Personal and Organizational Transformation

February 7, 2009 / / No comments

Scrooge’s Metanoia and Organizational Conscience

Hi Lisa,

Wikipedia describes metanoia (changing one’s mind) as “embracing thoughts beyond its present limitations or thought patterns.”

Ebenezer Scrooge’s metanoia seems to support this definition. But Scrooge’s “shift of mind” also appears to have been a group experience. Could metanoia have occurred apart from the Spirits? To illustrate, Scrooge says, “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.”

It therefore seems unlikely that Scrooge could have transitioned from a “mechanistic” to a “systems” worldview without the Spirits. In turn, without metanoia he would not have “learned” (i.e., created a learning organization—I liken metanoia to an electric charge sent through frozen water pipes to “change” the ice to water).

The Spirits fostered commitment to the long term (shared vision), surfaced shortcomings in his worldview (mental models), helped him see the larger picture (team learning) and enabled Scrooge to see how his actions affected his world (personal mastery).

Organizational Conscience

But the Spirits also submerged Scrooge into intense scrutiny and group assessment. Perhaps the Spirits were schooling Scrooge in “double-loop learning” (i.e., teaching him that his development depended on questioning and challenging norms)? Regrettably, organizational conscience is not discussed in LO literature. Perhaps I’ve overlooked it.

Your thoughts Lisa?

P.S. I wonder how many seals I’ll see while walking the Stanley Park SeaWall today? I’m heartened by the appearance of buds–it seems that they, like me, are impatient for Spring. The ocean always inspires awe and elicits my respect–and, through its vociferous grandeur trumpets my abysmal ignorance.

From Transformational Processes – Radical Transformation, 2009/02/07 at 6:59 AM

Category: All Posts, Change, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Spirituality, Vision /

Transformational Processes – Radical Transformation

February 4, 2009 / / 2 comments

What can we learn from experiences of transformation outside of the organizational context, that we might aid us in re-configuring our organizations to a more healthful relationship to their enviroments (and internally)?   Here are some compelling reflections on radical transformation, using the example of the Christian experience of metanoia, from Carman de voer.  Interesting conversation, Carman!

Hi Lisa, Your summary is superb:  “every worldview generates values and a structure of living in accordance with that view.”

Senge’s Fifth Discipline seems to locate transformation (shift of mind or perception) within a crisic framework [i.e., there is an emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person’s life]. Transformation also appears to involve a radical re-ordering of reality. Hence, Senge’s recourse to Christian terminology, such as “repentance” [metanoia—lit. shift of mind] (p.13) with its veiled allusion to baptism.

In the adult baptismal ceremony there is “death” (falling backward into water), “burial” (disappearing under the water) and “resurrection” (emerging cleansed and renewed from the water). Senge declares, “what a shame that a man must “die” before he wakes up” (p.161). [Emphasis mine]

Transformation thus appears to include an epiphanic event that evokes seismic shifts in the tectonic plates of our assumptions. As history shows, the “Christian” worldview—espousing the death of a pre-existing order–  did generate values and structures in accordance with that view, to quote you Lisa.

In keeping with your references to “perception” Senge says that transformation—‘metanoia’ (p.13) results in “cleansing the lens of perception, awakening from self-imposed distortions of reality” (p.161) It’s telling that Senge speaks about “awakening”–as if one has been asleep in a death-like state.

Category: All Posts, Change, Leadership, Spirituality /

Transformative, holistic learning

January 31, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, Sorry for the long delay! My executive and career coaching practice includes working with people in career transition, and, unfortunately, many people are needing this kind of support right now.

Regarding transformation, you wrote:  “It changes ‘how’ we know. Change thus appears to involve the re-perception of reality. [It…] involves the ‘deconstruction of a given world-view and its replacement by a new world view.’ […] I believe it is superfluous to talk about collective (organizational) transformation without first clarifying individual transformation.”

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. I suspect the reason many change efforts fail is that real transformation hasn’t taken at the individual level, and for change to hold, leadership must be transformed as well (hence, of course, the term “tranformative leadership”).

And, yes, I would also agree that personal transformation involves a re-perception of reality, such that the desired changes can be seen as a natural and normal part of being in the world (or organizations).

For example, most people would agree that the value of charity — lending a hand to those who need it — is a good one. However, behaving charitably does not come naturally to everyone — otherwise, there would be less want in the world. If our perspective is that the world is a collection of separate beings in competition for scarce resources, and we feel fearful, we might publically endorse the concept of charity, but not live by it. Rather, this world view leads to a different value, which contradicts the espoused value. This creates a culture in which it is understood that we say one thing and do another.

Similarly, in organizations, it’s not uncommon for people to espouse one value and then act in a way that is contrary to the value.

So, it’s interesting to consider the dynamics of that transformation… how does it happen?

Another consideration is the system itself. In this blog, I’ve primarily emphasized change from the inside out. There is also change from the outside in. In a nutshell, every worldview generates values and a structure of living in accordance with that view. If we are able to create a change in the structure, we may find that experience, perspective and attitudes change as well. 

For example, when I entered the field of software engineering years ago, women engineers were still a rarity, and I experienced some pretty blatant discrimination. In retrospect, I’m sure I was an affirmative action hire. Still, I did an exceptional job, and so did many other women. Over the years, affirmative action created a climate where the presence of women was considered more normal, and discrimination dwindled. 

Another example is compensation or performance management systems. We may prefer to behave in one way, but the system may shape our behavior in another…

Usually, the problem with this outside-in approach is that the structure is not strong enough for the new behavior to hold long enough to cause a change in perception.  It comes back to the perspective of human beings.  

That said, ultimately, for change to be sustained, the entire system, inclusive of psychology, sociology, organizational structure, processes, performance management system, culture, etc. must shift to be in sync with that change. This is, of course, the broader topic of organizational learning. It’s the systemic nature of this transformative learning, which I attempt to capture in my transformational-holistic-learning model.

It’s another full week for me, but hope to connect again, soon.

Category: All Posts, Change, Culture, Design, Diversity, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology, Rewards, Teams, Values /

On the nature of transformation

January 20, 2009 / / No comments

More gems from Carman de voer. I hope to respond to these excellent posts this weekend…

Hi Lisa,  How do we define “transformation”? Dictionary definitions are nebulous at best. Here is one example from the Free Dictionary:

transform – change or alter in form, appearance, or nature; “This experience transformed her completely”; “She transformed the clay into a beautiful sculpture”; “transubstantiate one element into another”–
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transform

Among adult educators, however, there seems to be a consensus that “information” changes “what” we know, whereas “transformation” changes “how” we know. Change thus appears to involve the re-perception of reality.

Tennant and Pogson suggest that transformation involves the “deconstruction of a given world-view and its replacement by a new world view” (p.114).

I believe it is superfluous to talk about collective (organizational) transformation without first clarifying individual transformation. Lisa, how would you define transformation?

Bye for now!

Reference

Learning and Change in the Adult Years, A Developmental Perspective

From Ways of thinking about learning and change (from Carman), 2009/01/20 at 6:15 AM

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Leadership, Organization /

Ways of thinking about learning and change

January 18, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman de voer writes: Hi Lisa, I haven’t heard of Hargrove’s model. My conception of transformation derives from the texts of Mezirow, Brookfield, Banathy, and Tennant and Pogson. Your transformative-holistic learning model has really piqued my curiosity, however. Could I hear more about it?

Your reference to transformation is fortuitous because “transformation” will be the theme of an impending conference I and my co-workers will attend. 

Though it is important to know what words mean I anticipate that “transformation” will be applied in a single-loop fashion: that is, it will be the label under which the organization will discuss whether it is “on course” (probably in a budgetary sense). For me, transformation in a double-loop sense signifies questioning the relevance of the “destination,” among other things.

Could we talk transformation Lisa? I expect that our interchange will be steel and flint (interchangeably) igniting a conflagration of ideas.

The fog continues to sit like an elephant on the city. No seal sightings yesterday—only actors appearing from and disappearing behind the curtain. The sun attempted to re-assert its dominion– but in vain. How I long for the “virtuous light” (to quote Elinor Wylie).

Bye for now!

Category: All Posts, Change, Leadership, Vision /

Vision and Limits: Creating a Space for Learning and Innovation

January 17, 2009 / / One comment

Carman writes: Hi Lisa,  I’ll try to paraphrase your questions:

1. Is emergent (bottom-up) organization compatible with goals and direction (top-down)?

2. When is the imposition of limits appropriate?

Morgan explains that “the intelligence of the human brain is not predetermined, predesigned, or  preplanned. Indeed, it is not centrally driven in any way. It is a decentralized emergent phenomenon. Intelligence evolves.” (p.94)

Morgan calls vision, norms, values or limits “cybernetic reference points.” Though they guide behavior and prevent complete randomness they also create a valuable space “in which learning and innovation can occur.”

To return to the example of the trainees:

Managers seem to have slain the goose to get the golden egg (forgive the worn-out analogy). Conversely, by referring to the philosophy (vision and values) of the organization they might have avoided short-term thinking (and the tyranny of targets!) and encouraged the emergence of new behaviours.

For example, might trainees eventually have fostered more effective ways of serving clients (and accomplishing goals)? Might such behaviour have enabled new insights and learning for managers? In short, could managers have learned from learners?

Tomorrow we can discuss single-loop versus double-loop learning if you like Lisa. Once we have beggared the brain metaphor perhaps you would like to select the Morgan metaphor that especially interests you.

Well, I’m off to the Stanley Park seawall, which I love to walk each weekend. Sometimes I see seals and sometimes they see me. Heavy fog in Vancouver today. Reminds me of a Conan Doyle novel. Sweet symphony from KUWY (on computer) without and Starbucks coffee within–the Lark is ascending!

Bye for now!

Carman,  It’s such a treat to read your posts!  Yes, I look forward to your thoughts on single-loop and double-loop learning.  Are you familiar with Robert Hargrove’s triple-loop learning model?  It heavily inspired my (current) transformative-holistic learning model: 

http://creativeleadercoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/model.gif

Your day sounds very pleasant! We’ve had a taste of summer-like weather here the past few days in Southern California, and it makes me look forward to the long, warm days, again.

Talk soon, Lisa

Category: All Posts, Change, Creativity, Culture, Design, Innovation, Organization, Partnership, Teams, Vision /

Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace

January 17, 2009 / / 2 comments

If you are interested in how Partnership approaches to leadership can unleash collaborative power in the workplace, I encourage you to check out Cynthia King’s Creating Partnerships: Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace (2005).   

See more at: http://www.creating-partnerships.com/

Category: All Posts, Change, Collaboration, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Teams /

Defining the space of managerial freedom to avoid noxicants

January 16, 2009 / / One comment

More from Carman de voer:

Great questions Lisa, Perhaps I could begin to address them through a practical illustration:

I recently heard about a professional bureaucracy that is experiencing high turnover of its trainees—which, in such an organization, is surprising given the time, money and personnel allocated to training.  Furthermore, neophytes exhibit enormous enthusiasm and commitment.

In terms of the brain metaphor (cybernetics) the organization could pursue the following:

Ask questions:

1) What is it about our culture that contributes to high turnover? What do trainees tell us (via exit interviews)? How might the workload exceed the limitations of trainees? What kind of treatment do trainees receive once on the job? Is it civil or uncivil? In other words, surface noxiants.

Avoid noxiants: (set limits on undesirable behavior):

2)  Don’t browbeat. Don’t overload (with information). Don’t exceed the capabilities of trainees. Don’t impose unreasonable deadlines. Don’t proscribe social [professional] interaction with co-workers.

Morgan says: “Cybernetics shows us that effective management depends as much on the selection of the limits that are to be placed on behaviour as on the active pursuit of desired goals” (p.99)

I would like to further delve into your questions tomorrow Lisa (I’m off to work now).

Bye for now!

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Partnership, Science /

Reply to Carman re: Organization as Brain – Avoiding Noxious States

January 14, 2009 / / One comment

Carman,
Morgan’s description of  a “space of acceptable behavior within which individuals can act, innovate, or self-organize as they please” (pp. 98-99) is intriguing and appealing. Would you like to explore this further?

Some other questons that your post raises (for me) are:
1. Does Morgan, or do you, also see vision, direction, and/or goals as having a role?

2. I notice that Morgan defines guidelines by emphasizing the negative space, rather than the positive space. Do you understand this as a metaphorical device, or does he think that “do nots” optimally shape human behavior?

Thanks for your posts!

Lisa

Category: All Posts /

Organization as Brain: Avoiding Noxiants

January 11, 2009 / / One comment

Another interesting and educational post from Carman!

Lisa writes: “I wonder what it would do for us to consider organizations as creative, intelligent energy? I wonder if it would lead us to open up to these qualities, to the creative intelligent energy of others?”

Two excellent questions Lisa. Employers may not understand the Brain metaphor’s enormous potential to impact their “bottom line.”

To illustrate: Cybernetic system behaviour, says Morgan, is guided by the avoidance of undesirable system states [noxious outcomes]. A themostat achieves its goal by avoiding such “noxious outcomes” (not too hot or cold).

The same principle applies to complex social states where great codes of behaviour are framed in terms of “Thou shalt NOT.” Morgan describes “avoiding noxiants” as  “defining a space of acceptable behaviour within which individuals can act, innovate, or self-organize as they please.” pp.98-99

Examples: “Don’t overload others with information.” “Don’t respond to provocation.” “Don’t speak to and treat others in inappropriate ways.” “Don’t expect people to work beyond their capacities and limitations.”

By taking the Brain metaphor seriously and [for example] avoiding noxious states, many organizations could well see a reduction in stress and sick leaves which have become pandemic.

Your thoughts?

Category: All Posts, Organization, Science /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee