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.

Jun 14, 2024

Jun 14, 2024h in Cognition & Communications, Collaboration Strategies, Graphic Facilitation, Innovation, Mental Models, Organization Development, Systems Theory, Visualizing by

openingtitlescreentporigins

Recently I gave a presentation to about 220 people about the origins and theory behind The Grove Consultant International’s Team Performance System (TPS). I did it on my 80th birthday, May 29, as a first part of what we at The Grove are calling the “Sourcecode Project.” Its focus is to explore our foundational understandings about how groups and organizations work that can provide a stable basis for our collective future. While many are experiencing massive amounts of change (not to mention AI, climate change and rising authoritarianism), there are some things that don’t change as much, and might provide navigational guidance, much the way a gyrocompass does for a ship in the fog. The ideas underlying the TPS are those kinds of ideas. They have guided The Grove’s methodological and tools development since 1977 when the company began.

Here is a link to a full video of the presentation on The Grove’s You Tube Channel if you want to experience it first hand. I gave it using a new streaming studio I am creating that allows for good storytelling through a teleprompter camera, tablet work, writing on PowerPoint, and integrating actual work on a wall. Now I’m using text. During the Zoom talk I told the story of my ten years of development conversations with Allan Drexler, a true expert on teams. I also shared the story of how Arthur M. Young’s Theory of Process shaped my own understanding of process and provided a template for our eventual Team Performance Model. And twice during the talk I opened up to questions, using real paper and an easel as shown here to support the interaction. I noticed how being freed from the presentation technology of PowerPoint let my stories come alive. Here is a picture of the questions that Joran Oppelt and Erik Rolland, my two Grove colleagues, harvested from the chat. I noted them on large sticky notes. tp-questions

I’ll let the video answer some of these questions if you want to dig into this topic. Here I want to use writing to answer some of the questions that didn’t get a response. I start with some application questions.

To what extent is this model also valid for teams in Start-ups/ scale- ups?

If you appreciate this kind of model as a framework and each challenge as a kind of “lens” of perception, then you can look at anything and get insight. The model illustrates the most fundamental elements of teaming on the left and the levels of higher performance possible on the right, but does NOT imply that teams go through the challenges in precisely this order. It’s designed to show a default process, since many times beginning with fundamentals is a smart way to go. But some teams jump into Commitment or Implementation well before understanding that is foundational for these to be resolved. The arc of process can help a person look at any level of scale.

How does a team flow through the model when the teams that have “churn” in team membership, i.e. people going in and out of the team on a regular basis?

In my experience having a common language in an organization is even more important if there is a lot of churn. And having a visual model that can be explained easily also helps when new people join.

I believe Is there any thought around translating the model into other languages?

The full system is available in German through TMS Zentrum. The model has been translated into other languages as well, mostly in books like Meryem LeSage’ts Manager Intuitive in France.

How do you navigate different levels of sense making with leaders and teams (and how they use these tools), and meeting them where they are? 

The system is designed to provide a basis for exchange and inquiry about what people perceive looking through each of the seven challenges. Leaders with more developmental understanding will see a lot more. Different levels will also have different kinds of practices available for meeting the challenges. While the “resolved” and “unresolved” keys to each challenge are written generically, arguing with them is the best way to get people to talk about how they personally understand the challenges at whatever level they work. Keep in mind that “teaming” is shaped by culture, and culture by language, and the variations are significant. Having a starting point for engagement that takes a systemic perspective from the beginning is the purpose of the TP System and quite helpful.  

How might we make a case with groups for using graphic charting on paper on walls– it can be viewed as outdated and suspect?

I love this question, and another that wondered how I made the case for using graphics with Allan. Since humans have trouble keeping more than 4-5 things in mind without some kind of visual support, most people see the value right away, if you simply use charting without making a fuss about it. But a way to frame this in a more contemporary way is to say something like “let’s talk informally at this point to support our being more personal and creative. I’ll just take notes here on this chart. We can type it all up later.” This is more difficult in applications like Miro and Mural, which bias toward typing, but the drawing functions do work pretty well if you learn how to use them. In any event you need to be convinced of the value of slowing down and thinking more deeply, which is what handwriting allows.

 

What definition of trust do you use? How much is that definition provided or is it created by the clients?  May have missed that earlier.

Allan and my definition of trust is embedded in the “keys”—Mutual respect, forthrightness, and competence. Jack Gibb feels that trust arises from people being authentic with each other, beyond roles and requirements. However, I would bias toward getting the team involved in answering the question themselves. We often teach about this by having small groups share about their best team experience, and then generalize about what cuts across the stories. Trust is always present and there would be good examples of what it means.

Can you please clarify again the AEIO descriptions?

AEIO are names for the four levels behind the model. In some ways these are four levels of “reality” or four worlds of perception. ATTENTION is imaginary, in that it is only “real”  inside our light sensitive nervous systems. ENERGY can be felt directly, but not always consciously. Its reality is its intensity, force, and direction. But these are not objective realities. They are sensed. INFORMATION is symbolic—words, images, or numbers, and the patterns of connection within display formats, grammars, and data frameworks. This reality is shaped by the rules of language, but always subject to interpretation and connotation arising from personal experience. OPERATIONS refers to the reality of the physical world and the infrastructures we count on. It includes our use of time as governed by timekeeping devices. It is objective and subject to cause and effect. Arthur M. Young liked to distinguish these mathematically  by the levels of constraint that is present in a physical sense. Level IV, the “O” is 3D constrained. Level III, the “” is 2D. Level II, “E” is 1D constrained,  and level I, the “A” has O constraint.

I have a comment and a request. I’ve used David’s model for 40 plus years and have found that conflict increases as you approach the turn. This has been valuable in working with groups and I’d appreciate his speaking to it.

Constraint increases with materialization of any project, and constraint can lead to conflict. One colleague, Sam Kaner, calls the turn the “groan zone” for this reason. But some people get more energized as things begin to materialize and feel conflicted earlier if things aren’t heading toward some kind of realization. The Tuckman model of teaming—Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing— suggests that a kind of conflict comes earlier. So much of this is dependent on context that I wouldn’t say it’s built into the model. Allan and I argued about this and chose the word “Trust” as the key second step. Constraint increases but not necessarily conflict. A lot depends on the maturity of the people involved.

What’s in the spaces between the balls? Are they liminal spaces?

I hadn’t thought of that but it feels right. Although this question suggests that the balls are actual spaces that have some constancy and coherence as entities. In a team experience that plans meetings and activities that correspond to the different challenges, the in-between times would be liminal periods, since it is a real shift to go from recruiting a team to figuring out plans to going for a budget. And there can be liminal times when implementation falters and the team is thrown back into reconsidering the basics on the left side. Seen as lenses instead of “spaces” the liminal idea isn’t so key.

How do you see artificial intelligence impacting this type of work?

This question invites me to understand what the questioner means by “this type of work.” If this means being conscious of group processes then AI is going to jump all of us into being more conscious (hopefully). At the same time I don’t underestimate human being’s attraction to certainty, especially the certainty of logical, validated, answers provided by real authorities. The impact of AI will have a lot to do with how much authority these tools gain. Will we trust Waymo in the future more than human drivers? Will we trust AI financial analysis more than our CFO’s and accountants? AI could be very helpful as a kind of librarian regarding best practices, and could even be programmed to become culturally sensitive about variations. But will it be a partner in our teaming or be  a bully whip for people who are trying to get others to produce more? I don’t think the need to cooperate and understand our workmates will decrease.

I love this model because it supports the dynamic nature of agility and change that is constant.  How do we overlay the change management model?  And, how can we make both  more visible in the model?

Overlaying mental models is like a musician blending two types of music. Each has its biases and flavors. If you know both, then overlaying can be very stimulating and creative, especially if you remain clear that these are not really “models” in the sense of describing how things actually play out, but are “frameworks” for understanding, and asking questions, and observing. I think the TPS would yield a rich amount of insight brought to bear on a change management challenge. Likewise change management tools can help inform how to sustain team performance after the change. 

David, are you in contact and exchange of ideas  with Otto Scharmer about the (in my eyes obvious) connections between the TEAM PERFORMANCE MODEL and the Theory U?

I am not in touch directly with Otto Sharmer although I have recorded sessions with him  about Theory U back at MIT in the 1990s when it was developing. There are some key differences. Suggesting that the “turn” is a smooth slide through, as the Theory U graphic implies, doesn’t yield as much insight for me as seeing a real “bounce,” a true turn in direction. But this is a matter of graphic preferences. Another difference is putting thinking above heart in the model. I appreciate that people come into many situations needing to “download what they know,” which is often informational, and don’t open to the heart until later. But I think the heart comes in earlier even if unconscious. Having Will at the bottom is interesting, since one of the graphic confusion in the TPS is flattening the torus pattern, and not seeing that having our consciousness (or will) come in at the point of greatest constraint at stage 4 is how the turn happens. I like the fact that the TPS is resonant with the arc of evolutionary process as described by science.

I learned from you, David, that the TPM is much more than a model: It’s based on a philosophy of the universe and a key to unlock universal power within a team/organization! What do you think, David: Why is the “toroidal pattern“ and the theory of process hardly received and taught? Is the time not yet ripe? Too “esoteric“ in a scientific and materialistic world???

As I said in the presentation I think the answer is in the question. It is hard to underestimate how much we are attached to materialism and materialistic explanations. However this all seems to be coming into question in our era of professional political mud wrestling and linguistic and social media free form bearing little relationship to objective fact. Our breathing follows a circulating, toroidal pattern. So does the Earth’s gravity field. Compression and expansion drives our machines. Maybe this idea is too basic.

Few models subsume materialism and consciousness as the elemental concepts. Please comment.

At the heart of this challenge is the evolution of ways of talking and representing all the four levels of “reality” that function like separate languages. Most of the words that point at these things have layers and layers of associated meaning. This problem is one of the things I like about Young’s representations using visual, geometric angles and patterns to hold the distinctions. They aren’t so overloaded with interpretation.

With the current pressures in business (and possibly the expectations around AI) it seems that leaders are moving away from this people-centric view to more of a production mentality……are you experiencing this as well? If so, do you have thoughts around this “boomerang” effect?

It’s possible that there is a general trend although I have no personal data to validate it. My own bias is toward the value of taking people seriously and that is the kind of world I’m hoping to support in my work. I’d keep doing that in the darkest of times I believe.

I would be curious to hear how facilitators that use the survey (like me) share the results? Do they share all results/a part/at what stage in the process (for example prior to/during/after/partly during a team development session?

Generally the survey results are shared with the team leader ahead of time, if there is one and especially if there are questions about the leader. It isn’t helpful to have them surprised in a team improvement meeting. Then the results are shared in the session. Reading and discussing the survey after being oriented is part of how the learning soaks in.

Question:  what are the “precursor” questions a team or a leader needs to ask before using this process model?

The TP Model could be introduced any time a group news some common language about teaming. The four page brochure has enough information to get conversations started. I’ll sometimes use this for an initial, intuitive diagnosis by asking a team where the current focus of attention is on the model. A precursor to using the survey would be to make sure that there are not problematic issues that require real discipline or even changes in assignment. We encourage clients to handle these things before a team improvement meeting.

For more information please check out The Grove’s Team Performance services at this link.

Apr 07, 2024

Apr 07, 2024h in Cognition & Communications, Graphic Facilitation, Inspiration, Mental Models, Personal Development, Personal Transformation, Uncategorized by

 

Sometimes guidance just appears. No warning. It happened to me at the end of a three-day Leadership Transformation Workshop in Minnesota, in the last five minutes on a Friday to be precise. I got up to go to the table in back where I had my journal and almost fell over. My left leg felt like it had gone completely asleep. I was helped back, sat, and realized it wasn’t asleep. It just wasn’t connected any more. I had had a stroke!

Stroke2024Thirty minutes later after a drive to a nearby emergency room I was in a CAT scan and found that I had a half inch long hemorrhagic bleed (stroke) on the surface of my right, central cortex, near my left side motor controls. I could feel the skin on my leg. I could move it with my big muscles, but I was not in control of it. Needless to say, I was on my back at 30 degrees angle the next two days, awakened every hour for a complete check on my cognition, eye movements, hands, leg lifts—all through the night.

I’m happy to say that this was a “small” stroke. I was released Sunday at noon and flew back to San Francisco, with referrals from the neurologists there and complete records. A second CAT Scan and an MRI did not detect anything else. No cancer. No clots. No aneurisms. No progression. And they saw I could make it around with a walker already, which they provided from my trip home.

They didn’t measure my psyche, of course. That is outside the purview of most modern medicine. Although staff at Health East’s University Hospital ICU, where I was sent, by ambulance, after the initial scan in ER, was uniformly comforting and caring, they were not “measuring” the larger impact. The therapist was more focused on the exercises I should do repeatedly. They did keep asking me my name, date of birth, and if I remembered why I was in the hospital.

I’ve lived my life gifted with immense curiosity and this experience has me fascinated. If I were massively crippled, I’d probably feel differently, but I just came in from a slow walk around my neighborhood two weeks later and am feeling pretty good. But my mind is whirling. What does it mean to have a stroke?

  1. I now know that merely saying this word shakes people up. It covers so much and is so common, that everyone has some connection. It is a big deal. Our staff at The Grove and my kids think it is a big deal. So does Gisela, my partner and wife. No flying or driving until I get cleared by the neurologist I meet with tomorrow. Everyone at the University Hospital said that this isn’t a repeating kind of thing, especially with a person with normal blood pressure and no hypertension.
  2. I also know that my body knows how to heal. My brother, John, who has practiced reflexology, muscle testing, and applied kinesiology for as long as I’ve been facilitating, came over and completely checked me out. He was amazed at my progress, aided by a lot by moving around like a Tai Chi practitioner. I figured my right leg knows how to move. Teach the left. Rock back and forth. John agreed and encouraged my movements. I also kept imagining I was in Avatar hooking up to one of the flying dragons. My leg’s nerve endings reaching up. My brain coming down. Both eventually reconnecting.
  3. I have discovered that there are many many tinier muscles that bring stability to a leg, and it isn’t so clear how to reconnect them. Why does my left leg seem to snap back instead of just bending back? I feel like I’m on some kind of plateau in recovery. The leg feels weaker, although I didn’t hurt it in any way. Maybe the neurologist at Kaiser, who I see for the first tomorrow, will have some ideas.
  4. I know that situations like this have cascading effects, and this is no exception. In my case my ability to hear high frequencies has been declining and is now gone. My hearing aids compensate, but not enough to hear the soft, mumbled words of a person with a high-pitched voice. In an echoey room or sketchy zoom connection I miss key words. This isn’t acceptable if your job is to record what people say visually (and accurately). The room in Minnesota was a real struggle in that regard. I’ve been concerned for a while, but it took the stroke for me to say “enough.” Gisela agreed it was truly time for me to stop facilitating meetings and that she and The Grove team could take over the remaining work on our books. Fortunately, since she has become CEO of The Grove the team is growing again and are managing beautifully. Our clients have been wonderfully accepting.
  5. So, I not only had a real physical stroke, small though it may be, I have retired from a kind of work that I’ve done for 52 years, if you count my doing the first Group Graphics workshop at Coro in 1972. That is like having a professional stroke. And I am now experiencing truly liminal space. The “recovery pattern” is not clear. All kinds of things are possible. For the first time in years and years I don’t have to carry the responsibility for payroll. I don’t have to schedule my life around big meetings. But my psyche is busy trying to re-establish itself just like my leg. “You could start a You Tube channel.” “You could write a new book (it’s already mostly written).” “You could work on that novel you discovered you wrote in 2006 (and wasn’t bad).” You could conduct Vision Labs at your own home.” “What about executive coaching?”
  6. The biggest insight is that I need to take some time to experience myself in a completely new way. I’m suspecting that much of my adult life I’ve been guided by programming that is very deep and has a lot to do with how that little baby back in Two Rock initially encountered the world, and what I thought would work to keep my parents in touch with me, and what was okay and not okay regarding being myself. Ooops. You mean I learned to repress things to please my parents? But what things? And was getting attention for being an amazing artist and craftsperson what I really wanted, or a substitute for something else, like nurturing love? It’s helped that during this recovery time I’ve had time to continue reading Gabor Mates’ The Myth of the Normal. (If you want to understand the stress of our times it is a must read.)

I’m posting this piece in my blog because I think those of you who really care about awareness and facilitation and helping people get through life would appreciate knowing what a colleague like me is going through at a true turning point. I suspect I will look back on this event and this time as a gift, even if it just appeared out of the blue.