Archive for Culture

Towards a Learning Organization (A presentation by Carman De Voer Mais)

April 13, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman De Voer Mais has developed a fresh and insightful PowerPoint presentation on learning organizations. He makes the important point that becoming a learning organization isn’t something that “patched on” to the existing organizational paradigm, but rather a transformation of both the paradigm and the players.  I’m going to try to share that presentation with you here.  This is my first attempt to provide a file link in WordPress, so it may take a few tries …

Carman, I hope your cold has lifted!

Lisa

Thinking Creatively, Building Effectively by Carman De Voer Mais

Category: All Posts, Change, Creativity, Culture, Design, Ethics, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Rewards, Spirituality, Values /

Holism, Power, and the Intersubjective Nature of Joy

March 28, 2009 / / No comments

Hi Carman, I am glad to hear that you are feeling restored to health! It’s a pleasure to read your posts again.

Yes, I agree — Alfred North Whitehead once said that whatever constitutes a world view can be understood to constitute a religion. And, process theologian, David Ray Griffin, who interpreted and extended Whitehead’s work, observed that two key world views dominate the modern West: fundamentalist Christian theology (in which God created the world but is separate from it) and materialism — the latter deriving from the former. Ecofeminist philosopher, Charlene Spretnak, observes that these two worldviews share in common the assumption that notion that we are all separate. 

However, this notion of separation is not fundamental to either science or spirituality. My hypothesis is that the perspective that we are all separate is born of pain and fear, and engenders the same.  And when we are separate and afraid, we seek power *over* our situation and others. Because money is a form of power that gives us some measure of control, it’s unsurprising that we would turn wealth itself into a god.

New science, on the other hand, points to a more holistic, intelligent Cosmos. In my personal understanding, it points to a world in which we are all deeply interconnected and in which there are multiple levels of intelligence — from cells, to organisms, to ecosystems — including the intelligence of the larger whole, in which we all participate. 

However, because our worldviews are self-reinforcing, our culture reinforces ways of perceiving and interpreting the world that emphasize separation, which one prominent physicist called a kind of optical illusion of consciousness. However, different aspects of human experience can and do, point to a more holistic and interconnected world, and that leads us into the life world that you describe so well.

Your question on how the two employers defended the life world sounds well worth exploring. I notice that Fezziwig takes joy in the happiness of others. We are social animals, and it seems that meaning and happiness ulitmately has this relational context. Conversely, I also notice that Scrooge is not a happy person. He may take pleasure in comforts, but in serving the god of wealth, he oppresses himself as well as others. 

To this point, I recently read a quote by Booker T. Washington, which read, “You can’t hold a man [or woman] down without staying down with him [her].”  This is true at many levels, from the psychological, to the sociological, to a more holistic understanding of what some call “the inter-subjective space.” (Robert Kenny has done some fascinating, ground-breaking work on how this space applies to creative teams (http://www.ciis.edu/faculty/kenny.html).  Transformational leadership thus has the potential to liberate and free the creative potentials of both the leader and the organization.

The role of the Spirits could be metaphorical or it could relate to the larger spirit or intelligence of the whole, for which people have used a variety of terms, depending on their spiritual or secular orientation.  (I think you previously raised the question of the relationship between spiritual transformation and tranformative leadership…)    

Speaking of valuing the subjective dimension of life, several colleagues and clients that I am working with in my coaching and training practice, hold the intention that their work should also be fulfilling and fun.  It’s an enriching practice to work with, as I’m sure you know! 

Have a great weekend!

Lisa

Category: All Posts, Creativity, Culture, Ethics, Leadership, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Spirituality, Teams, Trust /

Humanizing Systems — from Carman de voer

February 22, 2009 / / No comments

Hi Lisa,  Thank you for enriching and expanding the Organization as Theocracy metaphor. I especially enjoy the way you integrate the concepts into your own educational and industrial experience. I am excited by the potential praxis of reflection and action we’ve ignited which demonstrates the power of thought to “negate accepted limits and open the way to a new future,” to quote Richard Shaull.

Lisa, you may always ask me whatever you like.  Refreshingly, and unlike Theory X organizations, we are not consigned to a ‘culture of silence’. As regards theological studies—No. I have no background in theology or religious studies. I threaded my essay from strands of thought furnished by Max Weber. I inclined to inquire into the origins of psychic prisons. I do, however, read a range of secular and sacred material, which leads me to conclude that the greatest literature is the literature of leadership.

To illustrate: When Vaclav Havel speaks about humanizing systems that ‘serve the individual rather than vice versa.’ I see a parallel in the New Testament (‘dissident intellectual’ Jesus washing the feet of his rabbis in training—apostles—and directing them to do likewise to ‘one another’). It’s curious that such a potentially powerful educative act can transmogrify into the caricature annually enacted by the Vatican.

Thank you for discussing ‘absolute hierarchies’ Lisa. I tend to think of my theocracy metaphor as a continuum of organizations—exhibiting an array of colors from white to grey to black—depending upon the unique profile or idiosyncratic nature of the ‘entity’ (i.e., mission, vision, values). Economic and survival stressors can, I believe, expose the organization’s location on the continuum. The touchstone would be the extent to which the system serves the individual rather than vice versa—to invoke Havel. We might put it this way: ‘If an organization was arrested for consistently treating employees humanely, would there be enough evidence to convict it?’

 Your question, “what does it look like to take a more hemispherically balanced approach to organizations?” transits us from organization as Instrument of Domination to Organization as Brain. I’m excited about that. By the way Lisa, your comment “traditional bureaucratic organizations were substantially shaped by a theory x worldview.  This stymies the highest aspirations of many leaders who are effectively driving with the parking brake on…” is brilliant! Beautiful analogy too.

Bye for now!

Carman

p.s.  I saw a seal swimming close to Lion’s Gate Bridge yesterday. I stopped, looked at it, and said, “I see you!…” Indifferent to my presence, it gracefully disappeared into the water.

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Values /

Reply to Organization as Theocracy

February 21, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, What a creative essay! It sounds like you have a background in religious studies or theology. May I ask if that is true? 

The organization as theocracy metaphor is a potentially useful one in that it’s been multiply observed ( I hope my readers will forgive me for not looking up the references) that our understanding of the Divine (or Sacred) order shapes our understanding of the ideal social order.  As you mention, although Western culture has its deep roots in a more organic worldview, it has been strongly shaped by Protestant ideas and ethics. 

For example, conservative theologians interpret the maleness of Jesus to affirm God as male, and therefore, as an endorsement of male dominance (patriarchy) in the human social sphere.  Alice Miller, author of For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence, observed that in pre-World War II Germany, children were raised to be reflexively obedient to the father. This was understood to socialize them to be obedient members of the larger societal hierarchy, and therefore, in correct relationship to God. 

Throughout history, political leaders have often claimed divine endorsement.  In secular culture, God may not be imagined to be at the top of the social pyramid, but those at the top may still be seen as God-like.  I have heard the religious metaphor used within organizations. For example, in one institution, it was said that the president and founder reported to the board, and the president’s spouse, who was also involved in the business, directly reported to God. In another, a colleague would remark dryly, “I’m on a mission from Ray…” (the CEO). 

There’s a sense in which our understanding of power per se is derived from our understanding of divine power. (It follows that a shift in worldview can also shift our understanding of the nature of power…).

What I’m hearing you say in your essay, is that, in a sense, that absolute social hierarchies, create or reinforce the objectification of others.  An absolute social hierarchy would be one in which one person is understood to be superior (rather than differently gifted, knowledgeable or skilled) than another. A theocracy is an absolute social hierarchy, with some members considered closer to God (or an absolute standard of Godliness as interpreted/embodied by the human at the head of the divine hiearchy).  We also know that  absolute hierarchies have historically led to the exploitation and abuse of those considered “less than fully human.” I would include lots of examples here, but they are all grim, and I am aiming for a lighter tone! 

In my experience — at least in the high technology industry –knowledge-based organizations often can’t be described as theory x organizations. At the same time, I don’t see many knowledge-based organizations as fully expressing a theory y orientation. I think this is because traditional bureaucratic organizatons were substantially shaped by a theory x worldview.  This stymies the highest aspirations of many leaders who are effectively driving with the parking brake on…

Your post also ties in the strategies of rational control. The left brain gives rise to and is analogous to the structures of the control in the bureaucratic organization. It is also that part of us which seems to make objects of “things” so as to manipulate them. The right brain takes the world in as a gestalt, without sealing the self off from it.  It is holistic and inclusive.  http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/03/22/experience-of-right-and-left-hemispheres-of-the-brain/

As humans, we have both capacities for experiencing our selves as separate and as continous with the world. However, Western culture emphasizes the former and subordinates the latter. If we were to use our brains in a more balanced way, we might expect to be more creative and innovative, individually and collectively.  I’m wondering, what does it look like to take a more hemispherically balanced approach to organizations?

http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/02/21/organization-as-theocracy-metaphor-from-carman-de-voer/

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy /

Organization as Theocracy Metaphor

February 21, 2009 / / One comment

Hi Lisa, I had fun originating the “theocracy” metaphor. Your question, ‘What are the dynamics that can lead us to imagine other people as objects?’ guided me throughout. As with all metaphors it both illuminates and obfuscates.

Organization As Theocracy

Theocracy: government by men claiming to know the will of God.

Etiology of Error

The Messianic [Christian] Scriptures are a record of rabbis disciplining rabbis. In-groups were those rabbis who accepted Jesus as Jewish Messiah; out-groups—rabbis who rejected Jesus as Jewish Messiah. “The world”—ancient Jewish society—was the arena of reclamation. All discipline was lateral –rabbi counseling rabbi–and only after the completion of the biblical canon became hierarchical [leader controlling “laity”].

Replacement Theology

In the ensuing centuries, an institution emerged calling itself “Christianity” borrowing concepts from the Jewish worldview and organic culture contained in the sacred scripts. Rather than leaders [rabbis] disciplining leaders and furnishing them lateral training, it conceived a learned group of [non-Jewish] men [clergy] communicating ‘higher’ learning to powerless men and women [laity].

In-groups became those who accepted the institutional interpretation of the Scriptures; out-groups became those who rejected such. The catholic [universal] leadership and institution became “the saved’’—“the world” became those outside of and [often] opposed to “the church.”

Protestant Ethic

A paradigm shift: from individual within the corporate to corporate within the individual.

Dimensions:

• Bi-polar partitioning of people into classes [“superior” and “subordinate”-“saved” and “unsaved”]
• Isolation
• Impersonality
• Systematic and detailed planning of activity
• Efficient and effective “good works”
• Motion economy with corresponding disdain for relaxation and “idleness”
• Time=money
• Patriarchy
• Wealth confirms divine favor
• “Spiritual” slavery to god

Implications for Organizations

The impersonal organization is exalted to divine status and becomes the unconscious projection of human needs and neuroses. Organization has a psychological profile: mission, vision, and values. It is feared and obeyed because “it” controls the material bases of life. Activity un-related to its “business” [idiosyncrasies, laughter, social interaction] is disloyalty to the deity. Object is supreme; subject is slight.

Management: Enacts the business [busy-ness] of the controlling entity. A priestly class “above” mediates between the “deity” and those “below” or “down” the hierarchy. These systematically plan the lives of “workers” to the last detail. Credentials, honor, status, and remuneration confirm their calling as a priestly aristocracy of labor.

Separation and secrecy [hence, ‘secretary’] sanctify them away from the potentially contaminating operatives. Workers are objects to be ‘reconciled’ to the deity [organization]. Management’s success is judged by melding the will of the organization and the will of workers. Obedience, submission and commitment are paramount.

Management Assumptions:

Non-managerial workers are in deficit [“sinners”]. Non-managerial workers exhibit the following characteristics:

• Dislike work and attempt to avoid it
• Have no ambition, want no responsibility
• Would rather follow than lead
• Are self-centered and therefore do not care about organizational goals
• Resist change
• Are gullible and not particularly intelligent

In fine, “workers” are “slaves of god” in that they experience a symbolic ritual of dishonor (social death) inflicted by both themselves and the enslaving organization. As slaves they are deprived of freedom of decision and action by means of force or enforced solidarity with a view to the utility of the enslaving organization. Self-manumission obtains when leaving an enslaving organization; slavery resumes when entering another. The brutal and brutalizing relationship is masked by a thin veneer of civility that is mitigated only by State “protection.”

The antagonism between “leaders” [shepherds] and “led” [sheep] can only be remedied by workers being “born from above” and “saved” [e.g., from unemployment]. Workers must “perform”—demonstrate unequivocal commitment [“everything not out of faith”—commitment—“is sin”] to the divine order—no matter how odious its dictates.

Servitude is insufficient–workers must repent of their own knowledge, repudiate their own identities, and adopt the new identity espoused by their “teachers.” As objects or instruments, workers must “demonstrate” complete and unequivocal submission [slavery] by surrendering to the higher power. In fine, they must “transform by making their minds over” [Romans 12:2] to prove to themselves what is the good and perfect will of the Power. The social pattern is re-enacted within each organization.

From What prevents us from regarding others as whole human beings?, 2009/02/21 at 6:32 AM

Category: All Posts, Culture, Diversity, Leadership, Organization /

Response to “Towards the Re-Humanization of Work”

February 15, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, You are a prolific writer and thinker!  You make several points in your post that all deserve some reflection and response. 

Yes, the Cave metaphor seems to “work” for world views/paradigms in general, and it can, therefore, certainly be applied to the worldview which shapes traditional organizations.  And, a — perhaps the — guiding metaphor of that worldview is world (and hence organization) as machine.  And you rightly point out that that philosophy and the social structures which stem from it are frequently dehumanizing, and therefore degrading.  Philosophically, this is the natural outcome of treating people as objects rather than subjects in themselves.  

I appreciate Morgan’s use of the prison analogy, in that there is a real sense in which we tend to be limited by our own perspectives and patterns of thought and by the social structures we create based on those perspectives.  It is potentially instructive to observe the parallels between prisons and traditional organizations. Prisons are, after all, traditional organizations, in which most of the organizational members are not free volunteers.  (Perhaps in the same way that you and Morgan are suggesting is the case with organizational members who may have very limited options for employment, families to feed, etc.)  Therefore, the dynamics of absolute hierarchy and pervasive ethic of control are seen in a clear and harsh light.     

That said, every metaphor has it’s limitations. In my view, the prison metaphor risks reinforcing the sense of disempowerment that Dominator systems (Systems based on absolute hierarchy and command and control cultures) cultivate.  Fortunately, most of us are not in prisons to which others hold the keys. Rather, we have the power of perspective and some measure of creative freedom to shape our circumstances, including our organizations.  (Yes, in some cases our measure of creative freedom is small, and change is slow…)  I personally like the hamster wheel analogy, because it offers the possibility of jumping off!

I appreciate your bringing in Eleanor Roosevelt and her question, “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world.”  Riane Eisler would also add that most of us learn about power relationships and human rights in our first and most intimate relationships – that of our families.

As you write, “The Fifth Discipline calls for ‘a new organization … that is more consistent with human nature.”  It recognizes human rights. In the language of philosophy, this new organization would not see some members as “subjects” and others as “objects” but treat all members as subjects in their own right.

So, there’s a natural circling around to our inquiry on the nature of this transformation at a personal leadership and social/organizational level, perhaps beginning with psychological dynamics in the context of social relationships (and the larger environment).

We could, for example, inquire into the dynamics that can lead us to imagine other people as objects. As one professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies, asks his classes, to stimulate reflection, “What’s up with that?”  🙂

http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/02/15/towards-the-humanization-of-work-from-carman-de-voer/

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology /

Towards the Re-Humanization of Work

February 15, 2009 / / One comment

Hi Lisa, Two elements that strike me about the Cave allegory are:

1) Dehumanization
2) Degradation

Interestingly, The Free Dictionary links dehumanization with mechanization:

1. To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility: slaves who had been dehumanized by their abysmal condition.

2. To render mechanical and routine.

Given the resurgence of Scientific Management with its systematic reduction of the human being to the status of automaton I would agree with Morgan’s characterization of most organizations:

“it may seem more appropriate to talk about organizations as prisons rather than as psychic prisons, since the exploitation and domination of people is often grounded as much in control over the material basis of life as in control over ideas, thoughts, and feelings” (p.248)

I believe Morgan referring to a state of bondage or control from which people cannot easily escape—especially with families to feed. However, I would characterize most organizations as both psychic and literal prisons. We routinely hear about “minimum” wage, and union and legal “protection.”

It thereupon occurred to me that a pre-occupation of the Ideal Cave Leader would be human rights and freedom. Interestingly, The Fifth Discipline calls for “a new organization…that is more consistent with human nature” (p.351). The implication being most organizations are not “consistent with human nature.”

In Plato’s allegory the Leader strives to enlighten and emancipate those immured in the Cave. As the aegis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) I believe Eleanor Roosevelt exemplifies Plato’s Ideal Leader.

Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 26 (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mrs. Roosevelt declared: Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world.

Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighborhood s/he lives in; the school or college s/he attends; the factory, farm or office where s/he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. (pronominal changes mine)

How beautiful! However, it seems to me that many of the chained prisoners are more captivated by the shadows cast by puppeteers like Frederick Taylor (“You are not supposed to think. There are other people paid for thinking around here.”—Morgan p. 25) since they “are in the habit of conferring honors among themselves” (to quote Socrates) and derive material benefit within such self-sealing environments.

What do you see when you peer into the “Cave” Lisa?

Bye for now!

References

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Second Edition. Sage Publications. London.

Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday: New York.

From The Ideal Leader, 2009/02/15 at 5:58 AM

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Psychology /

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 /

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 /

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 /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee