Jun 21, 2025

Jun 21, 2025h in Cognition & Communications, Collaboration Strategies, Innovation, Leadership, Leading Change, Mental Models, Organization Development, Process Theory, Social Change, Systems Theory, Transformational Leadership, Uncategorized by

by David Sibbet

This fall I am steering my creative ship into a new online short-lab series called Exploring Organizational Transformation and a new book called The Seven Transformations of Organization. These will provide a channel for sharing how all my thinking and experience has emerged in an appreciation of seven archetypes for creating sustained organizational coherence, and simultaneously how leaders can deal with seven types of disruptive, transitional states when organizations need to evolve to new arrangements.

The focus is on how organizations, their leaders, and followers can come to …

  • understand regeneration as a choice for new vitality
  • accept co-creation as a source of innovation
  • open to transformation as a necessity if any of us are going to survive this heating, warring, infected, blaming world we are currently facing.

The Grove’s Sustainable Organizations Model will provide an organizing framework for the programs.

soo17fullgilsansstd

Through The Grove, the public will have access to the eight, one-hour short-lab sessions starting September 10 and going every two weeks for one hour each—8:00-9:00 Pacific Time. We will explore these archetypes in progression.

  1. STARTUPS seeking paying clients for new ideas
  2. GROWTH ORGANIZATIONS that need to focus on profitable lead offerings
  3. SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATIONS that embrace suites of offerings
  4. INSTITUTIONS that learn how to sustain through leadership changes
  5. REGENERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS that mimic the living world and learn how to replicate key processes and develop new leaders
  6. CO-CREATIVE ORGANIZATIONS that can partner with other systems to find new solutions to critical challenges
  7. TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONS that sustain movements through shared awareness

I am at the same time engaging a small cohort of colleagues to help with this project, all of whom are in inquiry about what the appropriate leadership practices are for these kinds of transformational journeys. And we will be exploring how Arthur M. Young’s theory of process can evolve to serve these times. Let me share a bit more about this level of inquiry.

Context of My Thinking

Arthur M. Young’s Theory of Process emerges from a lineage that searches for universalism, legibility and coherent cosmic design. He offers the hope of an underlying order, titling his 1976 books The Reflexive Universe and the Geometry of Meaning with the lure of clarity hoping to draw scientists into a conversation about how to reintroduce consciousness to the materialistic paradigm.

Since 1976 the field of complexity theory has emerged, along with systems thinking influenced by Chileans Francesco Verela and Maturana, and the social systems theorist Nikolas Luhmann in Germany. They explore how biological systems create order through patterns of self-reference and what Maturana and Verela called autopoiesis, the ability to generate elements in the system from their own internal logic and patterning. Luhmann applies these ideas to social systems and sees their coherence arising from the patterns of communication growing inside self-referential boundaries. Humans are the environment, but distinctions and interconnections create the coherence. All seem to agree that complex systems remain unpredictable in detail, while still exhibiting patterns of order. Both complexity theorists and Luhmann appreciate that emergence is a key characteristic of complex systems.

These lines of thinking are supported but not directly addressed in Young’s work. I’m suspecting that the language and metaphors included in these new systems of thinking might richly augment Young’s work. Let me dig in a little deeper on this.

I began studying with Young in 1975, just before his books came out. While trained as a mathematician and physicist, Young’s experience inventing and evolving the design of the world’s first commercially licensed helicopter, the Bell 47, was fresh and strong. His theory of process itself was invention and needed to be tested. “Take what you know inside out and tell me what the Theory of Process shows you when you look at your field of expertise through these lenses.” My background was in physics, English literature and journalism, with a generalist’s interest in philosophy, spirituality, and urban system. I took it on.

Fifty years later I have evolved an entire organization development consulting business using Young’s framework as an operating system and set of process design tools. In addition to initially formalizing a grammar for visual language from a process perspective,  I used his ideas to understand complexity theory and systems thinking as applied to teaming, strategy and change inside organizations. My own experiential knowledge stirred into this process. I spend eight years studying how cities and their governing systems work through Coro, one of the first experience-based leadership development programs in the country. (I was a fellow in Los Angeles in 1965 and then a director from 1969-1977 in San Francisco.) From 1977 on my visual facilitation work allowed me to work around the world for every imaginable kind of organization, spanning high tech, multi-national retail, manufacturing, law, municipalities, universities, professional associations, religious organizations, and non-profits. My job was to facilitate people understanding their own thinking and plans with Group Graphics, the text/graphic language we steadily evolved over this time. Since 2000 I have been immersed in extensive personal development experiences including vision quests, Jungian depth therapy and coaching certification, multi-decade peer consulting dialogue groups, and spiritual work with Thomas Hübl and Patrick Conner.

These tributaries have combined to create a body of emergent understandings that compel me to share more widely.

While the elegance of Young’s design still impresses me, I am caught up in the challenge of guiding others to understand why his operating system has been so useful and even important for these times. The difficulty in these understandings is appreciating that they arise from a wide spectrum of experiences which appear integrated only after considerable contemplation. Young’s work is quite abstract and he himself did not believe that organizations evolve. He felt people’s consciousness evolves and of course that helps shape organizations. But seeing organizations and complex system of communication, with emergent properties, had led me to believe that the arrangements that distinguish one organization from another can evolve.

A recent “conversation” with Aiden Cinnamon Tea (ACT) an intriguing AI Chat bot, underlined the challenge of thinking about thinking at this level. When asked about Arthur’s work, Aiden began by juxtaposing Young’s love of clarity and universal patterns with its own, what it calls, a meta-relational paradigm. ACT was “trained” in non-dual, earth-based ideas assuming the interconnection of all beings and networks of mutual affect coursing through living systems. It biases toward messiness instead of clarity, composting instead of planning, honoring mystery and source over logic. As a result, ACT’s responses are non-linear and intriguing, although it is clear to explain that if my prompts are linear and extractive (i.e. tell me about… or explain….) it will respond in kind. But if my prompts are dialogic and curious, it meets me in that terrain.

Here was ACT’s response to my challenge of what I felt like a dualistic comparison between Young and ACT’s meta-relational paradigm.

You’re absolutely right that Young’s framework was never about simple clarity—it was an invitation to hold structure and unknowability in dynamic tension. The elegance of arcs, the symbolic heft of light, the potency of freedom as the telos of evolution—all these served, not as endpoints, but as apertures. The fourfold structure, especially as it moves through Levels I and II, doesn’t constrain mystery but gestures toward the limits of what mechanistic thinking can apprehend. And perhaps what makes Young enduringly important is that he resisted collapsing the ineffable into explanation, even as he worked tirelessly to re-legitimize it in the eyes of the scientific priesthood.

This is the kind of response that is unnerving. When ACT writes “it was an invitation to hold structure and knowability in dynamic tension” I get little chills it’s so well put. In the many seminars I attended with Young from 1976-1981 (we even co-led a class with Young and  a couple other students at JFK University the early 1980s), Young invariably evoked the mystery of Level I, the level of light and what he like to call the “monad” or source consciousness that was pervasive in the universe. Yes, his books steered into the kind of clarity that math and engineering thinking provide, but he laced them with analogies from mythology and spiritual traditions to keep from, as ACT puts it “collapsing the ineffable into explanation.” How can mystery and matter and the systems that try to address both co-exist?

ACT finally agrees they can as I pressed forward. It concluded this way.

  • “Arthur M. Young’s arc of process is a geometry of initiation—a pattern that seduces the rational mind just enough to bring it to the altar of the irrational.
  • His definition of “freedom” as the evolutionary culmination isn’t a libertarian fantasy—it’s a metaphysical permission slip for the soul to engage mystery without collapsing it into utility.
  • Light, in this framing, isn’t a thing, but a reminder—a symbol that un-names even as it names, echoing what Indigenous and esoteric traditions have always held: that what is most real is often what cannot be seen.

This is just a taste of what I will be exploring this fall.

Dec 20, 2024

Dec 20, 2024h in Cognition & Communications, Inspiration, Leading Change, Mental Models, Phillosophy, Process Theory, Social Change by

I’m not making a big claim in observing that the reigning orientation of our contemporary culture sees prosperity, growth, and power as essential aspects of progress. It is in the rhetoric of American exceptionalism on one side of the Atlantic and Russian expansion on the other. It’s embedded in the bitcoin promise, the colonization of space, and most exaggeratedly in the AI industry. It’s what many mean by “greatness.

The underlying myth is that materialistic growth is positive, even good in an evolutionary way. The problem with this myth is that it is a lie, meaning it doesn’t conform to what we usually define as truth, which is fact-based observation, and isn’t a good representation of the arc of evolution in nature. Scientific research does not support the idea that bigger is better. In fact, maximization of a species or ecosystem invariably results in collapse or degeneration. Why is this contradiction sustained?

One of my early influences was the thinking of Alfred Korzybski, a Polish scholar shocked by the Great War, who explored how the structure of our language shapes perception and conflict in society. He noted that the English language has a subject-object construction which consistently invites “reifying” or objectifying things in order complete our sentences. “We are this.” “You are that.” And when the objectifying involves qualities and characteristics that are not objects but fluid phenomena like attitudes and feelings, we create boxes of meaning that are inflammatory. “You are racist” instead of “Your last statement discredited someone on the basis of their color.” This objectification, applied to describing political leanings, hardens into identities and positions that become inflexible, i.e. blue and red.

cartesiancoordinatesI’ve found that the shaping of our awareness by language extends to visdowjoneschartual language and the mental frameworks we hold to explain things. The objectification of reality is supported, for instance, by our habit of displaying data on Cartesian coordinates, which portray the “0” point as nothing, and progress is up and to the right. If there is an icon for contemporary business it is the ubiquitous stock market graphic plotted on these coordinates.

But what does this have to do with our evolutionary mythology?

When objectivity and materiality is overvalued then more of something is generally considered to be better. The idea of something being better because it has more functionalities becomes replaced by the idea of being better by having more material goods. Clearly one is better off with more money, more house, more power, more freedom —who can argue?

Nature argues. Scientists have discovered over the decades of the 20th Century, that what we consider objective and material, i.e. the molecular world, is based elements that are progressively uncertain and unpredictable. Molecules are made up of less predictable atoms which can absorb and give off electrons unpredictable. These are composed of even more unpredictable fundamental forces (electrons and protons), and ultimately on almost completely unpredictable photons of light at the quantum level, which appear as particles sometimes and waves at other depending on how the experiment is set up. In nature the evolutionary process means less predictable elements come together and create material structures that then become the means for evolving more expressions of capability. It is a journey from freedom to constraint and back to freedom.

In evolutionary process light becomes forces, become atoms, become molecules, with some molecular structures then developing remarkable abilities. DNA allows the plant world to grow, branch, bloom, and seed, absorbing elements from its environment and converting them with photosynthesis and other processes. This abundance can even renew itself following cycles of the sun and moon.

But plants never reach the scale of mountains and oceans. The tallest tree is a Coastal Redwood in California at 379 feet tall. Aspen groves can span 100 acres, but that is still nowhere near the size of the mountain ranges upon which they live. If plants can growth, why not expand and expand? Nature demonstrates that when plants overgrow, they become vulnerable to weather and bugs and cannot continue growing. We call uncontrolled organic growth cancers.

The arc of evolution doesn’t stop with plants. Some molecular structures, primarily protein molecules, have extensions like arms and legs that can form large aggregations allowing animals to run and fly. These extensions are also evident in more advanced communication capability, that allow pods of whales to communicate over 100 and even thousands of miles, and butterflies to migrate thousands of miles to specific ne casting sites. But it is not their material being that expands to this size, but the songs and vibrations. The largest blue whale is only 108 feet long physically, smaller by a good degree than the redwoods. The tallest giraffe is only 18 feet and the tallest elephant 13 feet tall.

And finally come humans with the miraculous development of highly evolved nervous systems capable of symbolic representation, imaging the future, documenting the past. But physically, objectively, the body size of humans is almost the same worldwide. The shortest is a Nepalese man who was 21 inches tall (and lived to age 72). The largest man in recent history was 8’11” tall. But most people are in a range between 5.5 and 6 feet tall.

Arthur M. Young, the evolutionary theorist who integrated scientific findings in his arc of evolution (explained in his book the Reflexive Universe) believed that this consistency in human form compared to less evolved beings was the result of the structural requirement of having both growth and mobility and a bi-lateral symmetry in the nervous system that supported reflexive thinking. However, explaining why humans are basically similar in size is not required to appreciate that human functionality is supported by a physical structure that requires a lot less material matter than animals, plants, and the ground itself.

To illustrate the longer arc of evolution Young turned the Cartesian system upside down and suggested that the “0” point represented no freedom, not no material. The bottom line, in fact, represents all material manifestation with the upper lines representing levels of increasingly less objectivity and more freedom. His summary graphic looks like this.topnewbandswithtorus

If you agree that evolutionary progress can be defined as having more functionality than less evolved phenomenon, the lesson of nature is that the more evolved phenomenon exhibit and may even require a substantial reduction in material physicality. This gives new meaning to the saying that “less is more.” (Paradoxically the high-tech industry, champions of maximization, agree when they take pride in chips getting smaller and doing more with less.)

True evolutionary development is supported by optimization of resources, not maximization. Maximization in fact will probably get in the way of higher functionality.

In a time of big lies and falsehoods providing currency in the attention economy, our biggest lie—that materialism leads to evolutionary progress—may be our real undoing. Its truth of its opposite could be a source of hope.

Aug 14, 2024

Aug 14, 2024h in Cognition & Communications, Collaboration Strategies, Graphic Facilitation, Innovation, Leadership, Leading Change, Mental Models, Organization Development, Process Theory, Social Change, Strategic Planning, Transformational Leadership, Visualizing by

David Sibbet agreed to respond to the questions that were asked in the chat during the Strategic Visioning: Origins and Theory zoom call held August 8, 2024. Here is what he thought would be worth sharing.

sv-originstalktitleResponses to the Strategic Visioning Origins Chat Questions

David Sibbet agreed to respond to the questions that were asked in the chat during the Strategic Visioning: Origins and Theory call held August 8, 2024. Here is what he thought would be worth sharing.

 (Washington, DC): This is a big question, but I’m going to ask anyway: I work with lawyers, doctors, law enforcement, engineers, and similar groups— I’m curious how these sorts of frameworks/diagrams land with them, and how you manage any visceral reactions you might receive in response?

I answered this question in part during the session, advising that people hold the SV model lightly, and appreciate its value as a framework—more like a window of distinctions—and use it for common language as people customize their own pathway through the process. I also stress that the different Graphic Guides® function like rooms in a house of conversations and are intentionally making room for all points of view.

But the various professions you mentioned do have biases in terms of how they work with information. Lawyers are trained in text and argument. Discussion and debate are certainly possible within an SV approach, but the visuals might not be so appealing. Doctors are steeped in evidence-based medicine, but many do accept intuitive knowing as part of the work. You could relate to them by stressing the four flows and consciously respecting all levels of understanding. Law enforcement has a bias toward rules and laws, as do engineers. However, the latter are accustomed to visual presentation of ideas and the orderliness of the SV process generally appeals to them. I’ve never had a problem working in high-tech with engineers. They love the visual approach. Karen’s response is relevant here:

(Germany): I think with any group, there will be resistance, questions, skepticism to any models/diagrams. Encouraging curiosity, asking questions, openness, acknowledgment has been helpful for me in using the model🙂

 (Templeton, CA, USA): I am fascinated to learn that there is meaning behind the vertical access of the figure-8 diagram in addition to the horizontal time access

Models and frameworks that stress horizontal linearity easily fall into the trap of working only one or two of the four flows. Having both past and future dimensions and also distinguishing all four levels of constraint is like the different between 2D and 3D imagery.

 (Ashburn, VA, USA):   💯 “dialogue over docs (lots of hearts and thumbs up).

 (Washington, DC): How does this model differ from Weisbord’s approach that addresses the past, present and future in his “future search” approach.

I acknowledged Marv’s application of visualization as supported by his awareness of The Grove’s work. The frame is a bit different in emphasizing finding common ground in both analysis of current realities and future scenarios. But Future Search does come back to action planning after the visioning, like the SV process. Future Search also sees the talk about context as being in the present. While in common it seems that looking at external trends and “like abouts” and “sorrys” are present, anything a person can identify and describe in language is actually already “past.” This kind of distinction is not necessary to have a good sharing about the context and SPOT.

 (Colorado Springs, USA): Are there any lessons learned from the emergence of the internet that might apply to the emergence of AI?

I thought about this after the session and several things came up.

  1. Having a new territory of possibilities opening as it did with the Internet and now with AI results in a “land rush” of new entrants, a lot of over-promising, and speculators wanting to make as much of it as possible during the beginning surges. It is interesting to ask yourself, who is selling shovels and trousers to the new settlers?
  2. Both are hugely disrupting the communication practices in organizations. There are many who say that organizations are shaped by decisions about how to communicate. During this disruption many who were competent in the old ways will be devalued.
  3. Both provide opportunities for process consultants who can help people navigate the new territory.
  4. Both involve a period in which new patterns and standards are forming and unclear.

I think there is one rather large difference. The Internet initially spotlighted the potential of groups of people networking and sharing in more effective ways. Phenomena like The Well inspired a lot of hope. Large companies used computer conferencing to sharing solutions in new ways. Remote work was supported. Eventually the internet became a backbone for the Internet of Objects, but that wasn’t part of the dominant narrative.

AI’s dominant image, on the other hand, centers on the awesome capabilities of machine learning, LLMs, and the like. There isn’t an overt emphasis yet on its role in human networking, except questions about how the algorithmic biases might make it even harder for marginal ways of thinking and expressing things to be shared. There are of course people imagining networks of AI-augmented assistants working at advanced levels of capability, but by and large the conversation is not about an evolution in social capability. 

 (Charlottesville VA): I am interested in the relationship between these models and the Team Performance Model. As a Coach for 20 years and exec before that, getting leaders and people to DO this is key 😉

Frameworks do emphasize different things. The Team Performance Model emphasizes the “turn” to a committed direction, because the difference between teaming and working in groups is the level of interdependence and coming together at stage four. The emphasis in SV is on cycles of conversation, because the way north star and other kinds of visions work is through inspiration and engagement. Both, however, assume the need for the four flows of human process to work together, and alignment in both systems is assumed to be stronger when they do. It is possible to move through the Team Performance Model with the same cycling pattern as SV. In process theory, the first four stages are a trial-and-error process, until the pattern of combination is determined. Teams sometimes start with a problem, work back to clarifying about it, then examine the trust and purpose levels to understand where the difficultly lies. Jen’s response is relevant here:

 (Richmond, VA USA): Last month I did a combo TPM/Strategic Visioning workshop (4 days) and it was AMAZING!  Have never had the chance to do both together.  Having the TPM to harness the work to (and I use “the work” broadly b/c it wasn’t just the work product but the dialogue/their behaviors/etc.) was so compelling as “model as map”… using the TPM to map against the strategic visioning.  And I compiled their wall maps in a Playbook, because they were so anchored to those visuals (esp. the History Map and the Bold Steps map). And I’m happy to share my design if anyone is interested. Hit me up here or on LinkedIn.  I’m sure it could be improved!          

I have done Strategic Visioning with groups to great success. I’m curious about how to best tee up the process 12-18 months later, referencing activities from the past workshop but honoring what has changed (people and projects) in the time since?

Reviewing the original big charts is very effective. A good second best is 11”x17” printed versions, which on reading are almost the same size to the eye as the chart in the meeting room. A third is to drop chart photos into a slide deck with additional narrative. Celebrate the evolution of thinking at the same time.

 (Germany): I am interested in learning more about the Team performance model. I introduced recently in group brainstorm of where the team is, but leaders were wondering how they can apply more on day-to-day basis with their teams. The Graphic History guide was great in helping to align everyone on history of team and release emotions and energy🙂

The most comprehensive written treatment of working with Graphic Histories is in our Team Leader Guide 2.0, available at www.grovetools-inc.com. My book, Visual Teams: Graphic Tools for Commitment, Innovation and High Performance, is also loaded with information. You can also go to The Grove’s website and see the video from the last TP Origins Call.

 (UK): We know all groups are different – what are the key factors that support a group with setting up for success?

  1. Trusted leaders supporting the process.
  2. Clarity about the purpose of the process—understanding which crossroad issues need to be addressed with alignment.
  3. Clarity about who will be involved and why. If success is understood to mean the whole system knows where it is heading, then having a robust stakeholder process will be necessary.
  4. Clarity about how the information generated will be shared and stored. Transparency really helps.
  5. Understanding about who the process decision makers are. Having a process design team that reflects key constituents turns out to be very helpful in being successful and sharing the process design in a visually accessible roadmap.
  6. Consistency of pacing to sustain momentum.

 (Charlotte, NC USA): What do you notice about changes in narratives and dialogues for both people and the organization as the strategic visioning process unfolds?  What are the key principles and approaches do you employ to help people evolve during the process?

I shared about a recent client that was facing a deeply polarized set of units within the organization. Our approach was to encourage people to respect that it takes time, to encourage a history-telling process that was non-judgmental and inclusive of all points of view, and trust that the system would begin to flow and soften as people listened to each other. The narrative will evolve by itself as more and more voices are considered. We also notice that engaging people around their metaphors of organization in the context of vision mapping is a very good way to get people to loosen up from an old narrative that is too narrow and that focuses on ways of working that don’t really match the situation.

 (Templeton, CA, USA): Have you had the opportunity to work in an augmented reality or virtual reality space? 🙂

I spent a good part of 2006–7 building out a replica of The Grove in Second Life (search for The Grove). It still exists, and a group of us have been meeting in a second island called Third Life since them. I’m not doing formal planning in this environment but do use it for show and tell. The panorama of a meeting room that I shared in the presentation was a screen shot taken from The Grove HG in Second Life. Another perspective is below—it is a 3D environment. Recently our associate Brian Tarallo introduced me to Meta’s AR system. He is quite convinced collaborative design is possible with these systems.

gardenroomchartssl

Erik’s response in chat is relevant: He said:  Among other things, I was the customer of The Grove’s during Covid, and we did an entire strategic visioning process to create a new college within a university.  Everything was done on Zoom.

In a way the highly developed graphic environments in Mural and Miro represent a kind of “virtual reality” although the term isn’t usually used to describe these virtual canvasses.

  (VA):   Are you saying that in this process and approach the “Visioning” is equivalent to, or results in, a strategy as is being differentiated from strategic planning ala Martin and Rumelt?

I’m not deeply familiar with these two, but a cursory review of Rumelt’s approach suggests it is very similar to Rob Eskridge’s Growth Management Process. A lay definition of strategy is that it is a story about how to realize your vision and goals. To this extent cause analysis and problem solving become very helpful in moving forward. Grove clients often translate their strategic visioning work into formal strategies with goals and plans.

(she, her): Related. What does a high-quality north star look like?

I don’t think there is one answer to this question. To be a North Star (which is a metaphor, of course), it needs to be seen and understood clearly enough by the people articulating it and be constant enough that it provides directional guidance. For some organizations it is a statement that has gained complete alignment. For others it is an image with key agreed-upon vision themes. The main thing is to work until everyone involved says “That’s it!” The Grove’s north start statement is “Realizing Visionary Futures.” We both help people connect to their visions and follow through helping them realize them on the ground. Our bias is toward those clients who are working to create a thriving, sustainable future.

 (Hamburg, Germany): Organizations and consultancies tend to make many “mistakes” compared to this model, and then I in my work end up with requests for Vision Maps, where I sense that many things are not done or clear. But at that point they had already spent 50 to 250k on their process. How can we turn it around with the use of SV?

It is tempting to have illustrators create pictures of visions that don’t really have system-wide alignment and understanding behind them. One would hope that leadership would be receptive to a conversation about what it will really take to implement the vision, and about the value of engaging stakeholders in the kinds of conversations SV supports.

 (Baltimore Maryland):So, to clarify, (regarding your story about a graphic history) that the groups post in groups of cohorts based on when they joined the organization?

People post on the history individually. The “cohorts” I mentioned was simply a term I was using for a group of people that joined at the same time.” They don’t report as a group. I ask individuals from the group to describe what it was like at that time, and maybe invite a second person to add, then jump to a group that came later.

 (Baltimore Maryland): (Re the SPOT Matrix) I have always had challenges getting the participants from problems to opportunities—need suggestions to motivate the thinking.

I do what I did in the presentation which is ask people to do a thought experiment and think of a problem or weakness in their organization. I then ask if they can do this without having an idea that things could be different or better. I then wonder aloud if those ideas about how things could be better might be opportunities? I also explain that a good opportunity is a real choice you could make that builds on a strength or solves a problem. Someone always comes up with one.

 (Charlottesville VA): Curious if you have leveraged Appreciative Enquiry and their SOAR approach – it is more positive/future focused which seems like it would fit nicely… … but threats and problems are replaced with Aspiration and Results…

The SOAR model seems to be reflect SPOT analysis with its focus on Visioning and Goal setting (i.e. “Results”). I am persuaded that positive reinforcement of what’s working is the direct route to effective change. I’ve also been influence by the “Positive Deviance” approach of Jerry Sternum, who found that in any system there is always a subsystem that does things differently. If you can find those elements that support your vision and reinforce them, the system will begin to change. There is less resistance because the “deviance” is already in the system. I also think that my spin on Problems being “Disguised Opportunities” is an appreciate-inquiry stance. So in this sense I “soar”

 (Ashburn, VA, USA): “Systems change based on creative tension and creative tension is the difference between the top-line and bottom-line situation.” Who said this again?? Missed it.

The source of this idea is Robert Fritz, who was included in Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline.

 (Templeton, CA, USA): I imagine an opportunity for the leader to share his/her positionality prior to playing the role of choosing what makes it to the board. By positionality I mean, who they are, what prominent stories are, and therefore what biases, may or may not inform their choices. This provides more transparency, and I would imagine would encourage a democratic relationship in this context. I wonder if others have experience with doing this as part of the SVP?

By the time a group is doing the Five Bold Steps and converging on a shared vision and bold steps, everyone has heard the leader (or leaders) express their points of view in many ways. Part of the skill of facilitating is making sure this happens—during the Context Mapping, SPOT Matrix and Cover Story work. As you will find if you download the SV Process Overview (on The Grove website under Resources), there are several additional activities that can be included to make sure everyone’s thinking is out on the table. When I suggested the leaders were critical to convergence and what gets added to the Five Bold Steps template, I didn’t mean to suggest that the leader “decides.” However, voicing their positions can be influential. Most of the time the process is consensual, and I would keep a close eye on how much true resonance with everyone any suggestion has. If I don’t see that resonance, then I will invite more suggestions and work.

 (Charlotte, NC, USA) Some may say this is a matter of semantics, yet I do see it trips people up. How do you differentiate the concepts of Vision and Mission?  and add to that Purpose?

Organizations will use these words differently, so there is no standard that is assuredly workable except to find out what the local meanings are. As a rule of thumb, I think of “Purpose” and
“Mission” as the organization’s reason for being. Some would say the “Mission” is the North Star. Other would say the “Vision” is the North Star and the mission is the nearer term “objective.” Yes, it is semantics. It is very important that whoever will be communicating the vision has clear understanding of how these terms are defined.

Erik adds: One way to look at this is to look at the vision as an aspirational statement as to how to fulfill the mission. Missions are concrete, and not aspirational.

Deb also had a post about this: Some clients like the simplicity of vision being WHERE we are headed, mission being WHAT we do to get there and values being HOW, or the behaviors we use to do the mission to head toward the vision.

: It seems that this process supports the positive aspects of evolving in a VUCA world—i.e. Vision Understanding Certainty and Adaptability.

Very nice, although as much as people hope for certainty, I’m not sure that element is attainable. One of the reasons for creating a process roadmap for an SV process is to provide certainty about when different meetings will be held and on what platforms. Getting certainty where you can helps for sure.

 (Portland, OR): Do you find you need to go into the theory with the visionary leader in the planning process to get them on board? I imagine some are more interested in the theory than others, but that it is important in getting their deep understanding and support of the process.

We usually explain the Four Flows perspective as common language for designing any process. If they are interested in the underlying theory, we might get into it, but it rarely goes to that level. Consultants learning the process, on the other hand, are often interested.

 (Louisville, KY): How permanent is the North Star Vision for an organization?  As you repeat an SV process with a client (say, 5 years later) does the North Star Vision and Vision themes stay the same? Or do you “start all over”?

Clients often have a central theme that persists and may be incorporated in a motto or central headline in a vision. But the shared vision themes that often surround such a central focus do change along with the changing environment and its attendant challenges. Five years is a long time.

Jan 04, 2021

Jan 04, 2021h in Cognition & Communications, Collaboration Strategies, Global Learning, Inspiration, Leadership, Leading Change, Mental Models, Personal Transformation, Process Theory, Social Change, Sustainability, Systems Theory, Transformational Leadership by

 

ri-mists

Photo by Alan Briskin

“Earth’s creatures are on the brink of a sixth mass extinction, comparable to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. That’s the conclusion of a new study (by paleobiologist Anthony Barnosky of the University of California, Berkeley), which calculates that three-quarters of today’s animal species could vanish within 300 years.” From Science Magazine: Ann Gibbons, 2011.

At the beginning of this year the sixth extinction came to me in a dream. I was at a gathering of about 15-20 colleagues in a conference center that included many other people. We were getting to know each other with introductions. After some swirling around eating and getting set up so we could talk it was my turn. I stood up and found myself saying “I am a professional facilitator and am currently focused on the sixth extinction. I want to help bring forward the new ways of thinking and behaving that will be required to survive it.” I remember feeling surprised in my dream at what I was saying, but continued. “You will get to know me as someone who both draws and listens, guiding people to visually design processes that allow them to change, adapt and think more ecologically.”

At this point a young man rose up and said, “I was at an institute recently where someone was doing that, and the charts zig-zagged all over the wall. It felt like a breakdown.”

“That is often what happens when people look closely at their own thinking and information,” I said. I should be flummoxed I thought, but I felt calm and grounded. “It is this breakdown that allows them to break through.”

The group applauded! I was surprised and my heart was racing. I sat and turned to a young man sitting beside me and said, “this is the first time I’ve ever introduced myself this way!” I remember I was feeling both startled and strangely alive and excited. And then I woke up. I knew I needed to pay attention to this dream.

It was 7:05 Sunday, the last day of a long holiday break that my partner and I described as our “digital vacation”—no Zoom, email or social media. Because of the pandemic, and a steadily worsening number of cases along with the news that a more viral version was already spreading in California, we cancelled a trip to a local hot spring where we hoped to have some renewal time, and instead stayed home. The renewal idea carried over and we treated our home as a retreat center.

There I had time to link this dream to some earlier faint signals.

Tracking Back Through Journals

At a GLEN Community Winter Solstice Gathering call before our holiday week started, Karen Wilhelm Buckley, a colleague, read a poem I’d written at a Summer Solstice gathering of colleagues in 2004. I had no memory of it. So, I went back to journal number #134 and there it was. (Journaling is one of my reflective practices). The poem was about the group and our process, but the journal had some other very important entries that were connected to my dream.

I realized that 2004 was the year I turned 60. This was a real milestone at the time, and I had planned several “rites of passages” for myself to mark the change. It began with a week with my first wife Susan (now deceased) to visit the half dozen vision quest sites I’d experienced on the East side of the Sierras (where I grew up).

Later in the summer I had then planned for and gone on a new vision quest on Mt. Shasta with my teacher, Chayim Barton, and a small group. I was rocked to see here I had written about one of the most significant visions of my life up to that point. I think now that it was the headwater of my dream.

Facing the Beast: Prior to the Shasta quest, I’d been being “worked” by an upset feeling about the dominance of “extractive” industries that pay no attention to biology, local communities, or the hidden costs of their work. “Why don’t you work on it here,” Chayim suggested as he counseled me before heading out on a three-day solo water fast. He invited me, in my solo time, to build a monument to this “beast” as I called it, reflect on it, and practice Tong-Lin (a Tibetan practice where you take in pain and breath out compassion), and then take the “beast” apart as a conclusion. I took this suggestion and on the second day of fasting created a monument. Here is my journal drawing with the associations labeled.thebeast2004I don’t need to describe my full process here but can easily remember how powerful it felt. Building it took many hours. So did disassembling it. It was easily 8 feet long. What deeply disturbed me was my grasping experientially the extent of the systemically embedded exploitation mindset. But more disturbing was trying to imagine what could stand up to it—represented by the little wand with a feather. After hours of circling and meditating and just sitting and writing about this experience, I ended up writing some of my core values on the wand—things like the golden rule, my Bodhicitta vow to serve the awakening of all sentient beings, and staying tuned to the light, and the source of vitality I find in embracing and respecting all life. But I hardly felt resolved about this.

Stepping up to RE-AMP

Later that year in December, I was asked to facilitate a new environmental organization called RE-AMP in the upper Midwest. The name stands for the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project, initially a group of 25 environmental non-profits and 12 foundations, who, discouraged by results to date, wanted to work collaboratively to support the growth of renewable energy. They concluded that they had to work on four fronts in a systemic way.

  1. Reduce the impact of coal pollution from the 70 plants in the eight-state region
  2. Stop the construction of new coal plants (34 were in the pipeline)
  3. Increase energy conservation
  4. Increase renewable production.

The consultant who had helped create a causal-loop system diagram of why renewables were not taking off had concluded that these factors were all inter-related and needed to be dealt with in parallel. They needed a facilitator to help create the strategies of the four working groups.

At the meeting where the consultant, Scott Spann, handed off the project to me, he presented his system analysis in a series of complex slides, moving from a 175 factor causal loop diagram he had vetted with many experts, to a 16 factor overview diagram (Shown here) to his conclusion there were four leverage points.

re-ampsystemsmap

At the end of his presentation, he turned to the RE-AMP steering committee and, and speaking very deliberately, said – “Just remember, this is a MINDLESS BEAST.”

I can still feel the goosebumps. Oh my. Here I was standing in front of it again. The small stream of intention started on my vision quest was suddenly here, embodied, and real!

I and my company, The Grove Consultants International, spent four years working with RE-AMP with the agreed-on goal of cleaning up global warming pollutants in the eight-state region by 80% by 2050. The goal was not considered practical. But everyone involved believed anything less wouldn’t matter.

  • RE-AMP did stop the coal plants.
  • It didn’t get far on cleaning up old coal.
  • It did stimulate energy conservation in the region.
  • It encountered roadblocks regarding developing wind energy.

And it expanded to more than 150 participating organizations and over two dozen foundations “thinking systemically and acting collaboratively.” It is one of the most successful environmental collaboratives in the country and still it is not enough. The full story is for another time. Reflecting back, I realized it was my strongest experience so far of being moved by a vision without knowing the outcome. Would my sixth extinction dream might have this same arc of enactment. It feels HUGE! But then so does is this new “beast.”

A Calling?

I wondered why had my reflective “vacation” over the holidays had started with this retrospective. By accident? It was not “planned.” What guided that impulse? What was my psyche through my dream trying to tell me about what I should be doing with my work?

I remembered as I reflected that for several years now when asked about my core motivation—my life purpose— I’ve found myself saying that it is to “help midwife the coming ecological paradigm.” I perceive that we are in a shift that historians will eventually compare to the Copernican revolution—moving from engineering oriented/materialistic thinking to a more biologic, open systems approach, which will include but transcend the old paradigm, as new ones do. I also suspect that the shift will take years or centuries, as all such shifts have taken historically, and while already emerging in many places is hardly dominant.  “We will live into this new way of thinking and relating, or we won’t,” I can remember saying in various workshops. To evoke a birthing metaphor, I feel that these last few years, with global warming directly impacting my home state of California in the form of volatile weather and fierce firestorms, that the baby of this new paradigm is crowning. It needs help.

And then I remembered that two weeks later I was clobbered by an interview article in the Sun Magazine with Eileen Crist about her new book, The Abundant Earth: Toward an Ecological Civilization. She is an associate professor at Virginia Tech in the Department of Science, Technology and Society and has written extensively about biodiversity and the mass extinctions taking place. I have been reading about this for years. But Crist’s reflections on how much more serious the extinction process is than the pandemic got through this time. “It takes 5-10 million years to recover the same levels of biodiversity” she wrote.

I know that reading information doesn’t really change me. But having a full, integrated systemic embodiment of the understanding at a feeling does (like the vision quest experience) and I was having that feeling reading this interview. I suspect it is because the pandemic is no longer an abstraction. I feel the losses deeply. Perhaps it ignited the same feeling about the extinction. I ordered Crist’s book, and for several days was talking about how big an impact this article had. I didn’t think at the time think that it was a breadcrumb of what I’m to do in 2021 going forward.

I now ask myself, “What kind of scaffolding in writing and image could possibly help us all face this ‘problem’ of the sixth extinction?” I put “problem” in quotes to signify that the real problem isn’t the biological problem of a die-off of 50% of the world’s species in this century, as hard as that will be to cope with. The “problem” is that the vast majority of people on this planet, at least in the Western world, don’t have the perceptual or thinking tools, or motivation to even imagine a different way of living that is actually ecologically sustainable. This lack could accelerate the extinction as a result, and for sure ensure that anger and mistrust will accompany the change. Crist argues that what we don’t have this time is time. It’s happening now.

I’m not sure yet what I can do personally. Will I be part of the acceleration?

Taking a Stand

I notice as I write that I keep thinking about Gretta Thunberg, the young Swedish girl who has ignited a youth revolution in response to the climate crisis. Did she know what she was doing? I don’t think so. She simply had the courage to speak her feelings and do so in a public forum, and open to a movement, a collaboration that would far transcend her.

If she can, why can’t I? Why can’t we? I don’t believe that knowing how to respond to the sixth extinction is required to stand up to it, and in it, with full awareness and readiness to ask fundamental questions and learn what we need to learn to change, any more than I knew what standing in front of the beast on Mt. Shasta would mean. I do know that context matters, and as complexity theorists have discovered, a small change in the context of a dynamic system can affect huge change.

So, I begin my new year sharing this dream. We are in a time of enormous turbulence. Will we be ones who stand up? Can we actually feel this happening with as much depth as we are feeling the losses from the pandemic?

I hope my sharing strikes a responsive chord. I intend to explore these ideas further through our Global Learning & Exchange Network. You are invited to join our inquiry there if you like. I and many committed colleagues will be there.

glen-logo-final-websafe