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.

Jan 29, 2025

Jan 29, 2025h in Cognition & Communications, Leadership, Mental Models, Social Change by

Roman games at the Circus Maximus reached their height under Emperor Trajan around 100 CE. Claude AI says there were 123 days of games involving 10,000 gladiators and 11, 000 animals. This period “coincided with Rome’s territorial height and increased wealth from conquests.

jan6riotersI dreamed about the Circus Maximus after an evening of watching the “news” recently. (I put news is brackets because, as a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism, I was taught that there was a difference between the news and opinion. Clearly that distinction has evaporated. Yes, we get the big chunks of “fact,” but it is always laced with looping reels showing the most extreme footage and pundits who have no problem sharing opinions.)

In my half sleep I kept think about the parallels with Rome.It feels to me like America is experiencing an echo of this earlier time. The purpose of the games in Rome was to promote the power and wealth of Rome, unite the people with shows of generosity, and satisfy human attraction to disruption and violence. Where Rome had the great Circus Maximus, there are challenges in our society which doesn’t have a physical Circus Maximus that can gather all the people. Media becomes that amphitheater. Media has some of the ingredients. It is good at communicating shock and disbelief. There are plenty of gladiators. But they aren’t physically concentrated. Our digital game area is an increasingly fragmented cacophony of warring political meme tribes, all having digital platforms and identified combatants ready for skewering, and completely different schedules.

But Jan 6 may have reignited the Circus Maximus meme. For a brief time, the Capitol and rotunda made do. The drama of gladiators against enforcers provided the chilling danger and even death that perpetuated the games. Media united in its round-the-clock coverage. Perhaps this parallel inflamed Trump’s imagination.

I know that Trump’s template in life is privilege embedded in a checkered past with his so-called peers in New York City. He eventually found fame in reality TV on the Apprentice and became adept at the jarring, attention-engaging performances he mounted around firing people. During this time, he was also involved with professional wrestling, hosting events at Trump venues. He was a friend of World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon. I also know that in 2000 Jeff Zucker was head of NBC Entertainment and became CEO in 2008 when the Apprentice was being produced. He felt the show was very good at increasing view ship and was a big supporter. He became CEO of CNN in 2013 and featured Trump 30% more than other channels during the election. CNN seemed quite critical of Trump at the time, but it struck me then that CNN and Trump were engaged, not in public discourse, but in professional political wrestling.

I also know from experience that professional success templates are very difficult to change, and it appears that Trump has no interest in deviating from his own success pattern. The problem is how to get the roar of the crowds that he expects from his rallies on a more national stage, where there isn’t one media Circus Maximus. It appears now that he is tearing a page out of Trajan’s playbook and simply increasing the number and intensity of “games.”

I can imagine his thinking about his new MAGA show. “Let’s relive Jan 6 by empowering the gladiators with pardons! Let’s go to Pacific Palisades and throw Governor Newsom against the ropes! (Forget Altadena, it’s not game material.) Then let’s round up immigrants at schools, hospitals, and churches and directly defy my predecessor’s cautions in that regard. That will enrage the audience. Let’s drill in the Arctic refuge! And hold on, I have episodes planned around Greenland, Panama, and Ukraine with Hegseth and Kennedy making dramatic guest appearances.”

You can infer from my earlier writing that the whole idea of gladiator games as a substitute for governance grinds my moral compass like the heel of a boot crushing an old man’s glasses. But it also leads me to reflect on the type of society that accepts all this by paying attention. Does the major media have any responsibility as they provide the bleachers for the circus? Are we complicit by giving our attention to this man who’s byproduct is generating new wealth for those that perpetuate the games? How numbed are we willing to be as more and more people’s lives are destroyed and maimed by the outrage?

I need to break this upsetting line of thinking. Maybe I’ll take a walk with Jesus (See earlier blog piece), skip the circus, and pray for the hapless victims in this national distraction. It saddens me to think that the Circus Maximus metaphor may be real.

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.

Nov 22, 2023

Nov 22, 2023h in Cognition & Communications, Collaboration Strategies, Contribution to the Field, Graphic Facilitation, Inspiration, Leadership, Mentorship, Personal Development, Personal Transformation, Strategic Planning by

 

giselasqureThis September Gisela Wendling became CEO of The Grove Consultants International, the comp20-dsatdellafattoriasmallany that I began in 1977 as Sibbet & Associates, and led through its incorporation as Graphic Guides, Inc. in 1988 and then the name change to The Grove in 1993. I want to share some reflections about our succession process, which is guiding me into the wonderful territory of life change.

Some Context

The Grove Consultants International, as many of you know, was early in the business of visual facilitation. We called the method Group Graphics® and found that strategy consultants who wanted to differentiate loved the process and propelled our work at Apple, General Mills, Federal Industries in Canada, General Electric, and Bongrain. Because no other consultants were working this way, we could use our methods as a calling card. People remembered us whenever we facilitated meetings.

We added a teaming practice in the 1980’s after Alan Drexler and I co-developed the Drexler-Sibbet Team Performance ModelTM and its related survey. This has grown into its own business, with many tools, workshops, and licensees.

In the 1990’s The Grove grew rapidly with large, multi-year engagements with National Semiconductor, Hewlett Packard, and Mars, Inc. We developed large-scale Storymapping, and in the mid-nineties, Ed Claassen as our COO collaborated with me and the team to develop the Grove’s Strategic Visioning (SV) process and Graphic Guides.® These are the large graphic wall templates which are now ubiquitous. Again, we were one of the first to popularize this way of working. We conducted SV processes all over Silicon Valley as the Internet gained speed. We moved to our Presidio offices in 1998.

Visualization, teaming, and strategy guided us during the rocky 2000’s. The .com crash, 9/11, and then the great recession in 2009 impacted our company and the scale of projects clients would consider. But all three of our service areas continued to deliver results. After 2009 we moved to re-emphasize our origins as the Visual Meetings Company.

But life intervened. In 2013 my wife Susan died of cancer, after 46 years of marriage. Laurie Durnell and Bobby Pardini took over co-leadership of the company as I dealt with this enormous change. I was supported by my close friend Rob Eskridge, my counsellor Chayim Barton, and a dear colleague Gisela Wendling. Gisela’s life-long interest in change and Rites of Passages allowed her to help me hold Susan’s passing as a potential transformation. And it was. To our surprise, we fell in love and were married in 2016.

In 2014 Gisela joined The Grove as VP for Global Learning and senior consultant and we co-developed our Designing and Leading Change program to bring forward her work and take the Grove’s work to a new level. We also began the non-profit Global Learning & Development Network, or GLEN. While we could not have anticipated the pandemic, our focus on change and working virtually allowed us to pivot quickly to on-line workshops and direct help for our struggling client leaders. We could also see their organizations coping with the increasing impacts of climate change, economic ambiguity, climate migration, wealth gaps, political polarization, and many other challenges. Change was in the air.

Succession

Having Gisela at The Grove transformed our work and renewed my interest in consulting. She led a master’s program in organization development at Sonoma State after receiving her doctoral in human and organization systems and development. We co-authored Visual Consulting: Designing & Leading Change with Wiley after a successful Visioning and Change Alignment process at UC Merced. The integration of dialogue, visual practice, change management and use of self, began to define a new approach.

This fall Gisela decided after a week-long silent retreat in Holland and a short vacation in Belgium, to step up to the role of CEO and lead The Grove into a new era. Her passion is to help leaders and their teams “Realize Visionary Futures.” Her becoming CEO is coincident with the publishing of her new book, The Liminal Pathways Study. We collaborated on the design and illustrations, but the creative vision was hers and I followed!

Living the Liminal Pathway

Gisela’s Liminal Pathways Change Framework (LPF) re-envisions the archetypal three-phased process of Rites of Passage as identified by the French anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep. Phase one is Separating. Phase two is the Liminal or “In-Between” phase. Phase three is Integration. Gisela’s framework highlights the inner and outer dynamics at play in each phase and the sequence of turning points that occur over the arc of a complete process. It is this process that is now unfolding for me.

I have let go of the formal position I held. I must also let go of large meeting graphic facilitation, involving our growing network of associates who are good at this. A year and a half ago, we let go of the Presidio offices, which we hadn’t used for three years during the pandemic to move into the warehouse where Grove Tools, Inc. run by Thom Sibbet as President, had a spacious upstairs office.

Entering Liminal Space

I am now deep in liminal space. I want my next moves to come from my deeper self. Already new rivers of interest are arising and flowing together but I am resisting being rushed. I asked for a vision this summer on my vision quest on Mt. Shasta and the takeaway was “constancy.” This is a different calling.

It is clear that I will be focused this next year in support as The Grove team responds to a new leader. Gisela is deeply appreciative of our historic ways of working and is visually very astute. The change work is proving to be an integrating approach. But the complexity of the post-Covid hybrid world is considerable and finding the best responses is challenging. Leaders of change need support as do their teams. I believe with Gisela’s leadership we can provide it.

At the same time, I’m fascinated with the way this liminal time is affecting me. I find myself feeling vulnerable, the way I did early in my career. I am also feeling full of all the capabilities that have developed over the 52 years of work all around the globe. In my field I would be considered an “expert” at process design and visual facilitation. But more and more I feel that my ability to connect broadly across many disciplines, organizations, and cultures may be more important than knowing how to use visualization. I’m asking myself, “What is the role of an elder?”

Working with The Light

Years ago, a workshop by Michael Meade provided a seed of insight that has been growing in my liminal space. Being an elder, he said, is the process of making a shrine to the spirit as the body falls away. And it is the blooming of my spirit that has my attention these days.

Another teacher, Dr. Niek Brouw, a Dutch somatic practitioner I and colleagues worked with in the late 1990s, defined spirit as our ability to handle light. It is reflected in our spine, the neurofibril optic trunk line that holds our bodies in coherence and connection. The idea of working with light itself has my attention. It is the work that our teacher Thomas Hübl invites.

This month Netflix brought out a short mini-series on Anthony Doerr’s amazing book, The Light We Cannot See, a story about Marie-Laure LeBlanc, a blind French girl at the end of the war who intersects with a young German soldier in the French town of Saint-Malo as American troops freed France from the Nazis. The light within is as vast as the light in the world, he writes, and this young woman, is connected this way. It guides her in incredible acts of bravery broadcasting coded coordinates through readings of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea that were instrumental in final days of the war.

I find myself moved by this story, and the need for using my inner light to guide me in this next phase, and for The Grove’s inner light to grow stronger as we move to support leaders who are daring to bring about visionary changes. I have a growing feeling that the confusion and incoherence of our times cannot be met just with logic and neatly arranged symbols on paper but needs the connection of people who share a vision of a world where people respect each other across differences and, and in Gisela’s words, are “empowered to be free and have choices.”

As I wait for my new direction to emerge, I stand by to respond to those who are responding to our broadcasts, who believe that authoritarianism and overcontrol is not a solution. I am recasting my understandings of graphic facilitation as a chance to embody differences and hold space for movement, evolution of the practice, and emergent insight. I’m wondering if returning to the origins of this work and teaching our new understandings might again transform the field.

My mentor Michael Doyle, co-founder of Interaction Associates and one of those bringing facilitation to organizational work in the 1970s, said as I began The Grove. “You can compete and defend, or you can share and lead.” I’ve followed his advice and carry it with me to this next phase. Stay tuned.