Archive for Leadership

More on humanizing systems (and the brain)

February 22, 2009 / / 2 comments

Hi Carman, As always, your posts are both intellectually enriching and poetic.

Years ago, Alfonso Montuori and I wrote an essay on how our philosophical paradigm and guiding metaphors have shaped organizations and leadership, and created the blind spots that now limit organizations. A very perceptive reviewer suggested the article would be all the more impactful if it was written from the voice that naturally emerges from the perspective we descibe. You write in that voice.

You make an excellent point about humanizing systems, and I appreciate your references to Weber and Havel. It raises the question: Are we meant to serve our systems, or are they meant to serve us?  There is so much more to be said here about human and social psychology in a “mechanistic system” or a “theocracy.”  But, for the moment, I, too, am drawn to explore more creative and fulfilling possibilities. ..

Towards that end, I would like to offer an additional perspective. In our essay, Alfonso Montuori observes that we tend to emphasize and value either the individual or the group — one in opposition to the other. For example, capitalism vs. communism; the lone hero fighting the oppressive organization.

However, Montuori also observes that sense of opposition itself reflects a worldview of separation (which I would loosely associate with our ideas of left brain cognition).  Rather, from a systems point of view, he suggests, it’s a matter of “both/and. ” The organization and individual are part of a single continuum. In a sense, each is in and shapes the other.  In a healthy organic system, groups exist to serve their members, and members serve the group so that it continues to sustain them. We could also add that a healthy organic system also recognizes that its own sustainability requires a healthy environment…    

A key distinction between a healthy organic system and bureaucratic systems is that, as rational systems, bureaucratic systems tend to make objects of their members. Using the machine analogy, the “subject” is the operator of the machine, and the experience of organizational members is not considered as important as the economic and other outcomes of the organizational machine. Often it could be said of these organizations that the experience of organizational members only makes a difference in so much as as it affects the bottom line.

This machine also exists inside many of its members — who learn not to value our own subjective experience.  For example, there have been times in my organizational career, where I had so much to do (produce) that I literally felt machine-like and disconnected from my feelings.

My perspective is that in a hierarchal, bureacratic system (which emphasizes external power relations), we are enculturated to feel primarily those emotions associated with our dynamic place in the pecking order: anxiety, anger, depression and for the lack of a better word, “glory.” But, in as much as we are encouraged to subordinate the quality of our experience to economic and other outcomes, there is an inclination to shut down other feelings, including empathy, which is considered to be “soft” and “feminine” and therefore, less appropriate to an organizational environment.

Being a biological organism myself 🙂 I believe that when one of my bodily subsystems is in distress (or very healthy), I feel it — either unconsciously or consciously.  Conversely, when I am happy or in distress, every system in my body is impacted by that.  In other words, I think that the quality of holism arises, at least in part, from mutual feeling (of parts and the whole).  [I’m very influenced in this train of thought by Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy.]

So, I think the restoration of feeling and the revalorization of the quality of our subjective and inter-subjective experience is key to a more cognitively balanced (Partnership) approach to organizations…  To come full circle, this is a quality I hear in your writing.

thank you so much for this inspiring conversation!

Category: All Posts, Communication, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology, Rewards, Teams, Values /

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 /

The Ideal Leader

February 11, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman, Thank you for another exceptional post. Yes, all the thinkers you mention shape the lens through which we perceive our environment and the implicit assumptions we have about leadership and organizations. I  look forward to continuing this invigorating conversation, as our time allows. Have a great day! – Lisa

Hi Lisa, Proceeding on the assumption that a sub-theme of the cave allegory is the search for the ideal leader I would like to explore two dimensions of the cave allegory:

• The prisoners: who are bound to the floor and unable to turn their heads to see what goes on behind them.

• The puppeteers: who above and behind them are casting the shadows on the wall in which the prisoners are perceiving “reality”

The cave is diagrammed at the following site:

http://normanrschultz.org/Courses/graphics/Platocave.JPG

Your blog’s Mission Statement says:

“According to Montuori, the bureaucratic structure and the modern management style, still used by many organizations, is an historical creation, developed and adapted by men for a particular purpose and environment. As a historical creation, it reflects the assumptions its creators held about about the nature of the world, and us as human beings.” Too true!

 I see both leaders and led chained to the floor of the cave. Behind them are pupeteers Democritus and Leucippus, and Aristotle  who posited that –the Natural world can be understood as mechanical interaction, Rene Descartes—the separation of mind and body, Isaac Newton—who understood the universe as a celestial machine, and more recently, Adam Smith (mass production) Charles Babbage (line of authority) and Frederick Taylor (Management).
 
 I believe Taylor’s Scientific Management has been most influential in shaping our conception of “leadership” (which is, in itself a metaphor).
 
 As we know, Taylor posited:

• Separation of task conception and execution
• shifting responsibility for organization of work to management
• scientific methods for efficiency and precision
• training
• matching job and person

Perhaps we can discuss the above when we find some time Lisa.

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy /

Perspective & transformation

February 7, 2009 / / No comments

Carman, Your example of the transformation of Scrooge in the Christmas Carol, illustrates how third parties can stimulate transformation by helping a leader see the current situation and dynamic more clearly, and consider new perspectives and possiblities.

This whole area of the process of transformation is intriguing. By definition, it involves some kind of diversity — an encounter with a different perspective through dialogue or “cognitive diversity.” For me, cognitive diversity, in practice, means accessing our holistic, creative, “right brain” as well as our analytical, sequential “left brain.”  Transformative spiritual experience, creativity, imagination and vision, seem to strongly involve “right brain” processes. (A neuropsychologist would, no doubt, point out that this is a gross oversimplification).  

The process of coaching involves both aspects — the holding of the mirror, to help a person see more clearly what is otherwise too close to see — to see lens with which we see the world, so to speak,  and the facilitation of imagination, to experience a new perspective.  

When we are able to see the lens with which we see the world, we have already experienced a cognitive shift in that we have separated who we are (the observer) from a particular perspective, and we have freed ourselves to more readily explore perspectives that are healthier, more effective, etc.

The act of imagination, envisioning other possiblities, is extraordinarily powerful and taps a vast intelligence. Because in the West, we so strongly identify with our rational egos and our analytical, sequential thought processes, that we overlook the genius within each of us — that intelligence that creates entire worlds in our dreams, for example. It’s not always completely rational, but it contains all the connections that are not always visible to our sequential thought processes.  

In discussing spiritual transformation, William James makes the point that when we’ve exhausted our usual resources, when our rational-analytical processes fail us, we then, often in despair, throw ourselves open to other possibilities, and experience a shift and illumination. And Zen koans operate on a similar principle: the left brain lets go and there is a shift in perspective. 

Transformative leadership need not, in my opinion, involve complete illumination, but I think the inherent humility of recognizing that “we are not our thoughts and perspectives” and our consequential ability to imagine new possibilities — to dip into our own creative potentials, is key to personal and organizational transformation. 

Carman, I enjoy your notes about the environment, there. It sounds beautiful. It’s been raining heavily here; we need it!  Best wishes, Lisa

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Creativity, Diversity, Education, Leadership, Organization, Psychology, Spirituality, Vision /

Additional examples of radical transformation & on bells staying rung

February 7, 2009 / / 2 comments

Wow, Carman, your discussion of sudden and radical transformation throws open some doors that would be interesting to follow!

Yes you draw an apt and fruitful comparison between transformation per se and spiritual transformation. In addition to the Christian concept and experience of metanoia that you discuss, this kind of spiritually transformative experience is found in other religious contexts and outside of them, as well, suggesting that it is a universal human experience.  Some examples are: the themes of birth-death-rebirth or descent and emergence in the Mysteries, shamanic experiences of dismemberment and reconfiguration as a “new person”; Eastern enlightenment experiences, and also the sponatneous “cosmic consciousness” described by Burke. Also, there are rites of passage in many cultures that lead to new roles and ways of being in the world. No doubt I am omitting many other important examples.

This kind of reordering or “re-membering” is sometimes understood to be literally healing, and also reflects an improved and more “appropriate” (for the lack of a better word in the moment) relationship the context or larger whole.  This process or whole “event” is compellingly interesting in itself.

From what I understand, these kinds of radical transformation are not always “sticky” in that it can be easy to revert to former ways of thinking and being. However, as much as we are drawn back into comfortable, habitual ways of thinking and being, one cannot entirely “unring” the bell.  And, thus we create a vision or carve out a space for a new way of being, and we can begin to create new habits in that space. I’m reminded of the famous face/vase illusion. After seeing the new perspective, we can still revert to our original perspective; however, having seen it’s complement, we can more easily find it again.

http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/FaceVase.shtml 

Would you agree?

Category: All Posts, Change, Education, Leadership, Organization, Spirituality /

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 /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee