One of the reasons for this wide-spread institutional failure is that the knowledge-creating system, the method by which human beings collectively learn and by which society’s institutions improve and revitalize themselves, is deeply fragmented. This fragmentation has developed so gradually that few of us have noticed it; we take the disconnections between the branches of knowledge and between knowledge and practice as a given

A Knowledge-Creating System

Before we can address the issue of fragmentation, we need to establish what has been fragmented. In other words, what do we mean by a knowledge-creating system, and what does it mean to say it is fragmented?

THE CYCLE OF KNOWLEDGE-CREATION

Like theories, the tree’s roots are invisible, and yet the health of the root system determines the health of the tree. The branches are the methods and tools, which enable translation of theories into new capabilities and practical results. The fruit is that practical knowledge. The tree as a whole is a system.

We believe that human communities have always attempted to organize themselves to maximize the production, transmittal, and application of knowledge. In these activities, different individuals fulfill different roles, with varying degrees of success. For example, in indigenous cultures, elders articulate timeless principles grounded in their experience to guide their tribes’ future actions. “Doers, “whether warriors, growers, hunters, or nannies, try to learn how to do things better than before and continually improve their craft. And coaches and teachers help people develop their capacities to both perform their roles and grow as human beings. These three activities-which we can term theory-building, practice, and capacity-building-are intertwined and woven into the fabric of the community in a seamless process that restores and advances the knowledge of the tribe. One could argue that this interdependent knowledge-creating system is the only way that human beings collectively learn, generate new knowledge, and change their world.

We can view this system for producing knowledge as a cycle. People apply available knowledge to accomplish their goals. This practical application in turn provides experiential data from which new theories can be formulated to guide future action. New theories and principles then lead to new methods and tools that translate theory into practical know-how, the pursuit of new goals, and new experience-and the cycle continues.

Imagine that this cycle of knowledge-creation is a tree (see “The Cycle of Knowledge-Creation” on p.1). The tree’s roots are the theories. Like theories, the roots are invisible to most of the world, and yet the health of the root system to a large extent determines the health of the tree. The branches are the methods and tools, which enable translation of theories into new capabilities and practical results. The fruit is that practical knowledge. In a way, the whole system seems designed to produce the fruit. But, if you harvest and eat all the fruit from the tree, eventually there will be no more trees. So, some of the fruit must be used to provide the seeds for more trees. The tree as a whole is a system.

The tree is a wonderful metaphor, because it functions through a profound, amazing transformational process called photosynthesis. The roots absorb nutrients from the soil. Eventually, the nutrients flow through the trunk and into the branches and leaves. In the leaves, the nutrients interact with sunlight to create complex carbohydrates, which serve as the basis for development of the fruit.

So, what are the metaphorical equivalents that allow us to create fruits of practical knowledge in our organizations? We can view research activities as expanding the root system to build better and richer theories. Capacity-building activities extend the branches by translating the theories into usable methods and tools. The use of these methods and tools enhances people’s capabilities. The art of practice in a particular line of work transforms the theories, methods, and tools into usable knowledge as people apply their capabilities to practical tasks, much as the process of photosynthesis converts the nutrients into leaves, flowers, and fruit. In our society,

• Research represents any disciplined approach to discovery and understanding with a commitment to share what’s being learned. We’re not referring to white-coated scientists performing laboratory experiments; we mean research in the same way that a child asks, “What’s going on here?” By pursuing such questions, research-whether performed by academics or thoughtful managers or consultants reflecting on their experiences-continually generates new theories about how our world works.
• Practice is anything that a group of people does to produce a result. It’s the application of energy, tools, and effort to achieve something practical. An example is a product development team that wants to build a better product more quickly at a lower cost. By directly applying the available theory, tools, and methods in our work, we generate practical knowledge
• Capacity-building links research and practice. It is equally committed to discovery and understanding and to practical know-how and results. Every learning community includes coaches, mentors, and teachers – people who help others build skills and capabilities through developing new methods and tools that help make theories practical.

“The Stocks and Flows of Knowledge-Creation” shows how the various elements are linked together in a knowledge-creating system.

THE STOCKS AND FLOWS OF KNOWLEDGE-CREATION

Research activities build better and richer theories. Capacity-building functions translate the theories into usable methods and tools. The use of these methods and tools enhances people’s capabilities. The art of practice transforms the theories, methods, and tools into practical knowledge, as people apply their capabilities to practical tasks.

Institutionalized Fragmentation

If knowledge is best created by this type of integrated system, how did our current systems and institutions become so fragmented? To answer that question, we need to look at how research, practice, and capacity-building are institutionalized in our culture (see “The Fragmentation of Institutions”).

For example, what institution do we most associate with research Universities? What does the world of practice encompass? Corporations, schools, hospitals, and nonprofits. And what institution do we most associate with capacity-building-people helping people in the practical world? Consulting, or the HR function within an organization. Each of these institutions has made that particular activity its defining core. And, because research, practice, and capacity-building each operate within the walls of separate institutions, it is easy for the people within these institutions to feel cut off from each other, leading to suspicion, stereo typing, and an “us” versus “them” mindset.

This isolation leads to severe communication breakdown. For example, many people have argued that the academic community has evolved into a private club. Nobody understands what’s going on but the club members. They talk in ways that only members can understand. And the members only let in others like themselves.

Consulting institutions have also undermined the knowledge-creating process, by making knowledge proprietary, and by not sharing what they’ve learned. Many senior consultants have an incredible amount of knowledge about organizational change, yet they have almost no incentive to share it, except at market prices.

Finally, corporations have contributed to the fragmentation by their bottom-line orientation, which places the greatest value on those things that produce immediate, practical results. They have little patience for investing in research that may have payoffs over the long term or where payoffs cannot be specifically quantified.

Technical Rationality: One Root of Fragmentation

How did we reach this state of fragmentation? Over hundreds of years, we have developed a notion that knowledge is the province of the expert, the researcher, the academic. Often, the very term science is used to connote this kind of knowledge, as if the words that come out of the mouths of scientists are somehow inherently more truthful than everyone else’s words.

Donald Schon has called this concept of knowledge “technical rationality.” First you develop the theory, then you apply it. Or, first the experts come in and figure out what’s wrong, and then you use their advice to fix the problem. Of course, although the advice may be brilliant, sometimes we just can’t figure out how to implement it.

But maybe the problem isn’t in the advice. Maybe it’s in the basic assumption that this method is how learning or knowledge-creation actually works. Maybe the problem is really in this very way of thinking: that first you must get “the answer,” then you must apply it.

THE FRAGMENTATION OF INSTITUTIONS

Because research, practice, and capacity-building each operate within the walls of separate institutions, the people within these institutions feel cut off from each other, leading to suspicion, stereotyping, and an “us” versus “them” mindset.

The implicit notion of technical rationality often leads to conflict between executives and the front-line people in organizations. Executives often operate by the notion of technical rationality: In Western culture, being a boss means having all the answers. However, front-line people know much more than they can ever say about their jobs and about the organization. They actually have the capability to do something, not just talk about something. Technical rationality is great if all you ever have to do is talk.

Organizing for Learning

If we let go of this notion of technical rationality, we can then start asking more valuable questions, such as:

• How does real learning occur?
• How do new capabilities develop?
• How do learning communities that interconnect theory and practice, concept and capability come into being?
• How do they sustain themselves and grow?
• What forces can destroy them, undermine them, or cause them to wither?

Clearly, we need a theory, method, and set of tools for organizing the learning efforts of groups of people.

Real learning is often far more complex and more interesting than the theory of technical rationality suggests. We often develop significant new capabilities with only an incomplete idea of how we do what we do. As in skiing or learning to ride a bicycle, we “do it” before we really understand the actual concept. Similarly, practical know how often precedes new principles and general methods in organizational learning. Yet, this pattern of learning can also be problematic.

For example, teams within a large institution can produce significant innovations, but this new knowledge often fails to spread. Modest improvements may spread quickly, but real breakthroughs are difficult to diffuse. Brilliant innovations won’t spread if there is no way for them to spread; in other words, if there is no way for an organization to extract the general lessons from such innovations and develop new methods and tools for sharing those lessons. The problem is that wide diffusion of learning requires the same commitment to research and capacity-building as it does to practical results. Yet few businesses foster such commitment. Put differently, organizational learning requires a community that enhances research, capacity-building, and practice (see “Society for Organizational Learning” on p. 4)

Learning Communities

We believe that the absence of effective learning communities limits our ability to learn from each other, from what goes on within the organization, and from our most clearly demonstrated breakthroughs. Imagine a learning community as a group of people that bridges the worlds of research, practice, and capacity-building to produce the kind of knowledge that has the power to transform the way we operate, not merely make incremental improvements. If we are interested in innovation and in the vitality of large institutions, then we are interested in creating learning communities that integrate knowledge instead of fragment it.

In a learning community, people view each of the three functions-research, capacity-building, practice-as vital to the whole (see “A Learning Community”). Practice is crucial because it produces tangible results that show that the community has learned something. Capacity-building is important because it makes improvement possible. Research is also key because it provides a way to share learning with people in other parts of the organization and with future generations within the organization. In a learning community, people assume responsibility for the knowledge creating process.

Learning Communities in Action

To commit to this knowledge-creating process, we must first understand what a learning community looks like in action in our organizations. Imagine a typical change initiative in an organization; for example, a product development team trying a new approach to the way they handle engineering changes. Traditionally, such a team would be primarily interested in improving the results on their own projects. Team members probably wouldn’t pay as much attention to deepening their understanding of why a new approach works better, or to creating new methods and tools for others to use. Nor would they necessarily attempt to share their learnings as widely as possible – they might well see disseminating the information as someone else’s responsibility.

In a learning community, however, from the outset, the team conceives of the initiative as a way to maximize learning for itself as well as for other teams in the organization. Those involved in the research process are integral members of the team, not outsiders who poke at the system from a disconnected and fragmented perspective. The knowledge creating process functions in real time within the organization, in a seamless cycle of practice, research, and capacity-building.

Imagine if this were the way in which we approached learning and change in all of our major institutions. What impact might this approach have on the health of any of our institutions, and on society as a whole? Given the problems we face within our organizations and within the larger culture, do we have any choice but to seek new ways to work together to face the challenges of the future? We believe the time has come or us to begin the journey back from fragmentation to wholeness and integration. The time has come for true learning communities to emerge.

Peter M. Senge, best-selling author of The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, is an international leader in the area of creating learning organizations. He is a senior lecturer in the Organizational Learning and Change Group at MIT. Peter has lectured throughout the world and written extensively on systems thinking, institutional learning, and leadership.

Daniel H. Kim is a co-founder of Pegasus Communications, Inc., and publisher of The Systems Thinker. He is a prolific author as well as an international public speaker, facilitator, and teacher of systems thinking and organizational learning

Editorial support for this article was provided by Janice Molloy and Lauren Johnson

A LEARNING COMMUNITY

In a learning community, people view each of the three functions—research, capacity-building,practice—as vital to the whole

The post From Fragmentation to Integration: Building Learning Communities appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

A MacWEEK editorial (April 3, 1990) summarized the downfall of this company that was once a “Mac user’s dream.” According to the editorial, Jasmine became successful because it sold directly to users at a low cost. Its quality product, coupled with a reputation for superior customer support, vaulted the company’s revenues to S30 million in 1988. But when money became tight, quality and customer service were the first to go.

The editorial hit upon all the right points but lacked a coherent framework for explaining why Jasmine failed and how other promising startups can avoid the same fate. If we try to understand Jasmine’s downfall from a systems perspective, we can see the classic “limits to success” principle.

A strong reinforcing loop (right) fueled Jasmine’s growth. Eventually demand out-stripped production capacity. Jasmine’s management allowed the demand pressure to create an unavoidable balancing effect by letting quality deteriorate and raising delivery delay (left).

Jasmine’s initial success was fueled by a strong reinforcing feedback loop. The introduction of a quality product created demand, which increased the installed base of users. Word-of-mouth advertising from the users raised the awareness of the product, which led to further demand and created rapid growth.

Rather than allowing the demand pressure to balance itself, management could have actively designed balancing loops (left) by reducing marketing and increasing prices.

But after a certain point, demand began to outstrip the company’s capacity. In order to keep up with demand, management shortened production time by lowering quality standards. The effects were not felt right away. It took time before word got around that the product quality had deteriorated. While the perceived attractiveness remained high, demand increased even further. With limited production capacity, Jasmine continued to fall behind demand and customers had to wait longer and longer to receive their product. By the time the low quality and high delivery delay were widely reported in the trade press, the company was already in deep trouble.

What would have happened if management had actively designed its own balancing effect rather than allowing the demand pressure to force one on the company? For example, management could have sharply reduced marketing, thus decreasing product awareness. Or they could have raised prices, thus decreasing product attractiveness. Both policies would generate more funds for capacity investments, which would enable them to maintain their product and service quality. In contrast, the passive approach of letting the system create its own balancing loops generated customer disappointment without any benefit for the company.

Ernst W. Diehl is the president of MicroWorlds, Inc., a software development and management consulting company that specializes in interactive training and the design of model-based executive information systems

The post Can a Product Be Too Attractive? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The good news, according to Tony Wagner, former co-director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is that the key qualities necessary for innovation—curiosity, collaboration, associative or integrative thinking, and a bias toward action and experimentation—are skills that can be learned rather than being strictly innate. Nevertheless, in his latest book, Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World (Scribner, 2012), he makes the case that most of our schools, at all levels, are failing to provide students with the hands-on, collaborative learning that fosters creative, critical thinking. Instead, they continue to prepare students in traditional ways for a career path that no longer exists.

Breaking the Mold

To illustrate that a different way of teaching and learning is possible, Wagner introduces several educational programs that are striving to break the existing mold, including the High Tech High network of K–12 schools in San Diego, California, Olin College in Needhaam, MA, the MIT Media Lab, and Stanford’s d. school. The essential difference between these programs and other, more conventional ones is that these schools promote:

• Collaboration versus individual achievement
• Multidisciplinary learning versus specialization
• Trial and error versus risk avoidance Creating versus consuming
• Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation

Wagner quotes Richard Miller, president of Olin College, on the college’s goal, one that is largely shared by the other leading-edge institutions Wagner studied:

We’ve trying to teach students to take initiative—to transmit attitudes, motivations, and behaviors versus mere knowledge. Today, it’s not what you know, it’s having the right questions. I see three stages in the evolution of learning: The first is the memorization-based, multiple-choice approach, which is still widely prevalent; then there’s project-based learning where the problem is already determined; finally, there’s design-based learning where you have to define the problem. That way of learning is part of every class here. We are trying to teach students how to frame problems versus repeat the answers.

To achieve this objective, schools require a new kind of educator, one who serves more as a coach and co-learner than as an authority in an academic subject. Wagner highlights two graduate schools of education that have developed new teaching models: the High Tech High Graduate School of Education and the Upper Valley Educators Institute in Lebanon, NH. In both of these programs, novice teachers spend most of their time working with a mentor in a school setting rather than sitting in lectures learning about education theory. In this way, these programs resemble the approach to teacher education used in Finland, a country that has produced outstanding results on international assessments. Interestingly—but maybe not surprisingly, give how entrenched traditional educational philosophies have proven to be—neither the High Tech High Graduate School of Education nor the Upper Valley Educators Institute has received accreditation from its respective regional accreditation agency.

Finding a Path

Given the scant attention paid to fostering creativity, it’s no shock that the young innovators whom Wagner features in the book worked hard to create their own opportunities. Kirk Phelps left Phillips Exeter Academy and Stanford University without graduating, yet at 29 has already had successful careers at Apple working on the iPhone and SunRun, a leading home solar power company. Zander Srodes became an advocate for sea turtle conservancy, authoring a book, leading ecological tours, and earning numerous youth achievement awards and grants—all while struggling in the classroom. Syreeta Gates, who founded SWT Life, which provides New York City teens with entrepreneurial coaching and personal development training, dropped out of City Technical College of New York before finding a sense of purpose through volunteer work.

Virtually all of Wagner’s interview subjects benefited from the guidance of a mentor and participation in unconventional learning experiences. In many cases, the mentor’s efforts weren’t recognized or well compensated by mainstream institutions but instead were done as labor of love. Such is the case of Amanda Alonzo, who works as a science teacher and science fair faculty advisor. She spends as many as four hours a day after school mentoring 40 students a year on their science fair projects. For her efforts, she receives only a $1,800 stipend on top of her teacher’s salary.

Encouraging Creative Work

So where do we go from here? Wagner is aware that schools alone can’t shoulder the burden for developing innovators—parents and employers have a role to play as well. Based on his interviews with innovators and their families, he identified ways in which parents can encourage the “spirit of play, passion, and purpose that are the wellsprings for creative work.” Some of these include allowing plenty of time for play and discovery; encouraging reading; providing toys that encourage imagination and invention; limiting screen time; and allowing kids to make and learn from mistakes.

Wagner also interviewed business leaders, including Tom Kelley from IDEO and Annmarie Neal from Cisco Systems, about how management practices need to change for young innovators to thrive in corporations. Many of the characteristics they described as being vital—such as the free flow of information up and down the organization and trust— are reminiscent of the characteristics of a learning organization as described by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline more than two decades ago.

The US Army is also aware of the need for a new organizational model. According to the report, “The Army Learning Concept for 2015,” “[T]he Army cannot risk failure through complacency, lack of imagination, or resistance to change.” The report recommends three steps for establishing a more effective learning model, including converting classroom experiences to collaborative problem-solving events; tailoring learning to the individual learner’s experience and competence level; and using a blended learning approach that incorporate simulations, gaming technology, and other technology-based instruction.

Staying the Course

Recognizing that change can take time, Wagner concludes the book with a letter to today’s young innovators, who may have to persevere in less-than optimal circumstances. To encourage them to stay the course, he quotes dancer and choreographer Martha Graham:

There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you will block it, it will never exist through any other medium and it will be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is nor how valuable nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open.

The rest of us have an obligation, too, to give members of the next generation the tools they need to flourish. If we don’t, they will pay the price for our failure of imagination and foresight.

Janice Molloy is content director at Pegasus Communications and managing editor of The Systems Thinker.

The post Creating Tomorrow’s Innovators Today appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Some leaders experience the wake-up call of radical change as an unpleasant shock. But even if a leader welcomes the new challenges with enthusiasm, he or she may not know what to do to address them. Being caught at this kind of transition point without knowing how to act quickly and effectively can be disastrous. During a two-year period, I witnessed four of California’s top leaders in higher education forced from their jobs. Each was challenged by rapid changes in their sector; each failed to adequately assess and address growing tensions in union-management relations, adapt their leadership styles to a changing reality, and set bold new courses for their institutions. Mired in internal struggles, these prominent individuals were unable to counter the state’s shift in spending priorities from education to prison construction.

Facing an unprecedented demand or opportunity for which there are no easy answers often signals that the tide is turning – one phase is ending, while something new is struggling to emerge. We might call this key moment in time an “inflection point.”

An inflection point represents a dramatic change in course, rather than a temporary fluctuation.

Facing an unprecedented demand or opportunity for which there are no easy answers often signals that the tide is turning—one phase is ending, while something new is struggling to emerge.

We can think of an inflection point as a fissure between past and future that creates an opening, a unique window of opportunity for leaders and companies. For example, in the 1980s, three competitors, Advanced Micro Devices, Intel, and National Semiconductor, experienced a precipitous slump. However, only Intel’s leaders recognized that period as a key inflection point. In response, the company dropped its DRAM product line and refocused the full force of its attention and resources to seize the market for the next generation of semiconductors. The company’s leadership recognized a particular combination of endings and emergent opportunities, and used this transition point to catapult itself into a new market space. The rest is history.

Recent research conducted by Generon Consulting and the Society for Organizational Learning found that the key capability for leaders in the new economy is an ability to “sense and actualize emerging futures.” To do so, they must be able to recognize critical shifts such as when a product line reaches the latter stages of its lifespan, even before sales have dropped. They must spot technological innovations and their likely implications for social and economic trends as well as changes in key industries and markets. Leaders must use these insights to guide their companies toward radically transformed goods and services and organizational designs. And to accomplish these ambitious goals, they must cultivate productive new ways to work with and lead others. Yet traditional leadership development has not addressed the need to build competency in these skills.

Intentional Metamorphosis

Fortunately, leaders can learn to evolve as individuals and to influence their organizations’ ability to adapt by becoming fluent in the principles and practices of intentional metamorphosis. The dictionary defines metamorphosis as “a complete or marked change of physical form, structure, or sub- stance; a transformation in the form of an organism as it develops into an adult, for example the change from a tadpole to frog or from caterpillar to butterfly.” A similar kind of transformation can occur in people and organizations. We can purposefully influence and accelerate this process in order to realize an inspiring vision or to meet the challenges of a changing environment.

To stay viable, living systems – including individuals and organizations – adopt new behaviors through a similar change process (see “Change in Living Systems”). First, the organism faces an Adaptive Dilemma – a demand or opportunity that exceeds its range of responses. This phase represents an ending to familiar ways of being. In the Initiation phase, new experiences awaken fresh possibilities, and the organism temporarily suspends familiar reflexes and habits.

Incubation marks a time when the organism experiments with new approaches. By continually performing the new behavior in the fourth stage, Integration, the organism strengthens the neural connections associated with the change. Finally, success over time leads the organism to add the new behavior to its repertoire, deepening the pool of resources it can call on in various situations – this last phase is Maturation. Eventually, even successful behaviors can become overly rigid, setting the stage for the next Adaptive Dilemma.

Leadership at the inflection point requires recognizing what is ending and then sensing and shaping what is emerging in advance of, or in response to, an adaptive challenge. Individuals can initiate the change process by consciously assessing their own way of living and of leading others. For instance, by evaluating his leadership style, the CEO of the semiconductor company found that he was bending over backwards to get his colleagues to buy in to the new software product even though no one, himself included, knew what they were being asked to sign up for. By working with a coach, he learned the difference between trying to force all executives to undertake an ill- defined mission and inviting the right contributors to join a generative process of discovery.

At the organizational level, metamorphosis means simultaneously altering product lines, organizational structure, and deep-seated corporate culture in anticipation of changing market conditions. Otherwise, leaders find themselves trying to fit the “new wine” of cutting-edge goods into the “old skins” of yesterday’s economic and organizational models. For example, the development and sale of software, which depends on technology that shifts every month, is not suited for the multiyear protocols associated with a high-end, capital equipment business. Yet many companies have made the mistake of trying to tack on a software division without adopting the processes and structures needed to support the constant shifts required in the software business.

Thus, to lead effectively through the metamorphosis of what is known in organizational life into something unfamiliar, leaders must simultaneously alter their own leadership styles and direct a radical refocus of the organization. Fortunately, a leader’s personal experience of the change process can provide the validation, confidence, and perspective he or she needs to guide the enterprise along its evolutionary path.

Personal Resiliency

But where do we start? The first step for leaders is to develop their personal resiliency – the capacity to adjust easily to change. Resiliency is especially needed during periods of transition, which require a broader range of skills and capabilities than needed during times of stability. But developing a new repertoire is more complicated than simply boosting performance within a known range of mastery, because we can’t always anticipate what abilities will be useful in the future.

Fortunately, we can develop the capacity to evolve who we are throughout our entire lifespan. Regardless of whether this transformation is inspired by internal creative impulses or provoked by external circumstances, we can learn to welcome what happens when we’re pushed beyond our familiar comfort zone. How? By becoming intentional about the process: by engaging in self-inquiry, evolving our reflexive responses, and broadening our repertoire of behaviors.

Engaging in Self-Inquiry.At key crossroads in our lives, we often question ways of being that characterized our earlier years, including our relationship patterns, responses to conflict, and work-life balance. This impulse becomes amplified if we con- front a serious illness or experience loss through divorce or death. Some people find that success factors that worked for them in the past (such as 60-hour work weeks) are no longer sustainable or that demands from the external environment exceed their inner repertoire of responses. Whatever the catalyst for self-inquiry, by necessity we begin to develop new ways to respond to life’s challenges and opportunities.

CHANGE IN LIVING SYSTEMS

To stay viable, living systems—including individuals and organizations—adapt new behaviors through a similar change process.

During such transitions, what we need most is to clarify vague or unexpressed desires and translate them into a clear aspiration, vision, or goal. For instance, we might wish to deepen our relationships; develop our own voice; be more flexible in the face of tension; or be less driven by immediate results. Some people want to cultivate aspects of themselves that they have kept in the background for years. Others may sense a larger calling that builds on their life experience thus far. For example, a trustee of a grant-making foundation recently declared that she wished to move from being a “producer” who raises money and instigates projects to becoming more of a “presence” who helps others be productive.

Understanding Our “Wiring.” To boost our capacity for resilience, we must first appreciate how we are “wired.” Our personal characteristics are innate/inherited, learned/conditioned, or a combination of the two. Frameworks such as Human Dynamics (developed by Sandra Seagal and David Horne) or Emotional Anatomy (developed by Stanley Keleman) provide maps and pathways for individuals to identify their constitutional makeup, appreciate their strengths, and work to develop new options consistent with their fundamental ways of being. Through deliberate inquiry and practice to discover, incubate, and develop new response patterns, leaders can learn how to alter their own physical-emotional “instruments.”

REFLEXES, MENTAL MODELS, AND BEHAVIOR

By intentionally altering our underlying, reflexive response to a triggering event, we can replace ingrained behaviors with new ones.

For instance, at a recent gathering of international leaders convened to address the ongoing conflict between China and Tibet, one participant almost precipitated a group breakdown by insisting that a press conference be called to force the Vatican to take a strong stand against Chinese oppression of the Tibetan people. Triggered by the intense dynamics of the gathering, his powerful feelings took the form of an urgent call to action. But this “script” failed to produce the desired response from others.

Fortunately, there were people at the gathering who were skilled in assisting individuals as they confront this kind of adaptive dilemma. During a 10-minute break, the participant who proposed the press conference was able to see both the immediate and potential long-term negative consequences of his insistent demand. What’s more, he learned to do some- thing that he had been struggling with for years: to ask for help, especially when the dynamic complexity of the situation exceeded his own ability to find a satisfactory solution. This individual discovered in “real time” how to evolve a more constructive way to work with others. His personal shift in turn contributed to a significant breakthrough for the group as a whole for addressing this complex international conflict.

Broadening Our Repertoire. An axiom of systems thinking is that an organization’s behavior is actually a product of its structure. Because humans are living systems, we can apply this principle to ourselves, too. By intentionally altering our underlying, reflexive response to a triggering event, we can replace formerly ingrained behaviors with new ones (see “Reflexes, Mental Models, and Behavior”). How does this happen? We first need to understand a little about key connections between human physiology and our behavior.

Our bodies – and our minds – react differently to different situations. Distinctive combinations of breath patterns, muscle tone, blood flow, and other so-called involuntary processes comprise the body’s structure. Changes at this level of physiology send signals to our brain indicating whether we are in a state of reserve, fear, receptivity, or attentiveness. In a matter of nanoseconds, the cortex uses this information to organize a repertoire of responses to employ and a story to support those responses.

By focusing on subtle changes such as gestures and breathing patterns, we can alter these reflexive responses and thereby influence our state of awareness, guiding ideas, and decisions and actions. For instance, the simple practice of counting to 10 before acting in anger interrupts the initial impulse and diminishes, but does not eliminate, the anger.

The goal is to evolve a more resilient or robust embodiment of our reflexes, not to ignore the inherent wisdom in our bodies’ response or to eliminate particular physical-emotional reactions. This high-leverage change work is similar to learning a martial art: Through repetition, we alter our “wiring” and generate the new neural pathways required to effect a change in behavior. Through continued practice, these neural connections produce new behaviors in a diverse range of situations.

As you develop new patterns of responses, you realize you have choices. For instance, if you tend to panic in the presence or anticipation of conflict, you can experiment with a broader range of responses, from collapse or withdrawal to viewing the conflict as a healthy way to surface breakthroughs. In Myth and the Body (Center Press, 1999), Stanley Keleman and the late Joseph Campbell describe how you can teach your body new responses and rewrite the stories you live by. You can do so by intensifying and de-intensifying different physical reactions, then quickly sorting through the possibilities or even generating alternative beliefs and responses to meet the challenge at hand. Once you have experienced and practiced applying different response patterns, you have increased your range of options and can make more informed choices more quickly than before.

This process is not about fixing anything; rather, it’s analogous to a caterpillar moving ever closer to becoming a butterfly. Leaders who engage in self-inquiry and who can intentionally evolve their own leadership style bring a depth and maturity that is desperately needed when facing the complexity of systems change.

Systems Change

Once we have experienced change in our own bodies, we have a better idea of how to lead the process of metamorphosis at the systems level. Just as the individual must recognize when some demand or opportunity exceeds his or her adaptive capacity, so must the leader recognize the key moments in organizational life that portend that the future won’t play out as it has up to this point.

Engaging in Strategic Introspection. First, we must learn to recognize when our organization is at an inflection point—which can be surprisingly difficult to do. In order to accurately sense what is happening in the seeming chaos of our work lives, we must take the time to pause, reflect, and seek clarity. In The Tao of Leadership (Bantam, 1985), John Heider quotes Lao Tzu as saying, “Leaders who lose touch with what is happening cannot act spontaneously, so they try what they think is right. If that fails, they often try coercion. But the wise leader who loses a sense of immediacy becomes quiet and lets all effort go until a sense of clarity and consciousness returns.” By engaging in what Michael Schrage, author of Serious Play (Harvard Press, 2000), has called “strategic introspection,” we can notice and come to terms with the fact that something is ending and focus on the new opportunities that are emerging.

Often, it’s the challenge of perceiving what is ending that keeps leaders stuck, especially because we often find it difficult to let go of the status quo. In such cases, simulations, enactments, and prototypes are especially powerful, in that they can generate a pull toward the future and create surprising results. For example, during deregulation of the U.S. airlines in the 1980s, NASA researchers examined the risks associated with increasing the lengths and frequency of transoceanic flights. As a result of simulated flight scenarios, they discovered that ensuring that pilot crews fly together may improve flight safety more than managing pilot hours – a counterintuitive outcome.

Modeling approaches can be less sophisticated than flight simulators. For instance, I recently worked with a management team that found itself struggling. The charismatic founder had announced that she was stepping down from her position as board chair. The change from a system driven by one person to one managed by a team disrupted relationships among staff members throughout the organization.

The management team used role plays and built physical models of their organization to examine the issues involved in making this transition. They realized that their struggles resulted from trying to conform to an outmoded organizational structure. This understanding helped them to reframe the problem and heal the rifts that had been dividing them. The team then focused on creating the kind of management system that would position them for future success.

Co-evolving the Future. Leaders who stop and listen often find many disconnected voices heralding a fundamental change in the organization’s life. For example, customers may be demanding new product functionality. The leader of the service organization may report the advent of a new model for warranties. The head of human resources may talk of increasing the department’s role in strategic initiatives. Underneath the myriad of diverse perspectives, the organization is beginning to articulate and describe a shift in the nature of its core product and organizational architecture.

Once they perceive the underlying sources of change, leaders need to know how to recognize and nurture emergent opportunities. They must walk the tightrope of optimizing the current system while at the same time cultivating new guiding ideas, capabilities, and structures for the organization of the future.

IBM’S METAMORPHOSIS

Management consultant Lou Pambianco has illustrated how IBM accomplished a radical shift in the 1990s under the leadership of Lou Gerstner. Focusing on customer choice and service, the computer giant was able to reposition itself as a market leader and fuel a successful revival. Key to this change was the recognition that IBM’s product architecture was evolving—from a hierarchical array of computers, all emulating or tied to Big Blue’s mainframes, to an amalgamation of productivity tools mass-customized to meet customer’s need for integrated solutions. IBM’s leaders realized that changes in the nature of their product required a radical departure in strategy, organizational architecture, and corporate culture (see “IBM’s Metamorphosis” on p. 5).

The insight that product (or service), strategy, and organizational architectures need to evolve together, and that leaders can shape this process, suggests a high-leverage arena for leadership attention and contribution. Successful executive teams meet regularly to learn from one another and to listen for what’s ending and emerging in the organization as a whole. They pose questions such as, What is the customer telling us about the changing nature of our product? What does the shift in our approach to service suggest about our business model? What does HR’s new focus tell us about the changing nature of our workforce and our organization design? By doing so, they come to see that the most powerful opportunities lie not in a search for problems to fix, but rather in sensing, cooperating with, and actualizing what is already emerging.

Integrating Self and System

When leaders integrate their own metamorphosis with that of their organizations, the benefits for each are amplified. I know of no better way for a leader to do so than to focus this co-evolutionary work on a real project. For example, the executive who wanted to develop new e-diagnostic software served as a mentor to the product development team. This project resulted in the successful introduction of three e-diagnostic tools that set new industry standards and generated unprecedented customer demand. The team accomplished their goal several quarters ahead of the competition. Just as important, by intentionally shifting from an emphasis on building consensus to exercising his leadership through focused mentoring, the sponsoring executive developed a more efficient and mature way to lead. The individual, product, and organizational architecture evolved together, creating exciting new possibilities.

All too often, good people end up outpaced by technology, industry trends, or new organizational priorities. When organizations support their leaders in engaging in self-inquiry and intentional metamorphosis – while at the same time making fundamental changes to their businesses – they create a vehicle for not only retaining those individuals but also creating the competency needed for leading into the future. Creating an ongoing infrastructure for learning and experimentation is essential for realizing the potential of leadership at the inflection point.

What’s at Stake

Experiences at the edge of what we know are uncomfortable. Each of us arrives at these points with deep affinity for our own personal style, tried-and-true approaches to leadership, track records with certain products and services, and degrees of success with particular organizational designs. To enable what is emerging rather than push our own agendas involves intensifying our appreciation for that tradition while, at the same time, intentionally departing from the moorings of the past to sense and give shape to what lies beyond. A leader’s task then becomes recognizing and responding adeptly at key moments in an organization’s history, quickly developing a wide range of individual and organizational responses to novel situations, and challenging long-held reflexes and mental models in order to help sense and influence the future.

The stakes are high, but it’s heartening to know that metamorphosis is a natural process already occurring and available in every leader and organization. When we link the process of individual and organizational change through the art and practice of intentional metamorphosis, we generate uncommon power, exponential synergy, and leverage strong enough to alter the trajectory of history.

Mitch Saunders (mitch@resilientsystems.com) is president of Action-Learning Partners, a network of diverse, experienced practitioners dedicated to building individual, relationship, and organizational resilience. Since 1985, Mitch Saunders has coached senior leaders and their teams, typically those try- ing to achieve unprecedented goals. He was for- merly a researcher and instructor at the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT. He is also the co-originator of Dynamic Dialogue, a systematic methodology for co-evolving fundamental reflexes and belief systems along with their corresponding institutional strategies and structures.

The post Leadership at the Inflection Point appeared first on The Systems Thinker.