4x            3x            2x            1x

0               1              5              63

In summary, there wasn’t a single word that was common to the five of us while there were 63 words that had been uniquely identified by any one of us.  Note that the reason we did not have more words in common was not because we thought the words did not apply to the idea of facilitation.  Indeed, when we heard each other words we often exclaimed “Of course!  Nice word!  I should have thought of it!”  In some rare cases, we said “That is not a word I would have connected to the idea of facilitation!”

While typical, this result is quite astonishing. (You can try this exercise with your team, your family, or a few friends, using another word.)  Simply put, this means that words evocate different images and metaphors and have a different meaning for each of us.  As an example, you may be surprised to hear that the word “collaboration” has had a very negative connotation for me until I moved to the U.S. 14 years ago.  Yet, the reason is simple: in France, the word “collaboration” is associated with French people who collaborated with the Nazis and fought against the French resistance during WW2.  If you are French, you don’t want to be called a “collaborateur”!

The theory of embodied cognition sheds some light on why we assign different meanings to the same word or why similar and related words evocate different feelings and images in us.  Embodied cognition means that as ideas, thoughts, concepts and so on, are shaped by our education, past experiences and learning—our personal history—they get embodied as metaphorical thoughts within our brain.  This phenomenon occurs when the same recurring experience activates the neurons in different brain areas and neural circuits get formed and connections reinforced over time.

In a recent article called “A Good Week for Science—and Insights into Politics,” the linguist George Lakoff points out:

“The meaning of every word is characterized in terms of a brain circuit called a “frame.”  Frames are often characterized in terms of the usual apparatus of mental life: metaphors, images, cultural narratives – and neural links to the emotion centers of the brain. The narrow, literal meaning of a word is only one aspect of its frame-semantic meaning.

The second basic result is that this is mostly unconscious, like 98% of human thought.”

Lakoff goes on by explaining that the word “homosexual,” for instance, has a very different connotation for most people (i.e., is defined with a different frame) than the words “gay men and lesbians.”  The use of the word “homosexual” in a poll will generate completely different poll results that the use of the words “gay men and lesbians.”   (Note: the remaining of Lakoff’s article discusses the different uses of frames by republicans and democrats politicians; the article is worth a read.)

The above has great consequences for communication in general, and for facilitation, visioning, or conflict resolution, in particular.  Indeed, how do we know if the words we use are being interpreted with the meanings we intended?  Or, conversely, how do we know if we interpret words we hear with the meaning our interlocutors wished to convey?  If we don’t check and ask, we can’t know for sure.  And most often, we don’t take the time to do so.  For the majority of our common daily activities, our interpretations are close enough to the intended meaning and sufficiently accurate to help us make simple decisions and coordinate actions.  Life would be impossible if it were otherwise!  But in situations where we are dealing with politically, ethically, or morally-charged issues such as climate changes, sustainability, poverty or healthcare, which generate very different emotional feelings in different people, clarification of content and meaning is key to a successful resolution of the issues at hand.

A facilitator’s important role is one of content clarifier.  A skilled facilitator asks clarifying questions to draw out valuable information and get insights about the true meaning of what is being said.  In addition, a facilitator must also ensure that the frames and mental models of the participants are made transparent to the entire group so that each participant can fully understand the diverse assumptions, rationale, viewpoints and perspectives behind what is being said.

There is an art to asking probing questions, but an art that can be learned.   Next time you are in a conversation with someone you disagree with, do not argue and take a position.  Instead, remember to inquire into the other person’s frames and mental models so that you can expand your own horizon of understanding of the issue you are discussing.  You may end-up completely changing your perspective.  At a minimum, you may gain a greater understanding of the gap between your interlocutor’s standpoint and yours.  It is worth the effort!

I appreciate any comments or feedback you may have.

Warmly,

Beatrice

**********

Community Economic Development (CED) approaches that aim at developing sustainable and regenerative communities should be holistic and integrative and must consider the communities’ challenges and strategies from an economic, social, and environmental perspectives, simultaneously.  We believe that CED approaches benefit from the insights of Complexity Science, Systems Thinking, and Living Systems theory.

Communities are Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) or Living Systems (LS) whose components (the individuals, organizations, institutions, and all the diverse social-technical-political-ecological systems that are present within the community) continuously interact with one another to exchange information and resources; collaborate; compete; self-organize; and adapt under the influence of diverse economic, social and environmental pressures.

An LS approach to CED embraces the complexity of the community ecosystem. Understanding of the issues faced by a community can be gained by considering the complex interrelationships that exist between the community and its environment.  An ecosystem map is a useful tool to visualize the diverse interactions within the community and between the community and its environment.  This map can also be used to assess the level of diversity within the community—diversity that is critical for the system to thrive—and to determine what entities need to be added to rebalance the system.

LS theory provides insights on how to improve the adaptive capacity of communities by designing communities structures that facilitate the flow of information and the development of communication networks; connect diverse assets and resources to one another; support the development of collaboration; decentralize power and decision-making; and increase resilience in times of economic stress, hardship, or downturn.

A living community is a learning system, continuously searching for creative and innovative solutions to its problems and ways to generate value.  In the process, the community develops and grows.  Innovation is an emergent process that takes place when individuals, organizations and institutions self-organize while engaging in collaborative activities and collective actions.  Consequently, an LS approach to CED focuses on designing structures that facilitate the collective coordination of action and the development of mutually beneficial relationships.

Finally, the design of living communities is an adaptive challenge—a challenge that requires individuals, organizations, and the community as a whole to redefine long-held values, beliefs, and mental models and to embrace a new world view.   The role of the adaptive leader(s) is to mobilize and empower the community to do “adaptive work.”  This means engaging the community members in dialogue that supports the development of shared-understanding of the issues to be addressed; the development of relationship based on trust; and the co-creation of shared meaning and purposes from which a new vision can emerge and new strategies can be designed.

Open dialogue, transparency, accountability, and constant evaluation of the process and its outcome—the qualities of reflective systems—are essential to the development of purposeful and conscious living communities.

Yet, we must remember that living systems cannot be directed but only influenced.  There are no single prescriptions for success.  Strategies must be context-specific and their implementation carefully monitored using feedback loops and other evaluation systems so that to continuously adjust and improve the system.

A few minutes later, the man came back (his name is Dennis), thanked me and asked me what I was reading.  My answer drew another question and another and we started a conversation about what I was teaching and where, what I was doing for a living and so on and so forth.  When time came to board the train, I gave Dennis my business card and said goodbye.  But a while later, as the train was already on his way, Dennis came to find me in my car and asked if we could continue our discussion.  We talked about things that matter to me: adaptive work and leadership; transformative work; living systems; sustainability; consulting; personal development.  It seemed as if Dennis was drinking my words.  He told me that he had been retired for a few years but was looking for something to do.  Considering his interest in my “stories” and all the questions he asked, it occurred to me that he was ready to move on to his next challenge and start a new career—one that would truly make a difference in his life and in the life of others.  I greatly encouraged him to find his new life purpose.

Meeting Dennis was like one of these serendipitous encounters that leave you with the feeling that you’ve made a difference in someone else life.  After we had said goodbye and agreed to stay in touch, I felt a deep sense of joy and connection.  Strangely, I also felt that this encounter had not happened purely by chance—that it was meant to have happened.

Yesterday, I received an email from Dennis who sent a little story and cartoon called: The Charlie Schultz Philosophy.  I am happy to share it with you.  Enjoy!

Perhaps you know the answer to this question but more likely you are like me and you don’t.  Perhaps there are some experts out there who have done a comparative life cycle analysis of both solutions and who know the answer.  Perhaps the answer depends on where the coffee shop is located—I would suspect the answer would be different in India or Africa than it is in the U.S.  Perhaps ceramic cups are a better choice today while paper cups might be better in 5 or 10 years when we experience a major water shortage.  Perhaps in 20 years neither solution will be a good one because we won’t have enough water to make our coffee, anyway.  There may not be any coffee growing, by the way.

I may be over-dramatizing but you get the point.  We all mean well and we are all trying to do the right thing and we truly care.  Yet, driven by our mental models (yes, I know, I have been focusing quite a bit on them lately but they seem to me so critical if one wants to move to the next stage), we love to find easy technical answers to our complex problems and we love jumping to conclusions quickly.  We also love to point fingers and blame others for their unsustainable behaviors.  We bad-mouth our neighbors for not recycling; we complain about our employees who do not embrace our latest corporate sustainable initiative; we get upset with the grocery store that is raving about its sustainability strategy yet carries Chilean grapes in the winter; and while they may be making their baby steps toward transforming their business operation, we still blame large corporations for their unsustainable business models and for greenwashing.

Listen, I am not saying there is no greenwashing: it’s everywhere.  I am not saying there aren’t people who do not care: there are still too many.  I am not saying that all businesses getting involved with their Corporate Social Responsibility initiative are doing it for the sake of the environment, their local community and social justice: many are still doing it only for the bottom line and in many cases simply because they are forced to do so by stakeholders’ demand, regulatory constraints, and NGO pressures.

What I am trying to say is that we, the well-meaning people, have to rise above the pack and start asking the right and smart questions.  If we want to lead, then we must lead in such a way that the results of our actions are truly making a positive impact on the world.  We must acknowledge that problems are complex and that oversimplification is a very risky business.  We must be aware of our own filters and mental models and make them explicit and open to the scrutiny of others.  We must take a rigorous and scientific approach when investigating our problems and the strategies we are developing to solve them.  And, at the same time and in the same way that we are using our rational brains for analysis, we must also open our hearts, use our intuition, and practice love and compassion because the use of soft skills and our ability to connect to emotional intelligence are critical to our ability to adapt, transform ourselves and ultimately impact the world around us.

More than anything else, we should not jump to conclusions too quickly.  Is it difficult?  Hell, yes!  But by rolling up our sleeves and accepting the hard work; by acknowledging that we are both rational and emotional people and by honoring both reason and emotion as valuable human assets; and by learning how to mesh these in our personal and professional lives, all together we will be able to achieve our highest aspirations for a better world.

It is well known that we only see what we are prepared to see.  In the book “The Art of Possibility,” authors Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander recall an experiment with indigenous people of Ethiopia who had never seen a two-dimensional image.  When presented for the first time in their lives with a photograph showing people and animals, the indigenous people were unable to actually distinguish the characters represented on the picture.  Instead, “they felt the paper, sniffed it, crumpled it, and listened to the crackling noise it made; they nipped off little bits and chewed them to taste it.”*

What I find most amazing about this story is not that the indigenous people could not “read” the photograph.  No, what amazes me is the realization that I am just like them—that there is an entire world out there, made of things that I am unable to see because my worldviews are preventing my mind to begin to imagine those things even exist, and even less comprehend their meaning if and whenever my eyes are eventually able to notice them.  We might be a very developed specie, yet we must nevertheless admit that we are still very much like the cavemen in Plato’s Parable of the Cave, mistaking the shadows we see on the walls of our “caves” (i.e., our minds) for reality.  Albert Eistein was no fool when he exclaimed: “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

The ability to empty our mind to make space for a new reality is a critical capacity in any developmental and transformative process.  But how can we develop that skill?  Before answering this question, let me present a bit of theory that will shed some light onto the nature of the learning and developmental process.

Living systems theory teaches us that the behavior of a system is less influenced by external forces than by the specific organization of its internal structure.  For a human being, the structure consists of the mental models, assumptions, beliefs and values that the particular individual has accumulated overtime through her education and diverse life experiences.  A living system learns and adapts over time by changing its internal structure while maintaining its identity.  Over time, the history of structural changes in a system defines the system’s development path.  Moreover, it is the structure of a living system that selectively determines which perturbations or information in the environment the system will notice or ignore, and which new interactions will be created between the system’s components.  One says that a living system is structure-determined.  This explains why the indigenous people of Ethiopia—having a completely different life experience than ours and, thus, different mental models—were unable to identify the objects photographed and only saw a shiny paper.  The structure of their minds selected what they were able to see and dictated how to interpret what they saw.  In other words, the mind constructs its own subjective reality.

The concept of structure-determined systems allows us to reconcile the notions of freedom and determinism within human beings.  Indeed, this theory implies that our development path is both determined and free: we are determined by our own structure (i.e., mental models), yet we maintain the freedom to define what in our environment triggers our learning, adaptation and change.

In order to open our mind to a new reality, we must become aware of our own mental models; accept the fact that there isn’t an objective reality of the world and that, consequently, none of us owns the truth; understand that complete freedom is an illusion, yet we have the inner power to choose to challenge our assumptions; and know that our mind can be “unwired” and “rewired” to generate new thought patterns.

Here are some useful tools that can help in the process:

• The “Ladder of Inference,” developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, is helpful for understanding how our mental models are formed; it helps investigate what data from the world we select and how we interpret it to build meaning and take action.
• The “Eye of the Needle,” developed by Nancy Eubanks Oelklaus, is especially useful within the context of difficult conversations.  The tool helps identify the parts of a conversation that remain unspoken and the feelings that underlie those responses so that by integrating our emotional and logical response we can communicate completely and from the heart.
• Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD) is a system modeling technique that provides a language for articulating our understanding of the dynamic, interconnected nature of our world.
• Meditation and other Buddhist mindfulness/awareness practices help free the mind from thoughts.  With an empty mind, we can better connect to our Inner Self and Creative Source.  (Note that in the Buddhist tradition, “emptiness” (sunyata) relates to the notion that all objects are empty of “inherent existence,” which is another way of saying that the way we perceive and experience the world is fundamentally different than the way things are.)

Finally, emptying ourselves to learn requires us to be very intentional in our learning process and to practice humility.

I wish you the best in your journey.

* The quote is from J.B. Deregowski, “Real Space and Represented Space: Cross-Cultural Perspectives,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (1989), 57, cited by Rosamund and Benjamin Zander, in “The Art of Possibility” (2000), Penguin books.

Over the past three months I have deeply reconsidered my professional path and purpose and it has become clear that it is time for me to go on my own and start my business. (Yes!  I do believe it is the perfect time for me to do so, even in a time of economic recession.)  While the specific wording of my mission statement is still evolving, its direction is already apparent:

To help transform organizations into purposeful and conscious living systems and to facilitate the resolution of adaptive challenges while considering the impact of all organizational activities on the community, the environment and the broader ecosystem.

Keeping a foot into theory and a foot into practice has always been essential to my personal fulfillment.  I also believe that the sharing of knowledge with a broad audience has never been so critical at a time when it is urgent for our society to go through a paradigm shift and change our way of thinking.  It is imperative for our collective consciousness to arise now or we run the risk of not making it as a civilization.  (Note that I am seeing many positive and encouraging signs that a collective consciousness is in the process of emerging.  Perhaps I’ll make this the topic of another post.)

Consequently, I see my work revolving around three pillars: consulting, research, and knowledge sharing.  These three pillars are of course interdependent and mutually reinforcing: theories inform practice and practice provides the environment to test, validate, or update the theories which then can be shared and applied to resolve real world problems; and the loop keeps on going indefinitely.

While still in development and evolving, I am happy to share with you some of my preliminary business ideas around the three pillars.

Consulting

The essence of my consulting practice is Transformative Work.

Organization/Community Transformative Work

My goal is to work with businesses, non-profit organizations, local governments, and communities who face adaptive (value-based) challenges, chronic problems, and the need to change.  I see my clients as organizations and/or communities that seek:

• Greater clarity about—and alignment with—their purpose and identity.
• Higher level of mindfulness and consciousness driving all activities.
• Increased coherence and integration of all activities to achieve their purpose and greater good.
• New competencies, including adaptive learning capabilities and ability to address the root causes of problems.
• New strategic opportunities aligned with the organizational purpose.
• Increased resilience and ability to adapt to change.

Services for the Architectural, Engineering, and Urban Planning Professions

I intend to leverage my architectural training and my interests in collaborative integrated design process and in urban planning projects, combined with my systems thinking skills and knowledge about living systems theory, to serve the architectural and city planning community in two main capacities:

1- Sustainable and Regenerative Urban Design

I am currently investigating consulting opportunities with architects, city planners, and urban developers, and other stakeholders involved in the planning, design, and development of sustainable communities, eco-districts, and eco-cities.

2- Innovative Business Models in the Architectural/Engineering/Construction (AEC) Industry

I am also looking at providing my expertise to AEC firms with an interest in transforming their business models and developing innovative services that deliver higher values to their clients.

Theoretical Framework

I take a holistic approach to organizational transformation and change that is grounded in the application of the following theoretical frameworks: systems thinking; complexity sciences; living systems principles; evolutionary theories; adaptive leadership; consciousness; and collaborative/integrated design process.

Knowledge Sharing

I believe there is a need to accelerate learning and bring new theories into the mainstream.  So, beyond blogging, research papers, workshops and conferences I am currently exploring ways by which to amplify critical ideas and reach out to a larger audience.  Social media plays a key role in this area.

This year will be my fourth-year as instructor with Bainbridge Graduate Institute (BGI), a distance learning MBA and Certificate program in sustainable business where I team-teach a Strategy & Implementation course and a Systems Thinking in Action course.  BGI’s mission is to “Change Business for Good” and the entire community is actively engaged in co-creating a just and sustainable future.  The BGI experience has been very rewarding to me and I look forward to continuing being involved with the Institute.

Of course, I am committed to writing this blog.  It gives me the opportunity to stand back and reflect every week on diverse topics and ideas that are at the basis of my work.  With a few exceptions, it has so far been a one-way communication.  I hope that over the next few months you will engage in the conversation and share your comments and suggestions.

Personal Values

I will bring integrity, trust, excellence, openness, love and compassion in all that I do.

I believe that everything is connected and that solutions to our messiest problems can emerge out of our collective wisdom.  Collaboration and dialogue are critical.

I see my adaptive leader role to be one of service.

Collaborations

I have recently joined other “citizens” at Designs for Sustainable World Collective, LLC (DSWCollective), a consulting firm that “bring(s) together a wide range of experts with complementary backgrounds to focus on the development and implementation of practical yet aggressive sustainable design strategies.” I very much look forward to collaborating with DSWCollective’s founder Darcy Winslow and her team in the near future.  I am especially grateful to Darcy for having kindly accepted to put me under her wings and to mentor me over the next few months.

Over the holiday, I also reconnected with my friend Jeff Klein of Working for Good Collaborative.  Jeff and his team are helping companies become more socially and environmentally conscious.  I’ll be happy to offer my skills and expertise and be of service whenever and however it makes sense.

I have recently become a member of the Collective Wisdom Initiative, a website and network created in 2002 by the Fetzer Institute, whose purpose is to “help make visible an emerging field of collective wisdom, its study and practice.”  It is my deeper desire to be able to help organizations and communities connect to their field of collective consciousness through dialogue, deep listening, and the power of love as the energy that reconnects that which has been separated.

I look forward to 2010 and all that it holds for me and for all of us!

With gratitude,

Beatrice

Enjoy!

1- Work is love made visible.
—Kahlil Gibran

2- The more efficient you are at doing the wrong thing, the wronger you become.
—Russel Ackoff

3- Some people come into our lives, leave footprints on our hearts, and we are never ever the same.
—Eleanor Roosevelt

4- The truly free man has no choice, he simply does what must be done.
—Dane Rudyar, French author, composer, and astrologer

5- The only time we suffer is when we believe a thought that argues with what is. When the mind is perfectly clear, what is is what we want.
—Byron Katie, Loving What Is.

6- Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate,
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous -
Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won’t feel insecure around you.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us.
It is not just in some of us: it is in everyone,
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
—Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love.

7- Rule Number 6: “Don’t take yourself so g—damn seriously.”
—Rosamund and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility

8- Need to decide between two options? Don’t choose. Instead create a better option.
—Roger Martin, The Opposable Mind

9- I surrender to the larger design that I am co-creating.
—Beatrice’s mantra

10- The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to venture beyond them into the impossible.
—Arthur C. Clarke’s second Law

As we brainstormed about the purpose and other aspects of the business, the word “love” came out, again and again, as one of the driving principles for the new venture.  The thing was, it wasn’t coming from me.  For unclear reasons, I started to feel somewhat uneasy and my rational mind started to ramble with a story line that went something like this: “Love! Love! This is all nicely said, guys!  But we are dealing with very complex business problems here.  We need tools such as systems thinking to see connections and embrace the complexity and we need to build the skills, capacity, and expertise to address tough issues.”

I went on like this, talking to myself, not daring to express my feelings, as I did not want to “spoil,” or to bring to an end, the amazing flow of energy that was in the room.  As the meeting proceeded, I became very confused.  I also grew very unhappy with myself.  Here I was, the only woman in the room, and I was the one who was not comfortable talking about love within a business context while these guys seemed to feel perfectly at ease with it.  My feelings stayed with me well after the end of the meeting throughout the following days, until, eventually, they slowly dissolved.

I won’t expand on the personal development change I went through since that meeting but I know now, with much certainty, that these men were right and I did not get it!  From a very deep place within myself I know that love is the absolute necessary ingredient at the basis of all transformative work.  Without love at the root of our work, we—change agents—will not be able to build a sustainable future.

Love, compassion, and deep empathy for our clients, business partners, teammates, communities, as well as our family and friends must be the sources and driving energies for our transformative work.  How could we bring consciousness in organizations without love?  How could we facilitate adaptive change without compassion?  How could we find solutions to our tough problems without empathy for the people involved in the process?  We need love as the new transformative power to develop higher level of consciousness.  We need love to create a generative field and awaken our collective wisdom.  We need love because these are times when the most accomplished rational mind is helpless to find solutions—not because the solutions are beyond human intelligence (they are not!) but because innovative solutions require us to change our long-held mental models and values and to take a leap of faith into the unknown.  We need love to believe in a world of possibilities, abundance, justice, equity, peace and harmony with the environment and with other living species.

In his most recent research and forthcoming book on “Getting Unstuck: Solving Tough Problems Through Power and Love,” Adam Kahane borrows from theologian and philosopher Paul Tillich to redefine power as “the drive of everything living to realize itself, with increasing intensity and extensity” and love as “the drive towards the unity of the separated.”  As Kahane explains, power is the drive to achieve one’s purpose, to get one’s job done, and to grow, while love is the drive to reconnect and make whole that which has become or appears fragmented.

The redefinitions of these two fundamental forces of power and love—beyond their traditional meanings of “oppressive power” and “romantic love”—are very empowering when dealing with adaptive work.  Every system, institution and living entity has a purpose (e.g., a school’s purpose is to educate and disseminate knowledge).  Even when the purpose is not made explicit, it can be deducted from the behavior of the system (e.g., a school’s unstated purpose might be to have as many students as possible graduate each year).  Adaptive work consists of making a system’s purpose explicit or, in some cases, redefining its purpose, and ensuring that the behavior of the system is congruent with the stated purpose.

Love relates to the principle of “Coherence”—that is, the idea that everything is already whole and that our task, as a collective, is to look for the ways that it is.  It means that the solutions we seek, in fact, already exist, and that if we open ourselves enough to the possibilities and listen to our collective wisdom, we can resolve all the problems we face.  This is why the process of “Dialogue” or “the art of thinking together” is so important when dealing with tough problems.  The technology of Dialogue* is based on deep listening, respect of the positions of others (especially when they are at odd with our own) and on inquiry, all the while suspending assumptions, judgment and certainty, with the intent to see the big picture, patterns and trends and the belief that a new understanding will emerge out of the process.  A dialogue is driven by the desire to see connections and to re-unite what has been separated.

As we bring our knowledge, skills, expertise, and all the gifts we were given to facilitating change, let’s also commit to bringing love, both in its traditional and new definitions, as the underlying force and energy driving our adaptive work.

I wish you all a very happy holiday season.

Beatrice

* To learn more about the origin and process of Dialogue, see Dialogue: A Proposal by David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett

The workshop explored the “application of the latest brain research to the qualities of exemplary leadership.”  Blake, who participated in the recent International Neuroleadership Summit that was held this past October, reported that neuroscientists are now coming to accept the until now controversial ideas that “the body is the brain” and that the mind is embodied. (It is important to mention that these ideas have been familiar to consciousness practitioners for a long time and, perhaps, are self-evident to most of us.)

The mind-body dichotomy idea originated from the French mathematician and philosopher Descartes in the seventeenth century with his well-known assertion “I think, therefore I am.”  Descartes argued for a disembodied mind having no influence on the body and vice versa.  This powerful idea allowed Descartes to reject the existence of any subjective reality.  From a Cartesian perspective, the essence of humanity is rationality, that is, our ability to think logically, to set goals for ourselves, to make decisions between different alternatives, and so on.

Following on Descartes steps, the conventional view in cognitive science holds that the mind is only the result of the activity of the brain.  In addition, the process of cognition is considered a process of manipulation of symbols and of representation of an external world.  However, recent experiments have shown that, by bringing our focus and attention to the mind, we can change the brain’s activities.  Also, findings in quantum physics have shown that separation between an observer and an observed phenomenon does not exist when dealing with atomic entities.

Consequently, there is an emergent and growing recognition among scientists that cognition is not “a representation of an independently existing world, but rather a continual bringing forth of a world through the process of living” (Capra, 2002).  From this new perspective, all cognitive activity is embodied and context-specific.  There isn’t a pure objective reality of the world.

What this means is that living systems – and human beings, in particular – select from the environment which information or disturbances to notice and consequently, create information and assign meaning to it.  This is done through a dynamic process called “structural coupling” – a term used to depict a living system that engages with another or with the environment.  Living systems learn through their ability to structurally-couple with their environment or with other systems in order to communicate (verbal and non-verbal communication), coordinate behavior, and adapt.  This learning is embodied learning because it uses the internal structure of the system and the body to learn in order to take action.  (Note that embodied learning is in contrast to the traditional definition of learning as gathering, processing and understanding information.)

When we remove the mind/body dichotomy, we realize there is a feedback loop between thinking and feeling: what we think influences our feelings and how we feel influences our thinking.  As Richard Strozzi-Heckler, President of Strozzi Institute, notes: “When our feeling-self and thinking-self are coherent we are at our most powerful.  When they’re at odds, we’re a train wreck.” [Read his article “A Return to Lovingness”].  Of course, how we feel and think influences our behavior and how we interact with others.   What the workshop’s experiential exercises demonstrated is that language is not necessary to communicate and to influence the feelings and behavior of people around us.  People perceive the energy fields that are generated by our bodies, gestures, facial expressions as well as our thoughts, and are influenced by them.   We all have had the experience of feeling sad or depressed, for no particular personal reasons, simply because we have been around a sad or depressed person.  Keep a frown on your face all day and you will start feeling sad.  Don’t we also say that happiness is contagious? Also, it is well know to call center representatives, that smiling while you speak to someone at a distance changes the tone of your voice.

So, how can leaders retrieve their generative power (by “power” here I mean their ability to act mindfully and in a way that empowers others) and become mindful leaders?

Since the mind is embodied, observing the body – our ultimate instrument of perception and action – is critical.  Mindful leaders are not only intellectually smart, they have developed the capacity to sense and be aware of their environment and of the state of their own being.  Mindful leadership can be regained by observing and monitoring the mind in order to modify its activities.

As Jeff Klein notes in his book Working for Good,

“Our bodies are incredibly intelligent.  While we believe we think with our minds, our bodies are great receptors, interpreters, and projectors of experience.  They continually read the terrain for us and inform our awareness.  They sense our physical orientation and relationship to other bodies.  They sense temperature and sustain our balance, and they can detect when our sense of balance is challenged.  They carry memories and experiences, and without our conscious intervention they respond to subtle signals to protect and guide us.  We can learn a lot if we pay attention to how our bodies feel and respond to our thoughts and actions, and to external circumstances and other people.  And we can apply this intelligence to how we move in our work.”

Learn how to tune in to your sensations and body and lead mindfully.

Resources:

Capra, Fritjof 2002, The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability, Doubleday, New York.

Klein, Jeff 2009, Working for Good: Making a Difference While Making a Living, Sounds True, Boulder, Colorado.  (See in particular Chapter 2: Awareness and the accompanying exercises.)

-Lyall Watson, Gifts of Unknown Things

A couple of months ago I started Nia Dancing – a dance practiced barefoot that combines both structured and free-form expression and that Portland-based co-founders Carlos Rosas and Debbie Rosas define as “a path to condition, heal and express your self through movement and sensation. A dynamic blend of dance arts, martial arts and healing arts…”

Except for twenty years ago when I was disco dancing, I’ve never really danced.  But when a friend of mine shared with me how dancing had helped him navigate through life hardships, I got really intrigued.  As I embarked in a personal and professional transition and voluntarily moved my life into the unknown, I knew that I needed to do something that would put me in a beginner or learner situation – a situation that can be both exciting but also challenging, yet in a fun and safe context.

As Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky explain “[L]eading adaptive change requires you to step beyond your default behaviors into an unknown situation and to learn something new.  That means experiencing a period of incompetence.  Indeed, if you do not feel that you are operating at the very edge of your talents or even just beyond that edge, then you are probably not attacking an adaptive challenge…To diminish the common experience of disorientation and embarrassment as you move past your frontier of competence, find opportunities to try your hand at developing a set of demanding new skills in a structured, safe environment that has nothing to do with the adaptive challenges in your professional or vocational life.  Find a low-risk context in which to experience being incompetent.”

While I have practiced Yoga on a regular basis for about seven years, I thought I needed to complement my practice with something more fluid that would help me connect my mind and body in a different way.  Yoga is a very personal practice.  In contrast, I felt the urge to engage in an art that would help me connect with others.  In support of my professional goals of being a change agent and process facilitator, I knew I needed to be at ease within my body and my self and comfortable in the world, even in potentially difficult and intense situations.

I had heard of Nia, and so I went to my first class; I very much enjoyed the experience.  As expected, I also felt somewhat awkward, not knowing exactly how to move, not always able to follow the rhythm and somehow very clumsy with my steps.  But I kept at it, going twice a week, and I am amazed at the subtle transformation that is occurring within myself weeks after weeks.

There must be a warrior hidden within myself – a peaceful warrior, I hope – as the Nia’s moves I enjoy the most are the punches and kicks borrowed from martial art such as Tae Kwon Do, and the accompanying shouts “Yes!” “No!” “Ah!” that reinforce the warrior-like expression and help release tension and potentially negative energy trapped within myself.  At the other end of the spectrum, I also enjoy the fluidity and grace of free-flow movement when we are allowed to move randomly in the entire room and to improvise our dance based on the rhythm of the music played.  Improvisation in this case requires much presence and increased awareness of the space and of other dancers in the room.

Overall, Nia is helping me improve my balance, my body and mind coordination while increasing my self-esteem and level of happiness.

So, what will you do to find your edge when you get into a difficult work situation?

Heifetz, Ronald, Grashow Alexander and Linksy Marty (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.