Archive for Change

Personal and Organizational Transformation

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

Transformational Processes – Radical Transformation

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.

Transformative, holistic learning

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.

On the nature of transformation

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

Ways of thinking about learning and change

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!

Vision and Limits: Creating a Space for Learning and Innovation

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

Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace

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/

What blocks our fulfilling success?

Earlier in this blog we talked about the hamster “wheel of fear,” that self-perpetuating spiral of fear and reaction that tends to lead us precisely where we don’t want to go.  We’ve been discussing some concepts and tools to help us live and work more consciously, proactively, and creatively, towards the goals we really want — our visions.

However, it is very common for people to feel blocked or stuck with repect to achieving their goals. It’s not that they don’t want them, it’s just that they don’t quite seem to ever move forward or achieve them. As the field of coaching has arisen to help people achieve their goals (whether it is to win a baseball game or lead a successful change initiative), it has developed some tools for helping people achieve them.

There are four basic reasons that people become blocked with respect to achieving goals (or in the process-oriented language that I prefer, “in living towards their goals and enjoying the moment — which is really all that we have”):

1. They aren’t motivated enough. They don’t really want the goal or are out of touch with the reasons they want it.  Perhaps the goal is a “should” for them.  For example, “I should exercise more.”  Or, they may want the goal but not be tuned into their motivation, their reasons and compelling emotions around the outcome.

2. They don’t know how to move forward. On a related note, they may lack the structures (situational cues) to support the actions they need to take.

3.  Circumstances are such that the goals could never be achieved.  Although this explanation is very common, it is very rarely true.  Rather, like the lab rats that, having repeatedly received a shock when they approached their food, later avoided it, even after the shocks were removed, many of our barriers are the result of our own, faulty beliefs (See #4).

4. They have conflicting beliefs and commitments — often below the level of conscious awarneness — that generate resistance and sabotage their progress. (See my upcoming post: “Why rational people do seemingly irrational things…”)

How do we determine the reason we are stuck? Sometimes it’s clear to us that we are missing needed information, for example, or we may be able to rule out some possibilities. For example, “there are no clear barriers, and I know what to do, I just can’t get started…” 

A nice tool for dealing with a lack of clarity on how to move forward is the “plan for a plan” — what do I need to know and how can I get the information. (Sometimes, when we are being truly creative, the project might entail multiple cycles of learning and doing — sometimes called the spiral model).

In contrast, “shoulds” and conflicting beliefs and commitments often have their roots in the subconscious. For me, one of the most juicy and interesting parts of coaching is surfacing these beliefs and holding them up to the light of day, as it is a very liberating process …

Success is a verb

In Western culture, we tend to be inclined to believe in and aim towards static and desireable future. In myths and fairy tailes, our heroes’ and heroines’ journies end in a static, experientially eternal state of bliss or pain. This is also a theme of monotheistic religions, which have shaped our worldview over the past several thousand years: life is often viewed as a journey to an eternity which is often painted as either homogenously wonderful or awful.

Such stories often shape our deepest and oldest beliefs and expectations of life. For example, I’ve known never-married women and men who believe that, if they find and marry the right person, that their lives will be happy and fulfilled ever after. Similarly, many Americans dream of a good retirement in which we will be passed all of the travails of our lives, and live our golden years in health, safety and fulfillment. Heaven is a place where we can lean back, wipe our brow, and finally exclaim, “We made it!”

As a result, we may be tempted to live for and in the future — for “someday.”

Intellectually, however, we know that it is never “someday”; it is always today. When we reach the top of the mountain, there is a new vista, and from that vista we set new goals. Life, in other words, is an ongoing process.  Myths and fairy tales are only able to maintain the illusion of future permanence by drawing a curtain at the end of the tale. If they continued to follow the characters through the remainder of their lives, we would find that life is characterized by change. When a biological organism stops changing, we can be sure that it is dead. Similarly, in the bigger picture, our cosmos also continues to change and evolve.

Along the same lines, we might observe that life isn’t composed of two parts, non-eternity and eternity: Logically, infinity plus 100 years (a nice, long human lifespan) still equals infinity. Therefore, to the degree that we acknowledge eternity, we might notice that eternity doesn’t start “later”; rather, here we are ….

It is human nature (and no doubt the nature of life in general) to move towards greater fulfillment. Studies have shown that the happiest people are those who feel they are making progress towards a goal. Imagining and living in the present, towards a desireable future is a necessary and fulfilling part of life.

However, our old, deep rooted belief in “ever after” can lead us, instead, to live “for the future,” effectively postponing our lives and preventing us from living fully in the present.

One manifestation of living for the future is an over-reliance on “left-brain” intellectual busyness and/or will power. Aside from draining the joy and vitality from life, this posture makes us less effective in the present. For example, we may become less aware of opportunities in the here and now, and also less creative.

Therefore, I submit that it would be a lot more fruitful if we began to think of success as a verb. Certainly there are goals to achieve, but if we think of success as a process, we open up more possibilities for effectiveness, creativity and enjoyment in the now. And, if as leaders, we can create environments in which success is a verb, we will increase intrinsic motivation (which we know is far superior than extrinsic motivation) for  ourselves and others.

Our cultural belief in “ever after” is an example of a subterranean belief — a belief that tends to exist and operate below that level of our conscious awareness. These beliefs can either support us in living towards our desireable future or they may block us. Because, as a coach, I’m interested in helping people achieve their fulfilling success, we will talk in much greater depth in this blog about these subterranian beliefs and how they shape our present (including how they can keep us on our “wheel of fear”).

For today, we might ask consider the question, what is our idea of success? Is it a static place defined by certain accomplishments or acquisitions, at which we hope to someday arrive (only to notice that that line and place keeps moving)? Or is it an attitude of living fully in the present, while continually moving in the direction of our heart’s desire?

Reflection

* Imagine success as a destination in the future. What emotions does that concept bring up for you? How present do you feel in your body? How present are you to your immediate surroundings and possibilities?

* Now imagine success as an orientation, a way of being in the present towards fulfilling goals. How would you live differently? How would your quality of life differ?

Creativity, Dreaming, and Shaping the Future

“Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively. I hear them all at once. What a delight this is! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively, dream.” –Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Good morning, readers! It’s been a very intense time for me on the career coaching side of my practice, and I’ve been longing to spend more time with you here.  Mozart’s quote is a great reminder for us to recall the source and nature of our creativity. It’s not sequential analytical thought (though that has its own place in our lives and organizations); rather, our creativity seems to emerge from our wholistic right brains.

Is creativity important in your life and work?  Do you have problems to solve, or opportunities to meet? Would you like a better quality of experience?  If so, where and when do you take the time to nuture your playful, visionary, creative nature?