
• What capability it has produced: the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Communities of practice also move through various stages of development characterized by different levels of interaction among the members and different kinds of activities (see “Stages of Development” on p. 3).

Communities of practice develop around things that matter to people. As a result, their practices reflect the members’ own understanding of what is important. Even when a community’s actions conform to an external mandate, it is the community — not the mandate — that produces the practice. In this sense, communities of practice are self-organizing systems.

Communities of Practice in Organizations

Communities of practice exist in any organization. They can be found:

• Within businesses: Communities of practice arise as people address recurring sets of problems together. So, claims processors within an office form communities of practice to deal with the constant flow of information they need to process. By participating in such a communal memory, they can do the job without having to remember everything themselves.
• Across business units: Important knowledge is often distributed in different business units. People who work in cross-functional teams thus form communities of practice to keep in touch with their peers in various parts of the company and maintain their expertise. When communities of practice cut across business units, they can develop strategic perspectives that transcend individual product lines. For instance, a community of practice may propose a plan for equipment purchases that no one business unit could have come up with on its own
• Across company boundaries: In some cases, communities of practice become useful by crossing organizational boundaries. For instance, in fast-moving industries, engineers who work for suppliers and buyers alike may form a community of practice to keep up with constant technological changes.Communities of practice are not a new kind of organizational unit; rather, they are a different cut on the organization’s structure — one that emphasizes the learning that people have done together rather than the unit they report to, the project they are working on, or the people they know. Communities of practice differ from other kinds of groups found in organizations in the way they define their enterprise, exist over time, and set their boundaries:
• A community of practice is different from a business or functional unit in that it defines itself in the doing, as members develop among themselves their own understanding of what their practice is about. This living process results in a much richer definition than a mere institutional charter. As a consequence, the boundaries of a community of practice are more flexible than those of an organizational unit. The membership involves whoever participates in and contributes to the practice. People can participate in different ways and to different degrees. This permeable periphery creates many opportunities for learning, as outsiders and newcomers learn the practice in concrete terms, and as core members gain new insights from contacts with less-engaged participants.
• A community of practice is different from a team in that the shared learning and interest of its members are what keep it together. It is defined by knowledge rather than by task, and it exists because participation has value to its members. It does not appear the minute a project is started and does not disappear with the end of a task. It takes a while to come into being and may live long after a project is completed or an official team has disbanded.
• A community of practice is different from a network in the sense that it is “about” something; it is not just a set of relationships. It has an identity as a community, and thus shapes the identities of its members. A community of practice exists because it produces a shared practice as members engage in a collective process of learning.People belong to communities of practice at the same time as they belong to other organizational structures. In their business units, they shape the organization. In their teams, they take care of projects. In their networks, they form relationships. And in their communities of practice, they develop the knowledge that lets them do these other tasks. This informal fabric of communities and shared practices makes the official organization effective and, indeed, possible.

  Communities of practice have different relationships with the official organization. The table “Community’s Relationship to Official Organization” on p. 4 shows different degrees of institutional involvement, but it does not imply that some relationships are better or more advanced than others. Rather, these distinctions are useful because they draw attention to the issues that can arise in the interaction between the community of practice and the organization as a whole.

The Importance to Organizations

Communities of practice are important to the functioning of any organization, but they become crucial to those that recognize knowledge as a key asset. From this perspective, an effective organization comprises a constellation of interconnected communities of practice, each dealing with specific aspects of the company’s competencies — from the peculiarities of a long-standing client, to manufacturing safety, to technical inventions. Knowledge is created, shared, organized, revised, and passed on within and among these communities. In a deep sense, it is by these communities that knowledge is “owned” in practice.

Communities of practice fulfill a number of functions with respect to the creation, accumulation, and diffusion of knowledge in an organization:

• They are nodes for the exchange and interpretation of information. Because members have a shared understanding, they know what is relevant to communicate and how to present information in useful ways. As a consequence, a community of practice that spreads throughout an organization is an ideal channel for moving information — such as best practices, tips, or feedback across organizational boundaries.
• They can retain knowledge in “living” ways, unlike a database or a manual. Even when they routinize certain tasks and processes, they can do so in a manner that responds to local circumstances and thus is useful to practitioners. Communities of practice preserve the tacit aspects of knowledge that formal systems cannot capture. For this reason, they are ideal for initiating newcomers into a practice.
• They can steward competencies to keep the organization at the cutting edge. Members of these groups discuss novel ideas, work together on problems, and keep up with developments inside and outside a firm. When a community commits to being on the forefront of a field, members distribute responsibility for keeping up with or pushing new developments. This collaborative inquiry makes membership valuable, because people invest their professional identities in being part of a dynamic, forward-looking community
• They provide homes for identities. They are not as temporary as teams, and unlike business units, they are organized around what matters to their members. Identity is important because, in a sea of information, it helps us sort out what we pay attention to, what we participate in, and what we stay away from. Having a sense of identity is a crucial aspect of learning in organizations. Consider the annual “computer drop” at a semiconductor company that designs both analog and digital circuits. The computer drop became a ritual by which the analog community asserted its identity. Once a year, their hero would climb the highest building on the company’s campus and drop a computer, to the great satisfaction of his peers in the analog gang. The corporate world is full of these displays of identity, which manifest themselves in the jargon people use, the clothes they wear, and the remarks they make. If companies want to benefit from people’s creativity, they must support communities as a way to help them develop their identities.Communities of practice structure an organization’s learning potential in two ways: through the knowledge they develop at their core and through interactions at their boundaries. Like any asset, these communities can become liabilities if their own expertise becomes insular. It is therefore important to make sure that there is enough activity at their boundaries to renew learning. For while the core is the center of expertise, radically new insights often arise at the boundary. Communities of practice truly become organizational assets when their core and their boundaries are active in complementary ways. To develop the capacity to create and retain knowledge, organizations need to build institutional and technological infrastructures that do not dismiss or impede these communities, but rather recognize, support, and leverage them.

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Communities of practice move through various stages of development characterized by different levels of interaction among the members and different kinds of activities.

Developing and Nurturing Communities of Practice

Just because communities of practice arise naturally does not mean that organizations can’t do anything to influence their development. Most communities of practice exist whether or not the organization recognizes them. Many are best left alone — some might actually wither under the institutional spotlight. And some may need to be carefully seeded and nurtured. But a good number will benefit from some attention, as long as this attention does not smother their self-organizing drive.

Whether these communities arise spontaneously or come together through seeding and nurturing, their development ultimately depends on internal leadership. Certainly, in order to legitimize the community as a place for sharing and creating knowledge, recognized experts need to be involved in some way, even if they don’t do much of the work. But internal leadership can take many forms:

• The inspirational leadership provided by thought leaders and recognized experts
• The day-to-day leadership provided by those who organize activities
• The classificatory leadership provided by those who collect and organize information in order to document practices
• The interpersonal leadership provided by those who weave the social fabric
• The boundary leadership provided by those who connect the community to other communities
• The institutional leadership provided by those who maintain links with other organizational constituencies, in particular the official hierarchy
• The cutting-edge leadership provided by those who lead “out-of-the-box” initiatives

These roles may be formal or informal, and may be concentrated in a core group or more widely distributed. But in all cases, leadership must have intrinsic legitimacy in the community. To be effective, therefore, managers and others must work with communities of practice from the inside rather than merely attempt to design them or manipulate them from the outside. Nurturing communities of practice in organizations includes:

Legitimizing Participation. Organizations can support communities of practice by recognizing the work of sustaining them; by giving members the time to participate in activities; and by creating an environment in which the value they bring is acknowledged. To this end, it is important to have an institutional discourse that includes this dimension of organizational life. Merely introducing the term “communities of practice” into an organization’s vocabulary can have a positive effect by giving people an opportunity to talk about how their participation in these groups contributes to the organization as a whole.

Negotiating Their Strategic Context.In what Richard McDermott calls “double-knit organizations,” people work in teams for projects but belong to longer-lived communities of practice for maintaining their expertise. The value of team-based projects that deliver tangible products is easily recognized, but it is also easy to overlook the potential cost of their short-term focus. The learning that communities of practice share is just as critical, but its longer-term value is more subtle to appreciate. Organizations must therefore develop a clear sense of how knowledge is linked to business strategies and use this understanding to help communities of practice articulate their strategic value. This involves a process of negotiation that goes both ways. It includes understanding what knowledge — and therefore what practices — a given strategy requires. Conversely, it also includes paying attention to what emergent communities of practice indicate with regard to potential strategic directions.

Being Attuned to Real Practices. To be successful, organizations must leverage existing practices. For instance, when the customer service function of a large corporation decided to combine service, sales, and repairs under the same 800 number, researchers from the Institute for Research on Learning discovered that people were already learning from each other on the job while answering phone calls. IRL then instituted a learning strategy for combining the three functions that took advantage of this existing practice. By leveraging what they were already doing, workers achieved competency in the three areas much faster than they would have through traditional training. More generally, the knowledge that companies need is usually already present in some form, and the best place to start is to foster the formation of communities of practice that leverage the potential that already exists.

Fine-tuning the Organization. Many elements in an organizational environment can foster or inhibit communities of practice, including management interest, reward systems, work processes, corporate culture, and company policies. These factors rarely determine whether people form communities of practice, but they can facilitate or hinder participation. For example, issues of compensation and recognition often come up. Because communities of practice must be self-organizing to learn effectively and because participation must be intrinsically self-sustaining, it is tricky to use reward systems as a way to manipulate behavior in or micro-manage the community. But organizations shouldn’t ignore the issue of reward and recognition altogether. Rather, they need to adapt reward systems to support participation in learning communities; for instance, by including community activities and leadership in performance review discussions. Managers also need to make sure that existing compensation systems do not inadvertently penalize the work involved in building communities.

Providing Support.resources, such as outside experts, travel, meeting facilities, and communications technology. A company-wide team assigned to nurture community development can help address these needs. This team typically Communities of practice are mostly self-sufficient, but they can benefit from some

• provides guidance and resources
• helps communities connect their agenda to business strategies
• encourages them to move forward and remain focused on the cutting edge
• ensures they include all the right people
• helps them link to other communities

Such a team can also help identify and eliminate barriers to participation in the structure or culture of the overall organization; for instance, conflicts between short-term demands on people’s time and the need to participate in learning communities. In addition, just the existence of such a team sends the message that the organization values the work and initiative of communities of practice.

The Art of Balancing Design and Emergence

Communities of practice do not usually require heavy institutional infrastructures, but their members do need time and space to collaborate. These communities do not require much management, but they can use leadership. They self-organize, but they flourish when their learning fits with their organizational environment. The art is to help such communities find resources and connections without overwhelming them with organizational meddling. This need for balance reflects the following paradox: No community can fully design the learning of another; but conversely, no community can fully design its own learning.

Acknowledgments:This article reflects ideas and text co-created for presentations with my colleagues Richard McDermott of McDermott & Co., George Por of the Community Intelligence Labs, Bill Snyder of the Social Capital Group, and Susan Stucky of the Institute for Research on Learning. Thanks to all of them for their personal and intellectual companionship.

Etienne Wenger, PhD, is a globally recognized thought leader in the field of learning theory and its application to business. A pioneer of the “community of practice” research and author of Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he helps organizations apply these ideas through consulting, workshops, and public speaking.

The post Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

• There is one team member who always seems to be “the problem.”
• You find yourself thinking, “Why are we having this argument again?
• You have a sense of déjà vu when team members say they will do something that you know will never happen.
• You find yourself becoming increasingly passive in the face of the group’s growing inertia.
• No one seems to have the courage or energy to initiate a discussion about obvious process problems.

These are just a few of the symptoms displayed by teams that are trapped in a predictable dynamic of rising interpersonal turmoil and falling productivity.

The vast majority of us have experienced one or more of these, “Team Traps”; that is, vicious cycles of unproductive behavior that undermines group performance. The affected team can be a family system, a small work group, or any kind of business team from an executive-level task force to a product development group. In such situations, team members often feel frustrated and helpless. These feelings can lead people to take drastic actions, such as giving up on the project or even sabotaging it, which further escalates the group’s level of tension and inability to take effective action.

There is no shortage of books on teams or team problems. Yet most of the descriptions of, and proposed solutions to, dysfunctional team behavior focus on the task or event level of team performance. These resources offer little insight into the underlying structure of relationships that is driving the complex human interactions. For instance, much of the literature stresses the need for teams to agree on a charter and to clarify roles that the members will play. However, the same books offer little analysis of the dynamics that may prevent groups from reaching these kinds of agreements. Even books on conflict resolution tend to focus on the “how tos of negotiation” rather than on the emotional dynamics that can undermine the negotiation process.

Because teams are complex systems, any attempt to “fix” them without understanding the structural causes of their problems runs the risk of becoming a “Fix That Fails.” In such a case, the intervention may be unsuccessful or may create unintended consequences that are even more challenging than the original dilemma. This article describes how the application of systems thinking and human systems concepts can yield a robust “picture” of a team’s underlying structure and pattern of interpersonal dynamics. This perspective can help us to effectively predict and correct or better yet, avoid common Team Traps.

Structure in Social Systems

The structure of any complex system is made up of the relationships among its various components. In the case of a business, which is a kind of social system, these elements include flows of people, money, information, and material, as well as employees’ goals, performance, and emotions.

The only effective way to change a team’s behavior is to identify and modify this web of relationships and interconnections. To do so, we can approach surfacing the root causes of a team’s dysfunction the way a physician diagnoses a patient’s illness by analyzing symptoms and drawing conclusions about the underlying disease or condition causing those symptoms. Ina person an individual “human system” the doctor might intervene by prescribing medication to help the body overcome the ailment, recommend dietary changes to eliminate nutritional elements that have negative effects, or recommend new habitssuch as regular exercise to set into motion reinforcing loops for health.

In a social system, the dimension of the human mind adds another layer of complexity. Individuals’ perceptions, assumptions, beliefs, and emotions all play a role in team dynamics by affecting the actions that people take and the results that they achieve. For this reason, no diagnosis of the “disease” plaguing a human system is complete without an understanding of the emotional drivers at work. But in business organizations especially, we often disregard these important factors. Exploring feelings in a work setting can be threatening and frightening to those of us steeped in a work ethic that calls on us to “suck it up” when things go wrong. When a team fails to fulfill its mission, we focus on refining the task or adjusting the team’s make-up, not on surfacing the interpersonal dynamics that disabled the group’s performance. Nevertheless, it is precisely those situations where emotions remain unexplored that devolve into intractable and disheartening team experiences what we call “Team Traps.”

Team Traps: “Archetypes” of Social Systems

In our study of team performance, we have identified 12 common structural dynamics that teams easily fall into and that interfere with a group’s ability to achieve their purpose. Each of these Team Traps tends to stop groups from doing productive work (see, “Team Traps” on p. 1). These dynamics occur often enough to be considered “archetypal”; in some cases, they are variations of the classic systems thinking archetypes. Most dysfunctional teams tend to get mired in two or three of these Team Traps at any given moment.

Individuals’ perceptions, assumptions, beliefs, and emotions all play a role in team dynamics by affecting the actions that people take and the results that they achieve.

The Team Traps were identified and tested based on empirical research over a 30-year period. They have been cross-referenced with other human system models, such as stages of group development and Kantor’s system types, which are explained below. Teams generally fall into these traps while deciding on a common purpose, managing internal and external boundaries, resolving conflicts, making decisions, assigning accountability, and other important process steps. The Team Traps concept highlights how these process issues affect task issues, and vice versa. For example, a team stuck in escalating conflict between two key members either grinds to a halt on its deliverables or develops an elaborate “work-around” that limits the amount of interaction the combatants have, also slowing down the task at hand.

At a moderate level, the symptoms of the Team Trap dynamics include frustration by group members, or frantic but unproductive efforts to achieve the stated goal. At a severe level, teams caught in these traps become disabled; that is, they are no longer able to work together as a group to fulfill their common mission. The long-term effects of these dysfunctional patterns of behavior can prove even more destructive than merely undermining the current project they can corrode or even destroy team members’ confidence and level of trust well into the future.

So, how can we escape from or, even better, avoid, these quagmires? Because each Team Trap involves both task and relationship issues, we have found that using a combination of tools from the fields of systems thinking and human systems can be a potent force for altering these common structures.

Integrating System Dynamics and Human Systems

Although they share a common ancestry, the fields of human systems and system dynamics have remained relatively separate since the 1950s. The major work in human systems has been carried out in anthropology, psychology, and family therapy. System dynamics has its origins in the “hard” sciences of physics, mathematics, biology, and later computer science. The systems thinking movement has begun the process of integrating the two fields through the five-disciplines model introduced by Peter Senge. By analyzing team behavior on a structural level with causal loop diagrams and using human systems tools and concepts to frame and explain those loops, we hope to carry that integration one step further.

Using causal loop diagrams, we can map the interplay of task and emotional processes. For example, in the Inability to Reach Closure Team Trap, as the amount of work the team completes (task) goes down, frustration (emotion) increases (see “Inability to Reach Closure Loop”). As frustration increases, the number of actions that individuals take outside of the team framework (task) grows, which interferes with focused team action (task), and further decreases the amount of work being accomplished. Causal loop diagrams provide a richer understanding of human systems than an event level analysis that focuses only on tasks, and can help us uncover the role that emotional factors play in perpetuating the system.

Causal loop diagrams also provide a testing ground for potential solutions. Using an agreed-upon representation of the dynamics, managers, team-leaders, and facilitators can explore why intuitive solutions don’t work, and test exactly what approaches might be successful and why. For instance, a common reaction to the Unresolved Overt Conflict Team Trap is for one team member to plead with the two adversaries to “be reasonable,” to notice how their behavior is destroying the team’s ability to accomplish anything, and to compromise. Although this intervention may seem appropriate, it seldom works, because it does not address the emotions underpinning the harmful behavior.

Causal loop diagrams let us identify the high-leverage areas for successful intervention. For instance, in our example of Unresolved Overt Conflict, the first step might be to acknowledge the disagreeing parties’ underlying fears which are usually that they are not being heard and try reversing the process that evolved to make them feel disrespected to begin with. Only after each team member feels that the others hear and value his or her perspective and experience can the group resume its original work.

In system dynamics, possible structural interventions include adding a link, breaking a link, and changing a delay. An example of adding a link to a social system like a business would be to create a measurement system to track work completed. Another new link might be to develop a forum for talking about underlying fears that maybe fueling conflict. An example of changing a delay would be to establish periodic status meetings to decrease the gap between actual project progress and perceived project progress. Finally, instituting meeting rules that disallow overt challenges to ideas might constitute breaking a link. The knowledge generated by these kinds of systemic interventions can powerfully advance team learning.

Part of the challenge for intervening in social systems lies in identifying the kinds of structural changes that might be effective. It’s easier to simply react to the situation as an individual than to figure out what is causing the collective team behavior. It’s also much easier to talk about the work to be done than to honestly explore pivotal emotional issues that are holding up progress. As mentioned above, we have found that applying human system tools in tandem with systems thinking tools creates tremendous synergy. The human system approaches provide an additional framework for diagramming social systems and for identifying possible high-leverage actions. Two human system tools by the family systems therapist David Kantor are particularly valuable: The Four-Player Model and System Types.

Four Player Model: Intervening Systemically

In this context, we call Kantor’s Four-Player Model the Four Team Roles (for more detail on this model, see, “Dialogic Leadership” by William N. Isaacs in V10N1). According to this model, every sequence of interactions can be described as the interplay of people filling four roles: Mover, Opposer (or what we call Challenger), Follower (or Supporter), and Bystander (or Mirror). A meeting or conversation begins with an initial action by the Mover. Other people either support or challenge the action, or call attention to the process (Mirror).

This framework is useful for analyzing team behavior, identifying variables in causal loop diagrams, and designing solutions to the Team Traps. How does this work in practice? Let’s look at one particularly disabling Team Trap: False Consensus. False Consensus is characterized by the following list of symptoms:

• People silently nod their heads in support of an initiative even though they don’t really agree with what is happening.
• A lack of discussion results in faulty decisions.
• Controversy is discouraged out of fear of slowing down the process.
• People say one thing but think or do another.
• Team members undermine the decision after the meeting.
• Because participants don’t really “buy in,” they don’t follow through on assigned tasks

In a False Consensus scenario, someone, usually the team leader, wants something to be done to address a problem or exploit an opportunity (R2in “The Dynamics of False Consensus”). Fearing repercussions if they question (Challenge) this action, the rest of the group gives a “head nod” to the leader, resulting in false agreement and consequently poor follow-through.

Because no one actually takes action to implement the leader’s idea, the original problem intensifies, resulting in stronger “moving” by the leader. Notice how the causal loop diagram includes both task and process variables, and how emotion (fear of repercussions) drives the behavior (head-nodding) that ultimately worsens the situation.

The team members’ fear of repercussions and the strength of their conviction that the Mover’s actions are wrong-headed make them angry. These emotions quickly find expression in covert conversations around the water cooler and in the hallways, which legitimize the inaction and lack of productivity (R3). Not only does this behavior exacerbate the original problem, but it also isolates the team leader, again increasing his or her level of frustration and tendency to push for action (what Kantor refers to as a, “Stuck Mover”).

At this point, the entire team feels stressed. Certain individuals may try to solve the problem by approaching the Mover to discuss the situation. However, the longer the issue persists, the more defensive the team leader may feel. This defensiveness can stymie any attempts to initiate a dialogue (R4). Because the team members do not feel that they can overtly challenge the leader, they continue to resist the plan covertly (R5).

THE DYNAMICS OF FALSE CONSENSUS

The Mover wants something to be done. Team members’ fear of repercussions leads them to appear to accept the mandate, but they fail to take action (R2). These fears find expression in covert conversations, which legitimize the inaction and cause the leader to feel defensive (R3). This defensiveness stymies attempts to initiate a dialogue (R4). Because the team members do not feel that they can talk to the leader, they continue to resist the plan(R5). Leverage lies in supporting rather than challenging the Mover.

Supporting the Mover may seem counter intuitive, even for experienced facilitators. In addition, team members may have difficulty forgiving the Mover for his or her heavy handedness in pressing for action. Never the less, we have seen numerous breakthroughs achieved when a team member or an outside facilitator validates a Mover’s motives. After all, the Mover is at least trying to solve the perceived problem or capitalize on the opportunity. Validating his or her intentions makes the Mover feel understood, which lessens the need to push for action.

Validation also opens the door to the possibility of a new solution to the ongoing challenge. It makes the Mover more able to hear others’ perspectives and to consider alternative solutions to the problem. This openness in turn sets the stage for a dialogue about the emotions — such as fear of repercussions that have been fueling the process. In such cases, creating a causal loop diagram and using insights from human systems can lead to a new understanding of both the problem behavior and the structural solution.

System Types: Differing Vulnerabilities

David Kantor and later Larry Constantine have postulated that all human systems fall into four types: Closed, Random, Synchronous, and Open (see “System Types”). Each system type has its own characteristic set of mental models, behaviors, operating rules, and feedback systems. For instance, Closed systems are classically hierarchical, and Random ones are individualistic. Open systems stress collaboration, while Synchronous ones emphasize values and alignment.

Theory and practice indicate that there is no one “best” type of system. Each has its own strengths and vulnerabilities, and each may be especially prone to certain Team Traps. For example, Open systems may try too hard to build consensus and therefore can fall prey to the Inability to Reach Closure Team Trap. The high degree of flexibility and lack of emphasis on leadership shown by Random and Open systems also make them vulnerable to Overt Conflict. With their inherent rigidity, Synchronous and Closed systems may be overly hierarchical and experience a surplus of covert activity. Random and Synchronous systems, with their lack of cohesion, may forget to include customers and stakeholders in their decision-making, or may fail to ensure adequate communication and participation throughout the organization.

Moreover, because of their differences, each system type may require a unique solution to the same problem. For example, accountability issues can be resolved more easily in Closed systems, in which people are already familiar with policies and procedures, than in Random systems, in which members find the concept of evaluation alien. Similarly, Open systems, which value direct communication, can resolve Overt Conflict more quickly than can Synchronous systems, which tend more toward indirect communication.

Knowledge of the Four Team Roles can help facilitators track human interactions on the behavioral level. Causal loop diagrams can analyze the Team Traps on the structural level and provide a testing ground for proposed interventions. The System Types provide additional data on the potential vulnerabilities of the group to certain Team Traps, and the types of interventions that might succeed in that context.

Unspringing Team Traps

SYSTEM TYPES

Addressing the Team Traps concept at the structural level can provide real, lasting solutions to previously intractable problems. An awareness of the most common team disablers, guidance for a structural intervention, and an understanding of the Four Team Roles and the System Types provide a powerful toolbox for teams in trouble. This multifaceted approach to the Team Traps can also help groups learn to work on the system, not merely in it, which is generally the most effective way to improve group dynamics. Perhaps even more important, familiarity with these common traps can help participants and facilitators anticipate a team’s tendency toward one or more of the Team Traps and diffuse negative patterns of behavior before they become entrenched. The highest leverage actions may not always be the easiest to implement, but they are likely to be the most effective over the long run.

The post Taking the Teeth out of Team Traps appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

My knowing continued all the way through graduate school and eventually into my first few jobs. Even as my knowing continued to grow, I felt I had it under control. I was young and had the stamina to know late into the night and still work the next day. I received recognition from my peers for these exploits. Sometimes, I would secretly go out and study a subject, even in the middle of the work day, just so I could control a conversation better, appear as if I knew all along, or protect myself from admitting that I really didn’t know what to do next.

Being a knower started out as a harmless way to get noticed and applauded, but it continued as a habit that complicated my life. The pressure increased to keep providing the right answers. I sometimes took panicked action in an attempt to maintain the appearance of effectiveness. I sensed that something wasn’t right, but I never recognized that being a knower was hurting me. Besides, everyone else was doing it, too.

Being a knower finally caught up with me, though, when I lost a job. Even though I presented my case to the people in authority with an abundance of facts, evidence, and documentation, my defense fell short, and I was let go. I had finally hit bottom (more about that later).

Knowers and Learners

When I use the term “knower,” I’m not referring to a person who is somehow defective and will forever carry around that label or implying that what he or she knows is not important. A knower is simply someone who adopts a “knower stance.” A stance is a mental posture, point of view, or particular thinking habit. It is possible to move back and forth between a knower stance and a learner stance.

The difference between a knower and a learner is that a learner is willing to be influenced.

The difference between a knower and a learner, very simply, is that a learner is willing to admit, “I don’t know” and be influenced. Knowers believe that they know all they need to know to address the situations they are responsible for. But, at an even deeper level, knowing is so central to who they are that they sometimes act as if they do know something, even when they don’t. In his excellent article “Learning, Knowledge and Power” (www.axialent.com), Fred Kofman defines a knower as “someone who obtains his self-esteem from appearing to be right.”

As a consequence of adopting this knower stance, knowers can easily become defensive. If they are responsible for addressing an unsatisfactory situation but don’t actually have the ability to get the desired results, in order to hide their not-knowing, they will blame someone or something else, hide the evidence, ignore the situation, or deny that the situation was unsatisfactory in the first place.

Learners are people who operate from a “learner stance.” They choose a mental posture that includes, at a minimum, three decisions: (1) They admit they are not currently achieving desired results — they want something more or better; (2) They take responsibility for addressing the current unsatisfactory situation; and (3) They admit that what they are presently doing is not producing the desired results. Learners often go deeper and make two more decisions: (4) They admit that, to achieve the desired results, they must go beyond the repertoire of actions they can reliably use; and (5) They are willing to be influenced. These five decisions motivate learners to seek new knowledge (see “Learning Path Decision Tree” on p. 3).

“Having Knowledge” vs. “Being a Knower”

Now, you might be thinking, “What’s wrong with being a knower? Knowers possess valuable knowledge. In fact, employers hire people to a great degree for ‘what they know.’ Therefore, it seems that being a knower actually enhances, rather than hinders, success.” Good point. Knowledge, or the ability to produce desired results through effective actions, is essential for being successful in the world. However, “having knowledge” is not the same thing as “being a knower.”

LEARNING PATH DECISION TREE

When faced with any improvement situation, you can follow the Learning Path Decision Tree to clarify what type of learning will be required in order to achieve your desired results. As you progress through, you are called upon to increase your levels of responsibility, ownership, and self-reflection. This diagram highlights the choices you must make, as well as the accompanying consequences you must accept, as you move further along toward the results that you truly desire.

Both learners and knowers can “have knowledge,” they just use it differently. Knowers effectively apply their knowledge to current situations that are static, definable, and knowable. For example, when a nurse discovers a patient in need of resuscitation, she assesses the situation within seconds and applies her knowledge to that static, definable, knowable situation. She knows what to do in that situation and acts skillfully and confidently. In that circumstance, knowing what to do is a good thing. Most people know exactly what to do in certain defined situations, which is fortunate — especially if you are the patient in that bed.

However, when the current situation changes or if the standard actions are no longer producing desired results, both of which happen frequently in today’s world, knowers become ineffective. In other words, it’s O. K. to be a knower, but not to stay a knower. To paraphrase Eric Hoffer, “In times of change, learners will inherit the earth, while knowers will be perfectly equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”

In contrast to knowers, learners effectively use their knowledge and expertise not by applying autonomous, unilateral solutions but by inquiring further into the situation. They attempt to implement what they know in order to find out whether or not they actually know it. Learners see their knowledge as only a part of the whole realm of insight surrounding a given situation and not as the single, silver bullet answer.

Secrets of a Knower

As I said earlier, I am a recovering knower. Part of my recovery process is to admit where I have fallen short. These are things that knowers are not particularly proud of, but I share them in the hope that you might recognize some of these tendencies in yourself and seek the help that is prescribed later in this article.

When I am operating from the full-blown knower stance, I adhere to five particular thinking habits; we might refer to these as the “five secrets of a knower”:

1. I Live My Life on a Problem-Solving Treadmill. My life is dominated by solving problems. It is how I feel effective and make progress. I derive energy from opportunities to immediately apply what I know against a definable, existing situation. I solve problems to attempt to eliminate the symptoms I am experiencing, rather than to seek any long-term, fundamental solutions. I resist creating lasting solutions to problems because doing so would require me to design something that does not yet exist, thereby admitting that I don’t have the whole picture, and to eliminate the very source of my effectiveness in the world — problems!
2. I Force Groups to Comply with My Way. I know that groups work best when all members operate from the same page. Therefore, when I work in groups, I must convince others that I have the “right page” and that all they have to do is follow me. If they suggest alternatives, I try to shut them down or point out problems with their ideas, because we might be headed into untried territory. If I am part of a group where I have authority, I manipulate the members through rewards, punishments, policies, memos, and so on to instill a culture of compliance.
3. I Must Protect Myself During Conversations. My objective in every conversation is to win. If I can be seen as right, rational, and not responsible, I have successfully protected my image as a competent person. Any conversation that points out how I may be inaccurate, may be missing something, or may have contributed to a problem must be stopped. I use conversational strategies that counter such threats. I defend my beliefs and conclusions at all costs, because a chink in my self-created armor could cause extraordinary stress for me. It would threaten the core beliefs upon which I base all my knowing.
4. I Focus Exclusively on My Own Little Piece of the World. Because my aim is to control things as much as possible and to make things around me predictable, I focus almost exclusively on my team, department, group, family—in short, my realm. If I can make sure that my areas of responsibility perform well, then I can blame areas outside my domain when problems occur.I must also keep the internal workings of my area a secret in order to ensure that I can do things my way. If others suggest how I could do my work better, I react negatively. I resist interacting with outside entities unless I can get something from them that will make my area function more effectively. Even if a suggested change would benefit the organization as a whole, I am resistant to sub-optimizing anything from my realm.
5. I Direct and Debate During Group Interactions. I expect group members to interact by playing out predictable, consistent roles, which I reinforce by directing the interaction and controlling the agenda as much as possible. If I can put people in little boxes, then I can better control the process and predict the outcome of our conversations. I constantly bring up what worked for me in the past as a way of maintaining the focus of attention on areas where I have expertise. If I have position power in a group, I use it to manipulate the conversation, so that the outcomes are in line with what I want. And I will often work out the details of a plan in advance and then present the plan for approval. When someone challenges my plan, I make them prove why their approach is better than mine.

Moving Toward the Learner Stance

As I mentioned earlier, about eight years ago, I lost a job, in part because I was a knower and not a learner. I supervised a woman who under-performed, played solitaire, and slept on the job. I tried six different methods to improve her performance, all without success. Both the personnel committee and the full board would not even consider my perspective on this issue. Instead, the board launched a “fact-finding” inquiry, culminating in a final determination meeting. I was pleased to finally be able to tell my side of the story at that meeting, but when I arrived, I discovered that it had already been adjourned. Three board members stayed behind and relieved me of my position.

I had done everything I could think of to improve my situation — including having open and honest conversations, collecting and studying data, experimenting with different tools and techniques, attending workshops, reading books, seeking advice and counsel. But there was one thing I lacked: the willingness to be influenced. I spent a lot of time and effort busily learning all this information, really, just so that I might influence others. I tried to protect myself and focus on my little piece of that world. I didn’t reflect on the bigger picture. I tried to shape groups to conform to my notions, and I moved persistently toward compliance. In short, I displayed classic knower behaviors.

My next job was as organizational development facilitator for Gerber Memorial Health Services. One of my responsibilities was to teach leaders the five disciplines of organizational learning. As a good knower, I set out to learn all that I could about the disciplines, determined to know just a little more than those whom I was teaching. But a funny thing happened —I actually learned this material. And by “learned,” I don’t mean that I merely accumulated more information (which is what knowers think of as learning); I mean I increased my ability to produce desired results. I tried the disciplines out, and, to my amazement, they actually made a difference in my life and work. Below, I will describe how I used them to overcome the five secrets of a knower mentioned earlier (see “Shifting from Knowing to Learning” on p. 4).

Personal Mastery

The discipline of personal mastery helped me move from reacting to creating my way through life. As I studied the concept of the creative versus the reactive orientation, as articulated by Robert Fritz in The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life (Ballantine, 1989), I realized that there are two kinds of energy that prompt people to take action: pressure or desire. As a knower, my energy came from pressure, so I always operated from a reactive (problem-solving) orientation. I came to understand that there was an alternative to living my life on the problem-solving treadmill, and that was to bring new things into existence (see “Reacting vs. Creating”).

I became interested in this new framework but had no idea how to go about living from a creative orientation. Fritz’s creative tension model gives structure to the ethereal idea of bringing something new into existence. Creative tension juxtaposes an honest and accurate awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of your vision or the desired results you want to create (see “Creative Tension Model” on p. 6).
Knowers have a hard time looking at current reality when the results are inadequate and they have some responsibility for them. The concept of creative tension helped me see less than-desired results as just one part of a larger scheme of success.

Shared Vision

Groups operate more effectively when they are aligned around an idea or goal. As I progressed in my knowledge of shared vision, I moved from using a short-term compliance strategy to a long-term commitment one.

The compliance strategy can work, but only for a short while. Four conditions are necessary for employees to feel a sense of dedication to a future direction or desired result: (1) Access to valid and relevant information; (2) Free, informed choices from a series of alternatives; (3) Participation in discussions and decisions; and (4) Alignment of the chosen direction with personal vision and values. If any one of these elements is missing, people will feel manipulated, their trust will be diminished, and their commitment to the decision will plummet.

These four conditions spread control among the members of the group, rather than maintaining it in my hands alone. This is a difficult transition for knowers to make. I must move from having “control over” to having “control with” others. However, breaking the commitment strategy down into four elements is very comforting for a knower—I can get my head around it.

Mental Models

The essence of the discipline of mental models is moving from having conversations in “protection mode” to having them in “reflection mode.” In protection mode, I believe that I must protect the “fact” that I am right, that I have all the information I need, and that I have not contributed to the problem. In reflection mode, I ponder my thinking and actions and ask questions such as “Why did I react so strongly just now?” “What information am I missing?” and “Have I somehow contributed to this problem?”

CREATIVE TENSION MODEL

Using Robert Fritz’s creative tension framework, learners juxtapose an honest awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of the results they want to create. By doing so, they are able to identify the actions required to move from current reality to the desired future state.

Operating in reflection mode is a huge leap for knowers to make. Knowers feel they must protect what they know — they can’t be wrong or have incomplete knowledge. However, through the discipline of mental models, I have come to admit that there are multiple views on a given subject and that these other views can be valid and rational, too. When I was introduced to concepts such as “left-hand column,” “ladder of inference,” and “learning conversations,” I discovered a way to understand how people think and interact. This is great information for a knower! It takes some of the mystery out of difficult conversations.

Systems Thinking

The essence of systems thinking is moving from focusing exclusively on “the parts” (especially my part) to focusing on “the whole.” As a knower, I focus on “my part” because it is knowable, controllable, and containable, and I pride myself on my ability to address problems. But what if the cause or effect of a problem does not fall within my realm of control? If I pride myself on problem solving, I had better be able to fix this problem. But because I have focused exclusively on my area, I really don’t know how to go about addressing it. Should I admit that I don’t actually know all about my area after all or that I really can’t solve this problem because it falls outside my realm? I can’t be both an expert in how to run my area and a problem-solver extraordinaire when a cause or effect of a problem falls outside of my domain.

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together.

The solution to this dilemma, I found, was to broaden the scope of what I pay attention to beyond my little piece of the world. I need to focus on “the whole” rather than just “my piece.” Systems thinking tools and principles help in this regard.

Team Learning

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together. When I debate, I am pursuing the right answer — the correct answer. I am talking about things I know. Within the realm of what is actually knowable, this can work well. We run into trouble, however, when what is “known” becomes outdated and obsolete as the world continues its rapid change around us. Therefore, I gradually recognized that it is necessary to generate new insights in order to make progress. I just had to find a way to do so that wouldn’t threaten me.

I was exposed to a conversational technique called “dialogue,” which is often used to generate collective insight. When I began to try it out in groups, I realized that, at a certain critical point, there is, literally, nothing to debate. We are seeking “emerging knowledge,” which are ideas that have not yet fully emerged. It is impossible to debate who has the “right” emerging knowledge. When new ideas are being revealed, there is no debate.

Team learning does have some attractive and practical qualities for knowers. Knowers are always interested in uncovering new things that can be “known” — they just have to overcome their hesitancy to accept them if they come from someone other than themselves. Dialogue can also be employed as part of a problem-solving process, but it should not be used for making any final decisions — dialogue must precede decision-making. In addition, team learning is a great way to introduce collective responsibility to a group (“how did we each contribute?”), which is particularly attractive to knowers, who are very sensitive to being blamed.

Learn, Unlearn, Relearn

Alvin Toffler wrote, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Can you imagine the day when people’s competence is based not on their ability to be knowers, but on their ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Will you be ready? Will you be “literate”? By understanding the pitfalls of being a knower and diligently practicing the five disciplines, you will place yourself squarely on the path to success in the 21st century.

Brian Hinken (bhinken@gmhs.org) serves as the Organizational Development Facilitator at Gerber Memorial Health Services, a progressive, rural hospital in Fremont, MI. He is responsible for leadership development, process facilitation, and making organizational learning tools and concepts practically useful for people at all levels of the organization.

The post Confessions of a Recovering Knower appeared first on The Systems Thinker.