VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Growing Knowledge Together:
Using Emergent Learning and
EL Maps for Better Results
Marilyn DarlingCharles Parry

Conflict Alchemy:
A Practical Paradigm
for Conflict Solutions
David Pauker

Learning Together
for Good Decision Making
Arie de Geus

EMERGING KNOWLEDGE

Developing High Potential
Leaders with Strategy Cafés
Jim Myracle
Diane Oettinger

BOOK EXCERPT

Leadership Agility:
Five Levels of Masteryfor Anticipating andInitiating Change
Bill Joiner
Steve Josephs

RECOMMENDED READING
istockPHOTOS

Published by The Society for Organizational Learningreflections.solonline.org
ISSN 1524-1734

PUBLISHER’S NOTE 8.1

Collective intelligence has become a catch phrase forsocial processes – such as collaboration – and cooperation that allow us to realize
possibilities that would otherwise remain latent. In this issue, contributors to
Reflections offer cases studies, research, and new methods that help us name what
we know from experience, therefore improving our conscious practice in bringing
out the best in each other.
How do you bring great minds together around complex challenges? SoL
members Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry offer a method in our first feature
C. Sherry Immediato“Growing Knowledge Together: Using Emergent Learning and EL Maps for
Better Results.” The authors have previously developed and reported on AARs
(After-Action Reviews), particularly for use in non-military settings. Their experience led them to recognize that a method was needed to help groups consciously capture learning that occurred over multiple
events. Emergent Learning (EL) maps offer a simple yet powerful approach to recognize patterns and comeup with more systemic solutions through capturing data or results, framing hypotheses, and articulatingnext steps. The “map” can then be modified following the next round of action and reflection. Judy Rodgers comments.
It is hard enough to capture collective intelligence even when we think we share a common purpose.
David Pauker ups the ante in “Conflict Alchemy: A Practical Paradigm for Conflict Solutions.” We cansay with some certainty that the emotions stimulated by conflict do not tend to produce a high degree ofcollective intelligence. Pauker uses a real case to illustrate a practical method in contrast to our instinctive “fight or flight” response. Since conflict is at its essence emotional and relational, the method focuses
on “containment” – creating a space for all emotions and viewpoints to be held so that new possibilities
can emerge.
In our third feature article, “Learning Together for Good Decision Making,” SoL elder Arie de Geus
challenges us to equate organizational learning with decision-making. He focuses in particular on how wemobilize all those needed for a successful result, particularly in non-routine circumstances when new solutions are needed for new situations. A more holistic definition of decision-making begins with recognizingthat we’re in a new situation. It continues through idea generation, analysis, choice, and implementation.
How do we get better at decision making and learning? By creating low-risk environments to experiment
together. De Geus uses examples to illustrate that if we develop the habits of inquisitiveness and creativity (or playfulness) and use them to respond to a challenge that has no consequences, we are more likely
to call on them in real situations that normally provoke fear and result in mediocre decisions.
More organizations seem to be exploring how cohorts of new leaders can be developed rather than
thinking in terms of individual high potential leaders. In this issue’s contribution to the Emerging Knowledge Forum, SoL members Jim Myracle and Diane Oettinger describe a particular method using the World
Café process. “Developing High Potential Leaders with Strategy Cafes” documents in detail a process forgathering cohorts of managers to discuss their organization’s future, and to work together on a few welldefined projects with likely strategic impact. Participants become familiar with an important process,produce results for their organizations not likely to be achieved through other initiatives, and create a new
web of intelligence within their enterprises.

ii Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

PUBLISHER’S NOTE continued

In this issue’s book excerpt from Leadership Agility, authors Bill Joiner and Steve Josephs offer a developmental view of leadership for collective intelligence in a world of change and complexity. The findingsof their extensive research complement those previously reported elsewhere with a useful refinement. As
you might expect, those individuals, teams, and organizations that continue to be successful in tumultuous
circumstances are good at taking cues from their environment, and in working effectively with otherstakeholders. In addition, the authors highlight “creative” agility as critical to success. This ability to bring(or stimulate) fresh thinking in a life or death situation is the high leverage version of making lemonade
when life gives you lemons. Their “Five Levels of Leadership Agility” should prompt an interesting conversation among readers about how leaders’ behavior is interdependent with the field in which they are
acting.
In addition, we’ve included brief summaries of the following recently published articles and books.
Please see Recommended Reading at the close of this issue for the full list.
“Collaborating for Systemic Change” by Peter M. Senge, Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Katrin Kaeufer,
Hilary Bradbury, John S. Carroll in the Sloan Management Review, Winter 2007, pp. 44-53 (Reprint# 48211)“In Praise of the Incomplete Leader” by Deborah Ancona, Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski,Peter M. Senge in the Harvard Business Review, February 2007 (Reprint R0702E)
Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges by C. Otto Scharmer (SoL, 2007)
Inside Out: Stories and Method for Generating Collective Will to Create the Future We Want by Tracy
Huston (SoL, 2007)
A Leader’s Guide to Reflective Practice by Judy Brown (Trafford Publishing, 2006)
The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole
Systems, 2nd Edition by Peggy Holman, Tom Devane, Steven Cady (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007)
Leadership is Global: Co-creating a Humane and Sustainable World, edited by Walter Link, Thais
Corral and Mark Gerzon, including contributions from SoL members Adam Kahane and Alain
Gauthier. (The Global Leadership Network, 2006)
The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics by Riane Eisler (Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
April 2007)

C. Sherry Immediato
Managing Director, SoL

reflections.solonline.org

Write iii
n Immediato
Publisher’s NoteReaders

READERS WRITE 8.1

I N V ig o rating learning
Phil Ramsey’s attempt to close the gap between “how we think our organizations work and how they actually do work” in “Teaching Organizational Learning: Premission to
Exhale” (Reflections 7.4) by allowing his students to experience his own classroom as a learning organization does feel “fantastic and invigorating” to me. His experiment challenges some of the values
deeply ingrained in the established educational system and addresses probably one of the biggest gapsof management education and leadership development. The barriers to learning that surface in his classroom are those that are imminent in many organizations: the experts, the boss, the formal structure, thephysical settings, and the meeting agenda, to name just a few. How can one expect leaders in organizations to promote dialogue, tap into collective intelligence, work effectively together, provide constructive
feedback, and tell the truth when all they experienced in the classroom is one or at best two way communication (student-teacher) and discouraged from really talking to one another due to competition or
fully engaging in the process of learning?
  Management education can benefit from the unconventional approach Ramsey depicts. While all
educators aim to create an outstanding learning experience for their students, seldom do collaborationand teamwork win over competition and individual accomplishments. This is a significant challenge notmany can readily undertake. It forces everyone involved to examine the assumptions and values taken
for granted in educational institutions and systems. I concur with Ramsey that the challenge is definitely
worth the effort and the risk as it contributes to develop a new and different generation of leaders.
Karen Ayas
kayas@comcast.net

iv Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

F E AT U R E 8 . 1

Growing Knowledge Together:
Using Emergent Learning and
EL Maps for Better Results
Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry

W

Marilyn DarlingCharles Parrye were working with a senior executive many years ago who was keen to turn hislarge staff organization into a learning organization. We often sat in on his teammeetings. Whenever he could, he would invite a leader from another part of thecompany to come and present a talk to his team about how they had become a learningorganization. The presentations were impressive. Each leader had chosen a different path andcreated innovative ways to foster a learning culture. When each speaker completed his or her
PowerPoint presentation, it was met with a round of applause and compliments from everyone in attendance. The presenter would stride out a few inches taller.
What invariably followed was a series of carefully worded comments directed at theexecutive. They were generally positive, but at the same time they included a subtle observation about how different that organization was, or about the barriers his staff organization
faced that the other organization did not. These comments, by the way, were all accurate –each organization was in fact quite different. One was a greenfield manufacturing plant; ourexecutive’s organization was a staff function. Another was a small team in Europe; ourexecutive’s team lived at the corporate headquarters in the U.S.
What became abundantly clear to us was not that our executive’s team had nothing tolearn from these presenters, nor that they could not become a learning organization. Rather,
the way that we go about sharing knowledge is flawed. The speakers came with preparedPowerPoint presentations they had spoken to many times before. There was no easy way toknow in advance what was important to our executive’s team, and there was no structure forholding a useful exchange of ideas about what it would take for this staff organization tolearn from their example. The kind of interaction this team needed to have was more collaborative: “What prompted you to take this on? Did you stumble along the way? How did
you pick yourselves up and keep going? Let us tell you what we’ve tried and maybe you canhelp us think about why it hasn’t stuck so far.”That set of meetings was the genesis of emergent learning and EL Maps.1 Our executive
could have been seeking any big change: to make his organization lean, green, innovative, acenter of excellence, etc. The more we explored how people tackle complex challenges andgoals together, the more we realized that there was a big missing piece: How do we learn
when the textbook can’t be written fast enough? What does it honestly take to learn from ourown work? From the successes and failures of our peers? How do we notice a lesson readyto be learned and make sure that we actually learn it? We coined the term “emergent learning” to describe this process, and conceived EL Maps as a way to create both the space andthe structure to allow two or more teams to have a more collaborative learning conversation;reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry the metric being that each team could actually do something based on what they learned andreasonably expect to produce a better result.
In this article, we will look at a series of situations like this one where teams need to learn
about complex challenges from and with each other. We will look at what we typically do –like these PowerPoint-laden sessions – that makes it difficult to actually learn, and talk about
how EL Maps offer a way to grow knowledge together.

Triggers for Learning Conversations
Whether we work in the public, private or nonprofit sector, we all encounter circumstancesthat call for bringing people together and trying to learn our way through an important challenge or a wildly new situation. In a constantly changing environment, closed-door planningby a few people is not enough to ensure success. Some of the most common triggers include:•	Preparing a broad response to a crisis or emergency•	Preparing for a major discontinuity on the horizon•	Learning across teams, organizations or communities tackling similar challenges•	Seeking fundamental solutions to an intractable problem• Creating a cultural transformation

Emergency Response
How can we ensure that everyone is prepared to respond effectively and inconcert to a major crisis situation?
Natural disaster and political turmoil are on everyone’s radar screen today. Any situationthat calls for so many people to act relatively immediately and independently reveals thecommunity’s level of readiness to respond.
So it came to be that Hurricane Katrina offered such vivid lessons about the importanceof preparing for disaster and coordinating response among a complex web of organizations
and individuals. But how do those lessons actually get “learned” such that next time will bedifferent? The challenge is that neither the nature nor the timing of the next crisis can bepredicted. Katrina prompted an across-the-board increase in emergency preparedness activities, including many large “what if” scenarios and planning events.

Major Discontinuities on the Horizon
What will it take to ensure that we continue to succeed in the face of a major externalchange? How can we use this change to help us gain momentum rather than lose it?
Any organization facing a major and complex discontinuity may call for collective learning: major demographic shifts; the need to merge two organizations after an acquisition; theanticipated entrance of a powerful new competitor; new legislation like the introduction ofSarbanes-Oxley. Web 2.0 could turn the way we do our work literally upside down.
What will it take to preserve the wisdom of a generation and reinforce critical social
networks? How will a whole new generation of workers approach their work differently?
The impending wave of baby boomer retirements is a case in point. It is prompting muchhand-wringing as important knowledge about how to do the work prepares to walk out the door.
Well-established networks are threatened with disintegration. Complicating this picture is thefact that the next generation, wanting to make its own mark, may not see the wisdom of their elders as especially relevant . . . until a situation arises and a critical question can’t be answered.

 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Tackling Similar Challenges
How can we learn from each other so that we raise the level of our performance acrossall regions? What will it take to achieve a challenging new goal in different cultures andcircumstances?
Corporations aim to manage performance against key metrics (profit, quality, safety,
customer satisfaction) across manufacturing plants, regions or business units. Government
contractors manage many large and expensive programs simultaneously. Large nonprofits
aim to serve their mission in a wide range of regions and communities. Any of these organizations may face wide and frustratingly unexplainable variations in performance across regions,operating units, programs, projects, sectors or communities and seek to understand why.
Our executive who aimed to create a learning organization is a variation on this situation.
The traditional “capture and replicate best practices” model pits the star performers against
the “problem children.” The executive was sending the implicit message that his team was
not as good as the best practice learning organizations he invited in to speak. It’s natural that
his team would seek to protect their sense of themselves by looking for ways in which they
were different from the other organization. The tragedy is that, used well, difference can bea powerful source of learning. (More on that later…)

Solving an Intractable Problem
What would it take to make a fundamental shift in the dynamics underlying this problem?
Occasionally a leader comes along who refuses to believe that a longstanding, complex
problem is unsolvable. This is the essence of work in the nonprofit sector, which often brings

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry people together to try to learn together from each others’ experience. They might be tacklinganything from fresh drinking water in Africa to rural poverty in America; to huge social
issues like AIDS or hunger. In the private sector, a visionary leader may decide to take on
pernicious structural issues that are driving down quality or creating a rift between a company and its customers.
These leaders could start by bringing in an expert to shape the solution. But what if theexperience of many hands, hearts and minds doing the work could first come together andthink through what they have learned so far and what their real burning questions are?
Waiting to bring in an expert until after this conversation happens would raise the quality of
the request and the quality of the idea exchange between people doing the work and theexpert they collectively hired to help them.

Creating a Cultural Transformation
What will it take to fundamentally change the culture and work habits of our organization?
Nearly every organization is in some phase of creating a cultural change – promoting
diversity, adopting environmentally-friendly policies, cultivating innovation or lean thinking.
Traditional change management programs start at the top and cascade down. Practitioners
have learned a lot about how to manage resistance to change. But what if the real problem
is that people don’t like to be told to implement something they had no part in creating, don’t
think will work, and will take them away from important work priorities? Forward-looking
organizational leaders often bring together a broad group of stakeholders to launch an effort
or reinvigorate a flagging change program.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •All of these situations have in common that there are no easy or permanently “right” solutions. They require many people to take thoughtful action independently. Replicating one
solution won’t work in a diverse set of cultures. Closed-door planning won’t lead to the kindof thoughtful action called for. Like our executive’s meetings, these large gatherings can easily
become overburdened with PowerPoint presentations of success stories or expert solutions.
Getting everyone to the table who will have their hands, hearts, and minds on these kindsof problems and getting their thinking into the “bones” of the solution produces at least threemajor benefits: 1) it generates more robust solutions that take into account a range of situations; 2) it creates more ownership for the solution rather than imposing it; and 3) it sets thestage for learning and adaptation at every level of implementation.
This kind of collective learning is especially challenging. The circumstances that call for it
are typically complicated and dynamic. The complexity of learning collectively from experience – growing knowledge – increases as more people or organizations are involved in thelearning process. Without a structure to promote dialogue, advocacy can disable listening.
Lastly, it can seem daunting to build effective feedback loops into implementation.

EL Maps
EL Maps were once described by a user as a “blank canvas” on which learning can takeplace. Each map starts with a “Framing Question” to focus the conversation. An EL Map isbuilt around a simple timeline [see Figure 1]: everything to the left of center refers to the past

 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

and everything to the right of center refers to the future; everything below the line refers tofacts and concrete events, while everything above the line refers to our thinking about those
events. The vertical line gives equal weight to past and future, which helps groups avoid getting stuck in painful “post-mortem” analyses of the past. The horizontal line evokes a distinction between the world of experience and our thinking about it, which helps groups develop
their skills in balancing inquiry and advocacy.2
This creates a map with four quadrants. To read clockwise from the lower right quadrant:
1)	A group starts by having in mind one or more concrete events that are going to happen
in the near future related to their framing question;2)	They look back at similar events that have happened in the past;3)	They reflect on insights gained from those events about what caused past results;4)	They formulate hypotheses (a shared theory of success) about what will make the events
coming up successful;5)	Finally, they match hypotheses with upcoming events to create more robust and testableaction plans.
The same process can be used to circle back around as today’s opportunities turn into
tomorrow’s ground truth.
A community seeking to improve its ability to respond to emergencies could bring together
first responders, hospitals, local governments and neighborhood organizers to look back at several past emergency response situations – their own and others – to see if there are commonalities
or differences that would point to better ways to prepare for and respond to future emergencies.
An organizational leader seeking to create a fundamental cultural change could bring
together a cross-section of the organization to reflect on what has happened (successful andnot) in past change efforts, or to look over the history of the corporation for defining
moments when the culture has shifted and reflect on what they can learn from thosemoments.
Figure 1. The Basic Structure of an EL Map
Framing Question“What will it take to...?”
What we think will
make us successful
in the future

What we’ve learned
from what has alreadyhappened
Insights
Past

Ground Truth

Hypotheses
Opportunities

FutureAction Plan:
Agreed actions
and thehyptheses
they areUpcoming opportunities to test our
hypotheses in action

Key moments looking
back from which we
can learn
Todayreflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry An operational leader wishing to preserve the knowledge of a retiring generation might
identify a mission-critical scenario and bring a cross-generational group together to have aconversation about their experiences in similar situations in the past. This structured conversation would surface important questions and fuel knowledge sharing around what will matter most to future success.
Finally, our executive’s team could invite a few peers who were involved in creating thebest practice learning organizations to tell the story of how and why they started along thispath and engage in a dialogue about what bumps they experienced and what the executive’s
team might anticipate if they commit to a similar effort.3

A Blank Canvas
EL Maps are a blank canvas in the sense that groups can craft the conversation in any one
quadrant, or even the sequence of working through a map, to fit the situation. The “Ground
Truth” can be organized for reflection in a number of ways. For example, some maps compare a cluster of examples to search for similarities and differences. Other maps look at one
or a handful of examples along a chronological timeline to seek out defining moments that
contributed to their ultimate result. [See Figure 2.] There are likewise many ways to generate
insights. Tools like the Five Whys or Causal Loop diagrams, or approaches like World Café,
can all be used within the Insight quadrant of an EL Map.
Figure 2. A Few Models for Exploring Ground Truth

Compare multiple
examplesContrast successes
and failures

Review chronology todiscover defining moments

Compare examples
chronologically Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

A few more examples illustrate the versatility of EL Maps:•	They have been used by a global company to compare regional Supply Chain Management implementations, in order to tease out the most important lessons to apply tofuture implementations in other regions.
•	They have been used by a large county to convene the mayors, schools, hospitals, community activists and other stakeholders from three cities within the county to think
about what it would take to create a county-wide health initiative, using everyone’s collective past experience as a guide to think through what works and what doesn’t tocreate sustainable change in their community.
•	They have been used as an application exercise as part of a leadership development
program to help participants select and consciously test out principles from the program
in real work between sessions and bring insights back to the next session.
One EL Map session was called for by an information systems team that was dead tiredof six-year projects where every decision demanded total consensus among all key stakeholders. They took a chance and did one project on their own without asking for permission.
What normally took six years took only six months. They asked for an EL Map session
essentially to create a case for why they should switch to the new model.
First, the team reflected on their original outcomes and measures of success for two projects. Using a chronological timeline, they compared the six-month project with a recently
completed six-year project by laying them out in the Ground Truth quadrant and comparing
what had happened, phase by phase. While the six month project was obviously shorter andless expensive, what they discovered was that neither project had produced the kind of outcome – in terms of user acceptance – they aimed for. While the long project had arrived toolate to be of great value, the six-month project had no buy-in from its customers. Further
reflection led them to the insight that there were times when consensus was important, andtimes when it was a wasted extra step. Rather than creating a rationale for throwing out thetraditional consensus model in favor of a “just do it and apologize later” model, they cameaway with a more adaptive theory of success, a renewed commitment to clarify outcomes inadvance, and a plan to track their results more rigorously in future projects.

Think Globally, Act Locally
EL Maps make it possible for a group of organizations or communities to come together toshare thinking, while still independently owning the decision about which actions to take.
[See Figure 3.] This distinguishes the process from the manufacturing mindset common a few
years ago that an organization could identify one best practice and replicate it, without regard
to local ownership and differences in local environments. Because each participating groupwill create its own action plan, there is less pressure to come to a consensus about the one“right” solution or hypothesis that everyone is going to implement. This frees up the groupto stay with the inquiry and not shift into advocating for favored solutions.
It also frees them up to explore difference. In rapidly changing environments, our common
tendency is to explain away unusual situations or unexpected outcomes rather than learn
from them. EL Maps facilitate comparison across different situations to seek out what is thesame and what is different, in order to produce a theory of success that can withstand different situations and cultures. In fact any story that is substantially different, either because thereflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry Figure 3. Using Framing Questions
Framing Question“What will it take to...?”

Insights
Ground Truth

Hypotheses
Opportunities

Multiple organizations come together to create a sharedtheory of success and then apply it to their own situations.

situation was unusual or the results were different, becomes a valuable resource to test out
the prevailing wisdom to see if it holds up in this unusual situation or if it needs to berefined.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) recently convened a collection of ninefoundations, large and small, local and global in scope, to ask the question, “What does ittake to sustain seasoned nonprofit leaders?” Hard-working and typically under-funded, theseleaders often became involved in this work because of their passion for a cause. But asexecutive directors of their organizations, the time they have to devote to their cause issqueezed by administrative responsibilities. Years of work in this arena can cause severe
burnout.
The stories the foundations shared involved a number of different kinds of programs to
support nonprofit leaders (sabbaticals, fellowships, leadership development), but because
they all came to address the same framing question, lessons could be drawn from different
kinds of programs being provided in very different situations. As one participant observed,“Initially I only wanted to talk with people doing sabbatical programs. As it turned out, I
learned most from the person who has no sabbatical program.” No one program was heldout as the best practice, even though some foundations had modeled their own program onothers in the room. Everyone had something to share and everyone had something to learn.
Localness is a core principle of emergent learning4. The people who should participate in
an EL Map session are the people doing the work; the Framing Question should be one they
themselves care about, not what an external convener cares about. For instance, if GEO had
convened the same group of foundations but had asked them “How can GEO more effectively support your work?” this would violate the localness principle. The only participants
who would walk away with a hypothesis to test would be the conveners.

 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

A Journey, Not a Single Event
As the project team aiming to adopt a six-month “apologize later” approach to project management learned, in a complex situation, the first solution a group of people comes to isprobably incomplete. Unlike traditional planning processes, EL Maps are designed to help
everyone keep in mind that the ideas they walk out with are hypotheses that need to betested and refined. And unlike traditional knowledge management practices that capture thestory of a big success or failure and disseminate the “lessons learned,” in emergent learning,
the lesson is not learned until a team goes out and tries out its thinking and actually improves
its results.
Unlike the traditional “capture and disseminate” model, therefore, the first and best customer for an EL Map is the team itself. If they can come back and report a significant
improvement, then a real lesson may be ready to be disseminated. If not, the team can refine
its hypothesis based on new data and try again. The payoff to the team is not only improved
results, but validation that taking the time to build learning into implementation is worth theeffort.
Thought of in this way, an EL Map is not an event but a punctuation point in a paragraph.
It sets the stage for learning experiments around big challenges. The Framing Question is notjust in service of a single meeting. It reflects a learning priority that will continue; something
the team or community needs to focus on over time.
As we described triggers for collective learning efforts, we started each one with a framing
question. To keep the learning conversation positive, action-oriented and forward-focused(versus retrospective, analytical and fault-finding), a framing question starts with “Whatwould it take to…?” or “How can we…?” Effective framing questions are simple and avoid
assuming a solution. “What will it take to succeed in creating this desired change?” is a more
powerful question than “How can we get buy-in for XYZ change model?” More powerful
yet: “What will it take to create our desired change in such a way as to guarantee that things
will not return to the way they were?”

Sharing Lessons Learned
Once a lesson has been learned, EL Maps offer a good transitional device for sharing emerging knowledge. The very structure of the map offers a script for telling the learning story. In
essence:•	The situation and challenge we faced was: [describe what led to the need to learn
together]•	Therefore, the Framing Question we asked was:
• What we have learned so far is: [describe key insights from successes and failures]•	Based on this, our current hypothesis about what it will take to succeed is:•	Opportunities to apply and further test this hypothesis are: [describe situations to which
this might apply5]•	Our own plan to continue to test this hypothesis includes: [describe the team’s action
plan based on its own upcoming opportunities]
Thinking back to our executive who wanted to create a learning organization, the presentations his team heard focused on the final result of a single success—the artifact that wasreflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry Unburdening Local Learning
In Emergent Learning, the first customer for what is being learned should be the people having theconversation. If they become convinced that taking time to gather and apply what they are learning
actually improves their results, they will insist on doing it. But the process must be fit for purpose—it
cannot be burdened by unnecessary restrictions or expectations. We err when we insist on waiting forsomething that delays the process: availability of an external facilitator, more data, 100% participation. We err when we insist that each learning conversation be captured for dissemination. We don’t
argue that these are not good things to strive for, but that getting the learning habit embedded ina group’s work process is a higher priority.
Therefore, we urge readers to use EL Maps for their highest and best purpose: to bring together people
to launch a learning effort, to break through a stubborn challenge, or periodically to track what a wholecommunity is learning in its own work. It should be paired with local learning practices [see Figure 4].
Our favorite method for local learning is the Before and After Action Review.8
As Figure 4 illustrates, the local team’s learning cycle is the heart – literally the heartbeat – of a learning culture. It should not burdened with having to serve the institution by 1) focusing on questions
beyond their own scope of responsibility; or 2) being asked to stop and capture and disseminate
lessons for the benefit of others. Yet the lessons learned that a team produces can feed into, andbe fed by, the institution’s larger learning and knowledge processes.

The EL Map is a trademarked tool of Signet Research & Consulting, LLC. Readers are encouraged to experimentwith EL Maps, provided that Signet’s trademark is acknowledged by adding a note on each map that says: “EL Maps
are used by permission of Signet Research & Consulting, LLC. www.signetconsulting.com.”created in a particular situation. The implicit message is that this is a complete and replicable
solution. In a complex environment, it is not. The difference between this kind of story andan emergent learning story is that the latter is the story of the journey, not just the result. It
also compares multiple situations, rather than talking about one big success.
Note also that an emergent learning story offers the opportunity to acknowledge “failure”
by talking about what we learned from it that will make us more successful in the future. It
demonstrates what one of our colleagues refers to as “the humility of the craftsman before
the task.”6 We believe that sharing this kind of learning-from-mistakes story is one of the key
actions a leader can take to begin to shift the culture toward a true learning culture.
Keeping learning in the forefront is, indeed, a leadership act. No one meeting will produce
a sustainable capacity to create the future we envision. A parade of PowerPoint presentations
or a library of “lessons learned” will not transform our executive’s organization into a learning organization. “In a fast-changing environment, the capacity to learn lessons is more valuable than any individual lesson learned.”7 EL Maps provide a forum to bring great minds
together around complex challenges. They create ownership for shared solutions, and set thestage for learning through implementation.
But it is this sustained focus on learning around important Framing Questions that ultimately creates a learning culture. At its essence, emergent learning is the scientific method
paired with good organizational learning practices. As Arie de Geus, author of The Living
Company, commented, “EL Maps are more than a tool. They are a blueprint for how living
systems learn, and reflect recent research findings in neurobiology and cognitive science.”

10 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Figure 4. Local and Institutional Learning Cycles

Identify
Opportunities

Formulate
Hypotheses
Plan
APPL
Y

PrepareLocal Team
Learning Cycle(AARs)E

SHAR

Reflect
CompileData

Act
Analyze
Insights

Institutional
Learning Cycle(EL Maps)
Local learning feeds and is fed by institutional learning,but is not dependent on or burdened by supporting it.

Adapted from Larry Karasevich, ExxonMobil Corporation

A b o ut the A uth o rs

Marilyn Darling founded Signet in 1989. Over the last ten years, she has
partnered with Charles Parry to conduct research on the learning and leadership practices of highly effective organizations, translating their findings into
the principles and tools of Emergent Learning and EL Maps™. Marilyn
is a founding member of SoL.
mdarling@signetconsulting.com
Charles Parry has engaged in translating the mental models and strategies of
top performers into pathways for rapid skill development since 1986. Today, with Marilyn and fourother partners, Charles helps leaders embed team learning strategies into the everyday fabric of
their organizations. Charles is a consulting member of SoL.
cparry@signetconsulting.com
Endnotes
1

This does not mean that the convener’s question is not worth asking. The convener’s staff
could ask for feedback from its members and use this as the ground truth data for its own EL
Map. But when facing a complex challenge with lots of moving parts, creating nested framing
questions and holding a series of smaller EL Map sessions keeps everyone engaged in learning
about what matters most to them. It reinforces personal accountability and sets the stage forlearning and adaptation at every level. [See sidebar: “Unburdening local learning.”]2

Readers who are familiar with the Ladder of Inference can use an EL Map to reinforce this idea.

3

For readers familiar with the Peer Assist process, this is essentially a Peer Assist using an EL
Map to guide the interaction.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Darling, Parry 11

4

Darling and Parry, “Emergent Learning: Taking ‘Learning from Experience’ to a New Level,”
The Systems Thinker, May 1999.

5

Three natural audiences might be: 1) groups facing a similar challenge; 2) groups who haveexperienced a similar “failed” result; and 3) groups about to step into a similar kind of
event or situation.

6	

Stephen Danckert, reported by Darling and Parry in “From Post-Mortem to Living Practice:
An in-depth study of the evolution of the After Action Review.”

7

Darling, Parry and Moore, “Learning in the Thick of It,” Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 2005.

8

Ibid

Thanks to David Flanigan for contributing to this article.

12 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

commentary

Commentary
By Judy Rodgers
One way to look at organizations is as net-edge that Marilyn and Charles and theirworks of conversations. Embedded in theclients who have worked with EL Maps have“memory tracks” of these networks are thedeveloped that allow them to be successful

beliefs of the organization, and the requests,

with the instrument. For those new to EL

offers, and promises that have defined theMaps, it may be important to consider

contours of the organization’s evolution oversome of these areas of tacit knowledge.

time. I have always felt that one of the most
Judy Rogers

important leadership acts is to engage theattention of this network of people in theideas and concerns that are most importantto the long term health and learning of theorganization. EL Maps are an outstanding
way to do that.

One is the decision about who should be at
the table. The authors say that “Localness isa core principle of Emergent Learning. The
people who should participate in an EL Map
session are the people doing the work.” However, in the actual decision making about who
to convene, I wonder if there aren’t key stake-

Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry have laid

holders – customers, suppliers, key contacts,

out some of the rationale for the EL Maps:

partners inside and outside the organization –they concern themselves with what is local;

whose insights and input in the meetings arethey represent a journey – not a single event;critical. I suspect that those who are familiar

and they serve as a blank canvas for thewith emergent learning, would instinctively

creative act of generating conversations forsense whose input would be vital to emer-

learning. For these reasons, these simple

gent learning.

and elegant maps are a valuable instrument
to anyone who is trying to keep the dynamicof learning at the heart of an organization.

The second, and I think larger, issue is thatof the framing question. The guidance Darlingand Parry offer is that the framing question

A question I have about the EL Map hasshould be one that the conveners themselvesto do with the “blank canvas” metaphor.

care about; that it reflects a learning priority

A blank canvas is literally a space on which

over time; that it’s positive, action oriented,

anything can happen, but the authors haveand forward focused. They say, “framing ques-suggested that the simple framework of thetions are simple and avoid assuming a solution.”

EL Map encourages a certain kind of conver-Even with all of these useful pointers, it seems

sation, a certain sequence of conversations,that creating a framing question is something

to happen, and that those particular conver-of an art, confounding a list of “tips.”

sations help an organization to sustain aculture of learning. What isn’t so obvious isthat there are certain kinds of tacit knowl-

Though my experience with EL Maps islimited, I suspect that the most powerful EL

1 Darling and Parry, “Emergent Learning: Taking ‘Learning from Experience’ to a New Level,”
The Systems Thinker, May 1999.

reflections.solonline.org

n Rodgers
Commentary
Feature n Darling,
Parry 13

Map sessions would be those that position

My sense is that the full potential of EL Mapsthemselves at the heart of an area of strate-is still waiting to be tapped. The simple frame-

gic significance for the company. I also wonder

work of past/present and action/reflection is

if being positive is enough? Are there somebrilliant, and still it is up to those using the

EL Map sessions that reach beyond the

instrument to bring it fully to life. It may bepositive to the aspirational and inspirationalthat instead of a blank canvas, the EL Map– to the framing of a domain of possibilities

is the process equivalent of a Stradivarius, athat raises the level of engagement andremarkable instrument that will reach its fullquickens the pulse of the group in thepotential in the hands of a gifted practitioner.

conversation?

If so, what we need now is the more subtle
guidance as to the secrets of genius in“playing” the EL Maps.
judyrodgers@gmail.com
Principal, Communications Architecture Group

14 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

F E AT U R E 8 . 1

Conflict Alchemy:

A Practical Paradigm for Conflict Solutions
David B. Pauker, JD, LL.M.

F

David B. Pauker

ive studio executives voted to fire the uncooperative director of an over-budget
Hollywood motion picture in danger of not being delivered on schedule or budget. I
was the sixth person in the room, with direct responsibility for completing the picture
on time and within budget. I voted to retain the director, even though there would be penalties of several million dollars if the film were late or of unacceptable quality.
My experience was that, if managed correctly, the turmoil of conflict could be a catalyst
to produce inventive solutions that could improve the film. I also
knew interpersonal conflict is always tricky within the normal
drama that results from lack of money and time on the one hand
and the needs of creative vision on the other. There were other considerations as well, and I presented my reasons to the others in theroom. The director was not fired. That was not the end of this story,
however, or of its conflicts.
As the drama with the director developed, this engagement
became an object lesson for the important differences between simply managing and really solving conflict. Managing conflict merely controls the tensions.
Genuinely solving conflict generates good will and an opening to harvest valuable benefits
that exist beneath the surface of many conflicts – including new information, creative solutions, and seeds for new opportunities. Conflict’s frictions can catalyze progress – just as
friction vibrates the strings of a violin to make music, and friction of braking generates electricity to propel a hybrid automobile forward.1
The result of this and other experiences is a paradigm for solving conflict and harvesting
its hidden values. This is a system that works whether the facilitator is a neutral third-party
or a participant in the conflict, and whether the basis is business, politics, social, personal, orof other origin. It is a system easy to learn, though its components, like muscles, are best
utilized when exercised daily to develop healthier relationships, establish environments that
decrease the number and severity of conflicts, and build shortcuts for reaching solutions that
do develop. Beneficially solving conflict can, in this way, become a natural part of life, as
natural as breathing.

Conflict is asource of progress
and profits –we need not be
its victims.

Seven Conflict Truths
There are seven important truths about conflict:
1. Conflict is about “no.” People in conflict are saying, “no,” or feel “no” is confronting
them. They are in disharmony and separation – with others, with situations, with themselves,or with some combination of two or all three of those. At the root, people in conflict aresaying “no” to themselves about something.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 15

2. Conflict is primarily an internal process that has external manifestation. The roots ofconflict, and the majority of turmoil, are internalized and hidden within the individuals
involved. With groups of all sizes, the group collective, factions within the group, and persons
in the group each have their own process that must receive attention. This is not therapy, andcan be done relatively quickly for the purpose of solving conflict.
3. The issue on the table must be acknowledged. Addressing it will provide some relief, but
not a solution. Additional issues may be masked, and the issue manifesting is rarely theauthentic problem. In other words, in business conflicts it is rarely only about the money, but
dealing with the money helps.
4. There is a difference between “real-needs” and apparent needs. Real-needs, importantto solving conflict, are commonly hidden below a party’s own awareness – beneath egos,
agendas, justifications, fears, and other obstacles. People in conflict,
Traditional conflict
and those trying to help them resolve it, commonly focus on apparent
resolution methodologies needs and interests.
5. Positions are not intellectual – they have an emotional and visare too often focused on ceral binding. At every subjective level, an emotion protects an underlying belief, with several of these layers likely to be present in eachjust “dealing” with theparty. Emotions run the spectrum – anger, fear, and righteousness areconflict.
particularly popular.
6. It is not possible to effectively work with conflict from the mind.
The mind inherently creates separation. Its nature is self-identity (ego) and duality. One
proclivity, for example, is to develop differentiation by naming and judging what it perceives
as otherness.
7. Real conflict solutions come from the heart. The nature of the heart is acceptance andconnection. This is not a strange or new notion – even in business, those with the best employee relations are perceived as caring, nourishing and supportive.
Traditional conflict resolution methodologies are too often focused on just “dealing” with theconflict. “Dealing” with something, however, is an attempt to make it go away while maintaining a safe distance. This is very desirable when solving the problem of a too friendly
skunk. But, commonly, there are opportunities within conflicts that must be nurtured, andthat requires real solution.
Merely moderating tensions with first-aid methodologies also may create more problems
than it solves, and can often be more time consuming and difficult than actually solving theconflict. Participants may leave feeling manipulated. Underlying issues may flare up at a latertime. Deep-seated tensions may become a cancer that sours good will and beginnings of trust,and makes future discussions exponentially more difficult.
Experiences resolving conflicts and crises prove really solving conflict, as opposed tomerely ameliorating tension, can generate agreements that are more successful, improve relationships, increase cooperation, and help better actualize vision. This is true whatever thelocation, stakes, and nature of the conflict.
The setting here is around business. This true story is about conflict involving business in
Hollywood where large sums were at risk. The system described, however, works with all
natures of conflicts – including those of long standing with deep animosity, and those thathave recently flared. It is effective with groups of all sizes, as well as with individuals.

16 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Seven Elements for Connection
Shortly after the decision not to fire him, the director of
the motion picture began instigating confrontations withfellow employees, including me. His justifications varied;
primarily he fumed at people for not doing their job, andblamed them for making it impossible for him to do hisjob. Everything became a battle. This culminated with thedirector storming out of a planning meeting for the next
day’s work. After considerable thought, I realized theseincidents were escalating with the approach of the deadline for a number of key decisions. I recognized the director was in panic, and I saw the director would sabotage
the film if his behavior were allowed to continue.
The beginning of reaching real conflict solution is making connection and establishing trust in three directions:(a) between the person facilitating solution and theconflicting parties;(b) between the parties themselves – and if theconflict involves groups this is connection
between the groups as organisms, factions, andkey individuals within those groups; and,(c)		 between each opposing party and their own
unspoken selves – and this is not about psychological therapy, but rather opening the door forparties to discover their own “real-needs.”
The following “elements for connection” establish andenhance connection and trust – in the sense of meaningfulcontact. They respond to the needs of those in conflict andanswer the imperatives of the “conflict truths.” These elements are non-linear – they operate
in harmony and not sequentially, inter relating and working together, instead of one following the other.
Establish an “Environment of ‘Yes.’” Participants and observers should do their best to relate
to everyone, including himself or herself, with acceptance and without judgment. This is anenvironment of “Yes.” This is not an intellectual exercise, but rather a heart centered awareness that can be developed. People flower in this kind of setting. In an interview, a manager
asked how she could help her staff grow to be better at what they do – and one fundamental
answer is to put in place an “Environment of ‘Yes.’”
People often have more trouble genuinely accepting and honoring themselves than others.
It is not possible to fully accept others without self-acceptance. I have found it useful to movebeyond a mental experience of self-acceptance by asking people having difficulty to imagine
their feelings if they honored themselves in this way, and then helping them experience thosefeelings more deeply.
Acceptance and non-judgment, or their lack, are communicated by everyone in the roomin both verbal and non-verbal ways. Verbal communications are colored by many factors,

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 17

including content, tone, and intention. Non-verbal communications include such things asbody language and, yes, even the emotional tone of their thoughts and vibrations.
Adopt personal responsibility for actions and, more importantly, reactions. When something
in the conflict – such as its circumstances, emotional content, or even an action – resonatessubconsciously with the residual stored emotions of a participant or onlooker, s/he may havea strong instinctive reaction to what is occurring. The emotional or physical response may be
uncomfortable, even overwhelming for that person.
Real needs are usually
The source of the discomfort is not the other person in the transunrecognized because they action. The cause of the (extreme) discomfort is in the person feeling it, and that person can choose to not play out the emotions
remain hidden beneath aand, still, honor herself. Each person must take responsibility forwhat is aroused in them. Their reaction can inflame and expand
party’s own awareness –the conflict, or calm it.
under layers of assumpAn example of the subjective and personal nature of reactions
occurred in last year’s World Cup when Zinedine Zidane, the captions, expectations, fears,
tain of the French team, was ejected from the title match because
agendas, defenses, andhe head-butted Marco Materazzi of the Italian team who he said
other obstacles.
called him a “terrorist.” If Mr. Materazzi called another person a“terrorist,” s/he might or might not be offended – s/he might evenlaugh – and whether or not what Mr. Materazzi actually said was accurately reported, thepoint is the same. It is not what someone says that is offensive – it is the receiver’s emotional
and psychological tenderness that paints it as offensive and triggers a charged response.
Every person has responsibility for his or her own awareness. Every person can takeresponsibility for his or her own actions and reactions. Even if a person believes that is notcompletely true, or even if it is, in fact, not completely true, he can adopt this as a “workable
position.” People can act as though it is completely true, and this will be beneficial for at least
two significant reasons: First, adopting this position greatly reduces feelings of being a victim;
and, second, it materially lessens any environment of blame.
Base solutions on satisfying real-needs, and not apparent needs. Discover real-needs byusing “deep listening” (discussed below).
Real-needs are genuine interests. They have the power of truth. They are usually unrecognized because they remain hidden beneath a party’s own awareness – under layers of assumptions, expectations, fears, agendas, defenses, and other obstacles.
Apparent or perceived needs, in contrast, often reflect settling for the obvious, a quick fix,or ego gratification. Because they are not genuine expressions and lack substance, they oftencause inflexibility, defensiveness, confusion, and limit vision.
Recognizing and meeting real-needs will reduce the anxiety of those in conflict. It is notnecessary to meet these needs in the way a party expects. The final solution may, in fact, becreative and surprising.
Pursue understanding in depth. Seek to genuinely understand what other parties are saying,
what they are feeling, and their positions within subjective and real world contexts.
In their own way, the parties want optimum understanding and performance. Inquire into
what is missing in their pursuit of these goals, and establish the grounds to achieve them. In

18 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

many cases, what the parties are avoiding or are not saying is as important as the things they
do express. Deep Listening also supports understanding in depth.
Take “wrong” out of the equation. No one is right all the time, and this may be the time you
are not right – not “wrong,” but not right. Everyone in the conflict may be a little “not right”
or, looked at differently, “partially right.”
Each person is seeing the situation from their own point-of-view, based on their unique
history and needs. There are many possibilities. It is possible, for example, that the parties
are merely misunderstanding each other because their judgments and positions are based on
different assumptions. Be generous.
Have faith in the process. Be detached from the outcome, and from what might seem to beneeded, in order to discover what is really needed. Let go of preconceived ideas, identities,
and roles; rigid positions limit possibilities. Concerns and objections are part of any process.
They may help reveal how a solution is incomplete or flawed. Politicians understand it isbetter to have a law with good purpose adopted, even if it is less than what they think isperfect – and generally they maintain good will throughout the give and take. It helps torecognize that under their skin all people are very much the same.
Recognize that ineffective or hurtful behavior is not a character flaw, but a person’s best
attempt at accomplishing their goals. Very, very few people do things to be purposefully bador hurtful; most of those that do later have regrets and want to make amends.
Do not confuse “what’s” and “how’s.” Make sure everyone is talking about the same thing.
Establish what must be accomplished. Then work at discovering how that can best be
done. At one board meeting, for example, the members argued for an hour about contract
language to embody an already agreed approach. Finally, one board
member proposed a simple resolution stating they needed a contract Be detached from thewith that approach, and instructing their attorney to draft it. They saw
outcome, and from what
it was their job to establish a “what,” the need for a contract, and thatthe attorney could best accomplish the “how” it would be done. The might seem to be needed,board passed the resolution in three minutes.

in order to discoverwhat is really needed.

While a “Yes” environment is a first among equals, none of the
Elements is more important than another. They work together to forma lattice of contact, support, confidence and communication. They are not formulas or plugand-play techniques that magically cause the tension and discomfort of conflict to disappear.
They are better than that. As genuine ways to be with people who are in conflict, they create
an environment in which solutions flow. They are intangible muscles to be developed andstrengthened.
People in conflict are in pain. Feelings of isolation and alienation may include certainty ajust solution is not possible – if there are even thoughts of solution. Anger and righteousness
may be so strong that a person in conflict can only think of how right they are, and of attacking their “opponent” or getting even. This is especially true for those who have no experience
with effective solution of previous conflicts.
In contrast, those who understand that solving conflicts is a process, and who have successful
experience with the method employed to solve it, do develop a confidence that speeds resolution.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 19

The discomfort of conflict extends to those around people in conflict who often feel awkward or threatened. In some situations, the reaction of friends, family and coworkers is fear;
similar to feelings about being near someone with a serious disease they are afraid of catching. People fear conflict for many reasons, including the way it connects with their own innerdemons, the “ugliness” they see in it, or their fear that things will spin out of control.
Managers, co-workers, and other interested persons who may want to help, often do notknow how to respond or fear being drawn into the struggle, and as a result feel frustrated orinadequate. They may also be reluctant to be seen as taking sides.
Many may deny that discomfort, even to themselves. Faced with conflict, they ignore it or
distance themselves from it. At best, they merely try to reduce it – to make it go away, rather
than solving it and benefiting from the results. In business settings, this denial among employees, between managers, and in the boardroom limits a company by sidetracking vision anddraining significant time and energy from accomplishing important tasks. For these people,
too, experience and confidence in the method and its process are helpful for establishingpositive expectations and patience that allows solutions to evolve.

Two Key Principles
The elements for connection embody two key principles.

Containment: The First Key Principle
Containment has two elements. The first element of containment can be described as realpresence. This is providing complete and unqualified attention to another person(s) withacceptance and lack of judgment, and such openness, empathy, and receptivity so as to beavailable for surprises, wonder, and the miraculously creative. This presence is not about saying or doing any right thing, but about your way of being.
Containment involves accepting who that person is, what they have done or are doing, andwhat they are saying. Just simply listen. It is not necessary that you agree with them or allow
them to be destructive – only that you accept them as one human with another. Every humanbeing has a story to tell that is worthy of this commitment.
The second element of containment is putting aside defenses, judgments, agendas, intentions, and other psychological obstacles in order to provide openness and real presence foranother. Our own judgments, agendas, intentions, defenses and other psychological obstacles
do not stop. We do not deny them. We observe them in a neutral fashion and without judgment, as a witness, despite the pain we may be feeling. We maintain a merciful attitude
toward our own defenses and pain, and put them to the side. In this way, we can be present
within the context of providing a spacious container for others, as well as ourselves.
I remember a saying from elementary school science – that nature abhors a vacuum andfills it. In these moments of containment, I can allow myself to be receptive, without abandoning my integrity, to provide a safe container others may fill with their truths – and when
I am really available, the miracles of the moment inevitably follow.
Compassion and empathy are also elements of containment. It is important to distinguishthem, especially when acting as a neutral third-party. Empathy is a bonding connection
around understanding and sympathy. Too much empathy, however, may be seen by otherconflict participants as biased partisanship precisely because of the connection and sympathy.

20 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Compassion has love, and, at the same time, neutrality and lack of judgment. Compassion
also requires courage because it makes us open to being hurt.
It is also possible – and advantageous – to give one’s own self the attention and commitment of containment. I have found there is a direct relationship between my ability to hear
my own story and to meet myself with openness and presence, and my ability to provide that
presence for other people.
Containment is related to the following elements for connection: establishing a “Yes”
environment; eliminating “wrong”; understanding in depth; and, personal responsibility.

Trust: The Second Key Principle
Trust provides freedom to let go of attachments, and the presence of mind to go forward withwhatever is genuinely needed. It allows letting go of the outcome a person thinks is requiredin order to create something that is new to fill real needs. It supplies security to feel safe with
the new circumstances, to have confidence one can deal with them.
This is not a signal to abandon one’s core integrity. Healthy boundaries that acknowledge
societal limits and protect against personal abuse are important. It is a challenge not to confuse healthy with unhealthy boundaries, and to not establish the latter as excuses for avoiding
responsibility about moving forward.
Where an individual is a participant in the conflict, that person must first take responsibility for adopting containment and trust for themselves; second, gently, and without making
others “wrong,” help them adopt the elements for connection; and, third, work with them toreflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 21

solution. The situation is generally easier for an objective observer trying to resolve the conflictbecause their neutrality makes it more likely conflicting parties will listen to what they have to
say and adopt their suggestions.

Three Supporting Tools
After the director stormed out of the meeting, I struggled with my anger and frustration, andduring a difficult night managed to put it aside. The next morning, I appeared at the director’sdoor before breakfast and the day’s pressures began. I wanted to get the director away from his“safe” space, and suggested a walk. As we began, I asked the director to talk about the film.
He was not very forthcoming. Rather than immediately responding, I kept prompting him to
say more or just kept the silence. Sometimes I asked him if I understood him correctly andrestated what I thought he had said. After a while, the director admitted he thought the situation impossible, and that he feared being blamed for the inevitable fiasco.
I asked him to talk more about those fears. Then I expressed my complete confidence in the
director, and assured him he was not facing the dilemma alone. At one point, I stopped andreached out to touch the director’s arm, looked him in the eye and told him, “I will not let you
fail. This is my responsibility too. If you have any problems, you come to me and I will makeit work for you. I will not let us fail. You can do this brilliantly.”
I held the director’s eyes, and (putting aside my own large doubts) made sure the director felt
my confidence and knew I was sincere in what I was saying. Only when I saw the director’s
posture straighten did I resume walking. Then I asked the director about what had to be accomplished, and together we worked out an agenda for the day. That, however, was not the end of
the saga.
My emptiness and acceptance provided containment, and gave the director a safe place topark his panic and other anxieties. I accepted and valued him, as well as what he had to accomplish, what he was saying, and what he was feeling but not saying.
The way I said what I did was as important as what I said. In a non-directed way I encouraged the director to say more about his concerns. By making eye
Those in conflict want,contact, I communicated vulnerability and caring. I gave him
opportunity
to get his opinions, evaluations, and agendas out ofsometimes desperately,
the way, so he was available to listen with openness. I tried to demto feel supported, that
onstrate honest and heartfelt acceptance of the director, recognition
their needs are recognized, of his needs, and support on his own terms.
I thought a long time before making a promise that I would “notand that those needs
let us fail.” First, people will intuitively know if promises like thisare less than genuine; and, second, a situation can easily get out ofwill be met.
control if a promise like this is not kept. In addition, I consciously
referred to “us” to emphasize I regarded the two of us as a team. I meant that he could counton me despite my own doubts about the situation.
It was only when I saw his posture change that I knew he had successfully adopted his new
resolution. Physical changes – such as straightened posture, quieting of hand gestures (or thereverse where there were none), muscle changes around the eyes or mouth, and alterations inskin color – often signal internal changes. Physical manifestations may, of course, signal deepening anger or resistance, and it is important to check on what is being perceived.
Those in conflict want, sometimes desperately, to feel supported, that their needs are recog-

22 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

nized, and that those needs will be met. They are likely to be feeling unheard, unappreciatedor unrecognized, or some combination of two or all three of them. These “un-feelings” may
be feeding one on another, becoming self-fulfilling prophesies that isolate, build walls, andmake meaningful communication more difficult. One way to help break down these walls is
to be with the person in complete containment. “Deep listening”
is, in fact, one of three supporting tools I used to actualize theDeep listeners adopt
two key principles of “containment” and “trust,” to help estaban “eager to hear” nonlish the “elements for connection” and to make sure the director
judgmental presence.
heard what I was saying.

Deep Listening

This is about the speaker,
and attention should be
100% on the speaker.

Deep listening is an important component of containment. Thisis more than listening with understanding to what another person has to say, though that is an important part of it.
Deep listeners adopt an “eager to hear” non-judgmental presence. This is about the
speaker, and attention should be 100% on the speaker. Do not advocate any position or try
to change the position of the speaker. Everything the speaker says is correct from the speaker’s
point-of-view. Therefore, since s/he is not “wrong,” there is no reason to change her positions.
This level of attention is also the secret for discovering real-needs. People will tell you theirtruths if you create the climate in which they can safely do it. We can only discover real-needsfrom the person. We cannot imagine or research what they might be for another because wecannot truly imagine their internal process.
If the other person is playing games, nothing happens. But, in many instances, opennesschanges other people in the room. Amazing personal truths are often revealed – deep truths
people hide even from themselves until the moment they are spoken.
There are many approaches that support the deep listening process. I offer two – andunderline the importance of maintaining the appropriate underlying attitude that gives them
integrity. Mere techniques that emphasize just saying the “right thing” are empty games that
may only exacerbate a problem.
One, ask only open-ended questions. Simply asking a person to “Say more,” invites the
person speaking to go deeper into the well of her being to discover unrealized truths, fromher point of view, about the subject. A listener’s accepting presence makes this safe. Openended questions allow people to structure answers in their own way, with honesty, and theanswers often contain content that even surprises the speaker. Examples of open-ended questions include, “Say more about that?” and “I thought you said ‘brightness,’ and I am not surewhat you mean by that?” Do not ask loaded questions designed to make a point or lead theconversation. “Why?” is not an open-ended question.
Two, mirror understanding back to the speaker, specifically asking the speaker to correct
anything that might be wrong. The listener should state her understanding of what has beensaid. She might, for example, begin by saying, “I want to make sure I am understanding you.
Please tell me if I am correct.” Then in as much detail as possible state her understanding ofwhat the person said. In describing her understanding, a listener may include any unstatedemotional content they perceived in what the person said. Growing awareness of emotional
content provides a doorway for the speaker to go deeper beneath the surface. Do not color
what the speaker has said. Deep listeners have no agenda. At the end of her summary, thelistener should again invite the speaker to make any corrections.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 23

Mirroring creates connection, reinforces the fact that the listener understands what the
speaker is saying and that she cares, and, importantly, helps the speaker consciously hear
what s/he is saying and place it in context.
It may be necessary to periodically interrupt the speaker when the listener has filled her or
his capacity to hold information. For example, “I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to makesure I am understanding you correctly. Correct me if I don’t have this right.” Then she relates
her understanding of what the speaker said.

Blame-Free Language
Take blame out of the discussion. There are many ways to approach this, including the following:• 	Avoid language with express or implied blame. Take personal responsibility. What somepeople call “’I’ statements” are helpful. An example of blame-free language is, “I felt
angry when you said I ruined your day.” The speaker is assuming responsibility for her
reaction; there is no accusation that the other person said anything wrong or was
responsible for making the speaker angry. “You embarrassed me when you flirted at the
party” is an example of a statement with blame. This is hard; there is much that could
be said on this subject.
• 	No matter how bad things seem, find some good and build on that. Things cannot get
good from bad. They can only get better if they are already good. In other words, fromthe perception of bad, circumstances can only get worse, and they can get better only
from the perception that they are already good. There is at least a kernel of good ineverything – find it and build on it.
Some people believe others know the good and only need to hear the critical, “to help them
improve.” This is a myth. In truth, many people focus too much on their negatives and failto appreciate their strengths.

Component Solutions
Break the big problem into its simplest component parts. One issue is that people become
confused by the complexity of large problems. Another issue is that they often approach
problems from different points of view, and the more complicated the problem, the more
likely this will be true. It is much easier to get agreement around simple issues. Then build thesimple agreements into an approach to the whole. Give people something to rally around.
Get agreement on a simple agenda of tasks to be accomplished within a short time. It iseasy to be overwhelmed by everything that must be accomplished. I had the director, forexample, speak about everything that had to be completed, but only set the agenda for thatday, and had the director commit to that.
It is feasible to begin the conflict solution process at the moment the parties are willing totalk about anything – the weather, baseball, anything. In the process of talking, it is practicable to cultivate “real listening,” and amazing things can grow with real listening. I believe
it is true, as some people say, that true conflict resolution becomes possible when the parties
commit to changing their situation. But there is much a neutral third-party and those in conflict can do to facilitate reaching that point, whether with individuals or groups.
Working with conflicting groups presents additional challenges, including the following:First, in addition to the members and representatives, groups and factions within them eachhave their own collective consciousness, which must be dealt with at the table. Second, mem-

24 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

bers may have merged their individual identities with the group’s, and be fixed on theirinterpretation of the group’s identity. Third, thegroup may not have a coherent vision, and may
not be able to move forward. Fourth, the superficial issues on the table may be the only things
giving the group its sense of cohesion. Fifth, theleaders may be answerable to incompatible factions and unable to commit to agreements. It is,therefore, crucial that all stakeholders participate in the process. One of the first tasks for a
person attempting to resolve conflict withgroups may be to help each group build a clear
agenda of real-needs.
Long-standing conflicts may present deeper
anger, hatred and other hostile feelings, andthere may be a history of violence that has
exacerbated problems. These circumstances
will require more containment and tolerance
for anxiety – and, certainly, a great deal morepatience. While it may take longer to reachsolution, the system for solution remains,regardless of the location, nature, stakes, orbasis of the conflict.

Conflict Rewards
After the early morning walk, the director’scooperation and working good will immediately improved. He met challenges and deadlines, and he was able to innovate some creative
solutions. He also allowed me to meet time and budget challenges in unusual and risky ways.
But the director was not through.
Approximately ten days later, the director came with another crisis. He feared audiences
would not understand the dialogue of a little girl who was one of the film’s stars. The director demanded immediate action, and challenged me to pick one of the solutions he proposed– all well beyond the picture’s modest budget and time constraints. I knew the dialogue was
not a problem, and suggested we invite an audience of friends to see the film. The director
agreed.
The audience had no difficulty understanding the star, and that crisis ended. The cumulative weight of events gave the director confidence that I would honor his needs. He began toaccept my evaluations of problems that arose, and walked away satisfied when I, for example, said something was not worth worrying about. This was, indeed, the end of the conflicts,
but not the story.
Throughout my experience with the director, I utilized the “elements for connection” tocreate an environment and relationship of containment and trust, and to defuse repeatedactual and potential conflicts with the director:

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Pauker 25

Establishing an environment of “Yes.” I said “yes” to the director’s real-needs without saying“no” to everything else. Early in our process together I recognized the director’s real-needs
were to have his creativity appreciated, and not to be blamed when things did not work. I
could easily say “yes” to those needs. Other things dropped away naturally in the “yes”
environment because real-needs were distinguished from apparent ones.
Relating with acceptance and non-judgment I related with acceptance however unrealistic
his demands or outrageous his behavior. In addition, “no” was not my first reaction. I did
not, for example, say the star’s dialogue could be understood; instead, I honored the director’s
concerns, because they were real and deeply felt for the director, and I proposed a solutionthat would help the director see the truth.
Adopting personal responsibility for actions I put aside my own considerable anger andfrustration to work with the director in good spirit, and honored the director’s feelings. Afterthe director stormed out of the meeting, I set aside my own reactions. I went to see the director with good will, understanding and concrete support to assuage the director’s panic.
Taking “wrong” out of the equation I treated the director and his demands with respect,even when I thought them outrageous. I never blamed the director for anything, even in
response to the director’s blame of me.
Instilling trust in the process. I trusted that events would develop in the right way if I conducted my relationship with the director appropriately. This confidence was subliminallycommunicated to the director. As events developed, the director’s confidence in me grew, andhe could trust that his real-needs would be satisfied. This allowed the director to move forward with whatever was needed, even some things that were innovative and risky.
Basing solutions on satisfying real-needs. By honoring the director’s demands, I opened thedoor to helping the director discover the difference between his real-needs and apparent
needs. I worked to satisfy the director’s real-needs, and the director was satisfied even though
they were usually not met the way the director expected.
Understanding in depth. I took the director aside, away from the work environment, to listen
to the director’s deepest concerns and fears. Having those on the table enabled me to makereal contact and begin the process of building the director’s confidence in me and his trust in
the process.
Distinguishing “what’s” and “how’s.” The director voiced concern about audiences not understanding a star’s dialogue, and proposed solutions based on the worst possibilities. I recognized muddled dialogue as a what. I broke this what into component issues, and looked tofulfill each with a how related to that step. First, was there really a problem? Second, if there
was, in fact, a problem what was its nature and how bad was it? Third, if the problem werereal I knew its nature and severity would help shape a practical solution. In this case theapparent concern dissolved by answering the first issue – I solved the problem by demonstrating there was no problem.
As a result, I avoided escalating conflicts and paralysis of the project. Instead, I engendered
reduction of interpersonal tension and drama, creative solutions to problems, a better product,
improved relationships, and successful achievement of time and budget goals.

26 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

Conclusion
I believe that in our deepest heart we do not want to live with conflict – regardless of theinternal voices that may justify our positions. I am discovering that as human beings we seek
harmony, and that it is our nature to love. Though I cannot prove this – yet – it is a question
I look forward to exploring in the context of developing more complete approaches to solving
conflicts.
In this instance…
Many things opened for the work on the picture as tensions eased. Three will serve as
examples. First, the director completed his editing work a week early; this was a tremendous
financial benefit, and I immediately realized his willingness to let go of his “baby” was areflection of the comfort and safety he felt in his working climate. Second, the director andproducer executed a new ending economically and in record time, and this gave a nice emotional lift to the film. Third, during sound mixing, which
was in a distant city, two major crises arose, and the
Recommended Reading
director’s response in each instance was to tell me he hadfrom David Pauker
complete faith in whatever resolutions I developed. He wastruly happy and confident in his work; so was I – and so
Solving Tough Problems
Adam Kahane
were the people around us.
(Berrett-Koehler, 2005)
The director delivered the picture on time and within
By examining tough questions related to his own
budget. The director and I remained friendly, had dinnerpersonal process and some of the difficult problems
occasionally, and then drifted apart. The studio and everywith which he has worked, Kahane provides insight andone else involved with the film agreed that keeping theinteresting perspective relating to what I would describe
director had resulted in the best possible motion picture.
as connection, containment, and compassion. I think it
a brave book in many ways.
And that is the end of the story.
A b o ut the A uth o rDavid B. Pauker is a negotiator and mediator with more than
25 years’ experience in the United States and internationally.
He is licensed to practice law in California, Illinois, Florida, andbefore the United States Supreme Court. He has a Mastersof Law in both International Law and Intellectual Property Law
from The George Washington University in Washington D.C., a
J.D. from Northwestern, and an AB in Psychology with Honors
from Stanford. He has published articles on mediation andnegotiation, co-authored an early and often cited web site
about domain names and trademarks, and taught an on-line
course on Internet legal issues for Marlboro College. Recently,
Mr. Pauker served as Executive Director of the non-profit
Coalition to Advance Prescription Drug Education [CARxE].
dpauker@conflictalchemy.com
Endnotes
1 Mary Parker Follett, an early 20th Century industrial psychologist, spoke about the benefits of friction and the violin
analogy almost a hundred years ago.

reflections.solonline.org

Nonviolent Communication
Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
(Puddle Dancer Press, 2003)
Rosenberg advocates language as a tool to put aside
our own charge and make a heartful and compassionate connection with others. The meat here is aboutreconnecting with our natural compassionate natureacross words and language. His points are of real use.
Some people I know have become hung up by focusing
on the language, and I do not believe this is
Rosenberg’s point. If nothing else, go into a bookstore
and read Arun Gandhi’s Foreward.
Crucial Conversations
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan & Switzler(McGraw-Hill, 2002)
Here is presented the value of keeping communication
open and continuing – you cannot win if you stoptalking. The book lays out helpful approaches toovercoming what the authors see as patterns and traps
in the ways we communicate. I like that it takes fearout of approaching important interactions.

Feature n Pauker 27

F E AT U R E 8 . 1

Learning Together for Good
Decision Making
A talk by Arie de Geus, Paris, January 2006

A

Arie de Geus

fter thirty years with Shell, I found myself in a position of great luxury: I had a budget of several million pounds sterling and fifty of Shell’s most talented brains at mydisposal. At that point in my career I also had a whole series of questions for which
I didn’t really have answers. What I would like to do now is to revisit with you the search forsome of the answers during these last seven or eight years at Shell.
I would like to share with you how we gradually became convinced of the fundamental
importance to human life of what we call “learning,” as well as the importance of “learning
together” for corporate life. And since this is a talk before a French public, I ask myself
whether I should not begin in a good Cartesian manner by posing the question of definition:
What is the definition of learning? And what is more, what does this mean: learning together?

What is Learning?
As soon as we hear the word “learning,” we think of school. We are conditioned to thinkthat “after school, we stop learning and start work,” as if we are dealing with two different
phases of our life.
But even at work – in our companies – learning is linked with the word “training”; andtraining has the same association as the word “school,” meaning that some superior beingtries to convey its knowledge to less knowledgeable beings: “filling heads.” Is this learning?
The answer to this question is clearer in English than in Dutch:
In Dutch, my mother tongue, we have the verb leren, like in German (lernen), and thatverb can be used in two ways: a student learns (leert, to speak French), but also the teacher(leert, the pupil to speak French). This usage of the verb is possible in Dutch, but impossible
in English. The English language, quite correctly, knows that “to teach” and “to learn” aretwo completely different things.
Not only that, but many studies have shown that the action of teaching is highly ineffective: approximately 25% of what is taught is retained. Therefore, in the 45 minutes that
follow, it does not make much difference whether I speak or not! You won’t learn all thatmuch.
Of course, everyone, when pushed, arrives very quickly at the fundamental conclusion that
we do not learn only in situations where someone is teaching us. On the contrary, we learn
continually throughout our lives – learning is the fundamental process for organizing andleading life as a human being.
We found confirmation of this thesis in numerous academic authorities. For example, theSwiss psychologist Piaget wrote that “Intelligence plays the central role in the life of an organism.” And for me, an organism is not only a human individual; it can also be a society, acompany, or any other type of human organization.

28 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

In Business: Learning = Decision Making
Within organizations we do not call this fundamental process of life “learning”; we call it
decision making. And it plays the central role in the life of Shell, just as it does in the life of
every organization. Therefore, is it not surprising that so little has been written about theprocess of decision making (as distinct from writings about numerical- decision techniques)?
Little is described, or defined, or researched. What is, gives the impression that the essential
part of decision making is “having ideas.” When most people say “decision making,” they
seem to think solely of the production of an idea. They give little thought to “how it is done,”or to the issue of what happens after the idea has been produced.
Twenty years ago, in Shell, we decided to examine this question more deeply. We wanted
to elucidate it, and we asked ourselves the question: what happens between the first appearance of an item on the directors’ agenda and the operational implementation of the solution
to the question posed?
In business, only action matters. What happens between the first observation, “there is aproblem and we should do something about it,” and the moment when an action is executedand finalized? Looking around, we perceived that there were two types of decisions:•	Simple decisions, which we have called routine decisions (knowledge at our disposal)• Decisions requiring changes in the internal structure of a business, about which there
were endless discussions, and which appeared and disappeared from the directors’
agenda. Furthermore, the time it took to execute such decisions was protracted because
new ideas and internal change are required.
To give you a concrete example, our industry underwent an oil supply crisis in the early
1970s, linked to an embargo on the exports of Arab countries. The resulting shortage of oilin the developed world led to a vigorous exploration for new reserves in Alaska and in the
North Sea. The result of these policies was that production centers were now closer to con-reflections.solonline.org

Feature n de Geus 29

sumption centers. Previously, 200,000-ton tankers had taken three weeks to arrive in Europe
from the Arabian Gulf. Now we had crude oil at our disposal only 48 hours away from theconsumption centers.
At this time, Shell was the largest ship owner in the world. Its ships were better painted
than its rivals and its uniforms were the most handsome among all the commercial fleets.
At the end of the 1970s, it was clear that adaptations to our proud fleet were a necessity.
This example is an illustration of the second type of decision. We had to alter fundamentallythe structure of Shell Tankers: reduce the number of ships, change the tonnage, adapt thecharter contracts, etc. It showed us that the delay between decision making of this type andits execution varies from a minimum of 18 months to ten years. This type of decision, thatof internal structural adaptation, demands a lot of time and causes a lot of trouble. It is distressing and emotions are involved, but these decisions are vital for the company and delay
can have dramatic consequences: in the case of the tanker fleet, it cost Shell a lot of moneyover ten years.
Apart from a clearer view on the nature of decisions, the research also allowed us toobserve that what happens between the first appearance of an item on the directors’ agenda
and the operational implementation of the solution to the question posed is basically a social
process. There is no Descartes there. It is a process of people who talk, and talk, and talk – informal and in informal meetings, around the water cooler, or during working lunches, andthey will discuss it over and over and over.

How Are Decisions Made?
These observations on the nature of decisions and their process are in conflict with the folklore of the business world. The folklore tells us that decisions are made by all those (greyhaired, and mostly) men sitting around a long table, applying their accumulated knowledge, and then explaining their ideas to the rest of the organization and asking the rest to
execute quickly and intelligently what had just been explained to them. However, what we
found was that decision making was not so much the application of existing knowledgebut, rather, the search for new knowledge – especially in the case of decisions on structuralchange in response to a changed world. This finding made it possible to arrive at a description
as follows:
Decision making consists of trying to find, as a group – in a social and language-based
process – new solutions for new situations. These solutions should give the group ofdecision makers a sufficient amount of confidence to dare to implement them.
You will not be surprised if I tell you that as soon as we speak of “new solutions for new
situations,” very quickly the hypothesis emerges that decision making is a learning process.
This hypothesis was confirmed when we consulted Jean Piaget, who recognizes the sameprocesses in children’s learning that we had found at Shell: routine and non–routine.
A child encounters a situation that requires a decision and an action. As a general rule, she
has the resources and the structures to face it. But there are situations where she must learn
to find totally new answers to wholly new situations. This is the case when a child finds
herself in an external world for which she does not have the internal structures permitting her
to respond routinely.
Those of you who are parents will understand this very well. As soon as your child reaches school age and you take her from home to school for the very first time, you completely

30 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

change her exterior world: all of a sudden the child finds herself in a different world fromthat of the kitchen. She finds herself in a world where everything is unknown and in which
she is unable to respond because she does not (yet) have the necessary structures in her head.
This makes for a rapid learning process by “accommodation,” rather than by “assimilation.”
The analogy between the example of the child and the example of Shell’s fleet of tankers
is clear. Our hypothesis (that there is an analogy between decision making and learning) presented us with an enormous advantage. Effectively, if there are few things written on decision
making, there is a great deal of literature on learning. It was not, therefore, necessary toinvent the wheel. At Shell, the hypothesis helped us to greatly reduce the eighteen-month gap
between the first recognition of a problem and the execution of its solution, because thehypothesis opened several important prospects:
1. First of all, the physicist David Bohm’s works on dialog.
2. Much later, our hypothesis found an echo in the works of a strange person, Austrian byorigin and professor at Cambridge, UK: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He said two things thatwere important for us: “If you don’t have words, you cannot know” and “Language
creates reality.” Thus, for example, if the language you use is an accounting language,
you will create a numerical accounting reality of your business. If the language isanthropological, you will create a (human) community. But if you do not have a word
for it, you cannot talk about it with your fellow decision makers: as a group you cannot
know for which you have no word. Thus, the second prospect revealed the role of language in decision-making processes.
3. Non-routine decisions are the most dangerous and the most necessary and they seem totake an awful long time. So, quite early on, we came to the question: if there is an analogy between decision making and learning, is it possible to learn more quickly? Wereflections.solonline.org

Feature n de Geus 31

found an answer at the Tavistock Institute. This institute was founded in 1946 by themen who had worked for several years on one of the most important learning exercisesin the history of humanity: the training of a million men and women for a mission oflife or death: the Allied invasion of France in 1944.
The Tavistock people had (re-)discovered that to learn more quickly, you had to learn byplay. Today we talk about “experiential learning” but I prefer to say “learning by play.” The
Tavistock team had been influenced by a London psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott, who had
worked on the role of play in child learning. Winnicott made several important observations:•	Playing is universal.
•	Playing facilitates the development of the group and permits a form of communicationthat leads to better relations inside the group.
• When we play, we play with something that Winnicott calls a “transitional object”: inother words, a toy. When your daughter plays with a doll, she invests (part of) her reality into the doll: the doll becomes her baby-brother, or her teacher. While playing withthe doll she will test this representation of her reality and test her own relationships
with it.
•	Playing thus means: “experimenting with a representation of reality.” The advantage ofplaying is that you do not have to be afraid of the consequences. When the girl playswith her doll saying that it is her little brother, her mother does not have to jump allover her if she turns the doll’s head around 360°. Playing with a representation of reality is, from this point of view, clearly superior to playing with reality itself.

Management’s “Teddy Bear”
Winnicott’s observations should not be a surprise to most business people. In the world of
business, the majority of our learning processes happen while playing. First, we create a toy.
We create a model of a possible offshore oil platform and put it in a model of the North Sea.
We then give it to fifty engineers for two years so they can try to destroy it in every way
imaginable before it is scaled up and installed in the real North Sea. Whether in productdevelopment or in process development, whether in the lab or in the office, in business wenearly always learn by play – by experimenting with a representation of reality.
Except in management. In management we learn by experimenting with reality itself! We
call a young woman with potential and send her to Kenya to become Marketing Manager.
There, as soon as she arrives at work on Monday, she finds herself among a team of directors
who with the use of language, begin to play with reality itself. The problem is that, playing
with reality calls forth fear as the emotion at the base of our decision making process. Feardominates thought processes and discussions, and fear has well–known consequences. Whenfear is the basic emotion, everybody stays cautiously on the middle ground: for instance, wewill prefer decisions made in the past, under conditions more or less similar, which worked
more or less well.
On the other hand, in play, the deepest emotion is fun. We laugh a lot, we say inexplicablethings, and we try everything. I once saw a team trying to destroy its own business in agame.
In our research at Shell, we tried to find the “management teddy bear,” the representationof the managerial reality with which a team could play without having to fear the conse-

32 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

quences – thus to try to transform thedecision process into play. We foundthis toy in the era of the computer: it
was at this time that we began working with MIT, Peter Senge, Seymour
Papert, and others.
When we conducted our firstexperiments with this idea of transforming the decision–making process
into play, we observed that the gap
between perception of a problem andaction had been divided by three: six
months instead of eighteen!
Without much doubt, these experiments also led to the improvement of
the quality of decisions. Although wewere never able to prove this: a decision-making process cannot be repeated scientifically. Managers did tellus though, that play allowed them tofind the better decisions, but we canonly take their word for it.
Obviously, there were reactions
from some colleagues. For many ofthem it was already difficult to digest
the hypothesis that decision making
equals learning. To then say that thislearning improves by play amounted
to adding insult to injury.
Not surprisingly, we found ourselves sometimes facing the attitude:“I became CEO or member of theBoard and you are telling me that when I make a decision, it is because of a social learning
process – and that it means talking, talking, and more talking… And at the same time you
are telling me that I would do much better if I transformed the whole process into play?”

The Use of Human Talents in Today’s World
What we learned so many years ago carries an even greater importance in today’s “Knowledge
Society.” I define a knowledge society as one in which the success of a business depends on
the human talents at its disposal and the manner in which management makes them work
together; capital and machines are no longer critical success factors.
Over the last decade or two, the winners in Fortune’s list of largest businesses (Fortune500), the ones that are gradually creeping higher and higher, are computer, software andpharmaceutical companies, consulting and law firms, etc. – companies whose success is
uniquely attributable to the human element.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n de Geus 33

Even in sectors like the oil industry or the automobile industry, where steel still visibly
dominates, it has become clear through the years that a difference in success is more and more
linked to the human element. Toyota alone makes more profit than the three American automobile companies (General Motors, Chrysler, Ford) and Volkswagen combined. For thirty
years, Toyota has had a policy of learning for everyone down to the assembly line.
I remember my visit to a Toyota factory. There were not very many people on the line,
everything was done by robots. But at the end of the line, for the final assembly, there werea dozen very active people. I asked the question: what is required to have a job here? And I
remember the response of the Japanese engineer who accompanied me during the visit: “Ah,”he said, “To work here, we require a minimum of 16 years of formal education.”
It is necessary to add that every Monday these well-educated people had a two-hour meeting to discuss what had happened the week before. Also, they had formal authority to takeinitiatives, to make improvements up-stream and downstream from their workstation, andthey had done so for 30 years. In the end, this accumulated learning makes a profit greaterthan that of General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and Volkswagen combined!
So, to summarize, I would say that a good decision is one that mobilizes all the people whoare necessary for the action of implementation in that process which is at the root of businesslife: learning and learning together.
At this point, obviously, you are probably thinking of your own organization and you are
beginning to lose hope. To give you a little courage, I would like to add that there are businesses that are structured to allow “learning together” to happen – businesses that have alegal structure like a club, a cooperation, or a partnership. In these structures, it is impossible
to concentrate power in the top and decisions have to be submitted to the approval and discussion of all members. The following are four examples of important businesses that are
successful in their domain:•	One of the most important (and fastest growing) companies in Spain is a Basque cooperative: Mondragon. All the decisions are made in a democratic meeting of the members.
•	The only bank in the world with an AAA rating is the cooperative Dutch bank, Rabobank.
•	One of the most successful consultants in the world is McKinsey. In this firm, all thesenior partners are members of a “trust” and have to consult together before making
important decisions.
•	And Visa International, possibly the most successful commercial enterprise in the worldof the last 25 years, should not be overlooked. It is a club with a Constitution thatspecifically prevents power from being concentrated.
These examples should help to understand that there are ways to overcome the resistance thatundoubtedly exists, notably in limited liability companies, to extend the number of participants in the decision making processes – to move from learning to “learning together.”

Learning Together
Not every company can change its legal structure into a cooperative or a club. So the question
remains: how can we create the conditions in an existing business or organization to distribute the power and the process of decision making, without running the risk of an untimely(re-)concentration of authority at the highest levels? How does one get to decision making bylearning together?

34 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

In thinking about this, we need to consider the following: learning is risky, because in the
majority of human communities it is dangerous to admit that you don’t know something.
People pretend to know the answers and as long as there is a pretense to know, learning will
not begin. In order to make learning possible, a work community with high levels of trust
must be created. It is a little like playing in a good soccer team: a player will not be afraid tomake a mistake because he knows that the ten others will support him and “cover” his back(rather than putting a knife into it).
Biology indicates to us the conditions which allow us to create these levels of trust:• 	The community must have a very high level of cohesion: they hang together• 	The community must have a strong sense of identity: they share values and recognize
each other• 	The community must have continuity over time: the young members must know that
one day they will take over from the older members
Where to start building this coherence and identity? I believe posing the following question
can make for a useful beginning: “Who is “us” in our company?”
When the CEO speaks in the first person plural, who is he talking about? Generally, weare very imprecise. I once asked the director of a retail group this question. “When you say“us,” do you mean everyone who is on the payroll?” And he responded,“Obviously not.”“Who is not “us,” in your company?”“There’s these women.”By “these women,” he meant all the cashiers who came in part-time on Saturdays. They
were the only people in direct contact with the clientele, but they weren’t “us”!
If, in a business, “us” is only top management, or if, in an Anglo-American company, “us”
is only the stockholders, you can be sure that all those who don’t belong to the “us” have
known this for a long time! And they will not have much reason to invest themselves in thecompany.
If the “not us” are a substantial proportion of your human community, your business will
not go far. However, the reverse is equally true. Remember the work of Collins and Porras:
Built to Last. The businesses that paid attention to this “us” made fifteen times more profit
over sixty years than the average American business for the same period. Fortune magazine
publishes the list of the 100 companies where it is good to work. The life expectancy of thebest of these firms is 85 years, whereas the average life expectancy of American companies is
20 years.
To conclude, I would like to say that learning together brings you a great deal. And theprice is worth the trouble
A b o ut the A uth o rs

Arie de Geus worked for the Shell Group for 38 years. Since leaving, he has been active as an
author. His publications include an influential article “Planning as Learning” (Harvard Business
Review,1988), and The Living Company (Harvard Business School Press, 1997), which was named
one of the top ten business books by Business Week.
ariedeg@aol.com
This article has been translated and edited from the original, which appeared in Cahiers de SoL France in January, 2007.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n de Geus 35

emerging knowledge forum

Developing High Potential Leaderswith Strategy Cafés
Jim Myracle & Diane Oettinger
We have been engaged indesigning and delivering customized leadership development programs for a number of clients. In reflecting
on these programs we havenoticed some common themesin the desired outcomes.
This article discusses how
Jim Myracle
we have approached delivering these outcomes throughsystems thinking, and specifically how we have
employed a variant of the“World Café” method weterm the Strategy Café.
The companies we discuss are all large, multiDiane Oettinger
business unit organizations.
The participants identified for these programs arehigh potential employees designated as having thecapability to rise to the most senior levels of theircompanies within two to five years. Given the diverse
participant backgrounds, the desire to expand theirknowledge base to enable success at elevated levelsin the company, and a desire to strengthen corporate
affiliation, clients have been interested in building acommon foundation with respect to company history, culture and values. They are also interested inbuilding a broad business perspective, including
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats tomarkets, services and products.
Since these elements involve intimate knowledgeof the company, we believe it is imperative that
senior executives, including the CEO and direct
reports, be engaged in the activities. Active participa-

36 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1tion by senior level managers demonstrates commitment to the program, gives the participants anopportunity for dialogue on important subjects in a“safe” setting, and gives the senior leaders an opportunity to view the participants in new, non-routine
situations. In addition, the open exchanges offer theopportunity to ensure alignment between senior andmid-level leaders on new ideas, perspectives, andapproaches. This also tends to strengthen affiliation
with the company on the part of participants. Seniorlevel involvement requires that the program be held
near the offices of the executives to facilitate effective use of their time.
Clients also want the participants to build a collegial network of relationships that will last beyond
the program, so that the participants can depend oneach other for advice, support, and cooperation as
their careers progress. Assigning a challenging project for the sub-groups to complete during the week
is particularly effective in building these relationships as it provides opportunities for both socialization and accomplishing goals together.

Macro Design
These leadership development programs involve up
to 20 participants and are usually multi-week (twoto four) spread over the course of a year. To maintaincontinuity between these weeks, connecting activities
are included that require ongoing application of concepts and interaction between the participants. A
typical week begins with a get-together on Sunday
evening and runs through mid-day Friday. Since history, culture, and broad business perspective serve as
the common foundation from which additional
learning is built, these topics are addressed duringreflections.solonline.org

the first week, specifically Monday, Tuesday, andFriday. The Wednesday and Thursday segments areused for skill-building courses in areas deemed
important to future success; typically relationshipcentered leadership (Emotional Intelligence) andincreased financial literacy. A design for week one isshown in Figure 1. These courses are custom tailoredto suit the client’s needs and are delivered by facilitators with expertise specific on these topics.
The red thread that ties together the individual
course modules is the evening group work. Preassigned teams collaborate nightly to resolve thechallenges assigned on Monday and Tuesday.
Participants are expected to actively share knowledge from their different skill sets and company
vantage points. They improve their work each evening by incorporating relevant portions of the day’s
learning into their final recommendations. The participants cross the goal line on Friday morning withteam presentations demonstrating their learning as
both teams and individuals. In contrast to leadershipdevelopment experiences in which only one or two
attendees from a company attend along with participants from a mix of other companies, this design
enables a critical mass of participants to bring theirlearning back to the company, create internal partners that help to keep it alive, and avoids a pitfall of
external programs, namely the “only you heard it
and no one else cares” syndrome.

Detailed Design
Monday begins with a Timeline exercise, which
serves multiple purposes. In addition to the inclusive
nature of the assignment it jump-starts the relationship formation process, especially among participants unfamiliar with one another. It also forms theplatform for the company history and culture modules that follow. The Timeline exercise is relatively
simple, only requiring the preparation of 4 by 20
foot long banner, as shown in Figure 2.
The participants are asked to think about signifi-

Figure 1: Typical Design for Week One

SundayMorning

Time

Tuesday

Timeline

1st
Presentation
to Senior
Panel

The Business
we are in

Afternoon
Evening

MondayStrategy Café
Welcoming
Activities /Socialreflections.solonline.org

Group Work

Cultureand
ValuesGroup Work(as scheduledby the teams)

WednesdayThursdayFriday2ndPresentation to
Senior Panel

CustomCourseWork

CustomCourseWork

Group Work(as scheduled by theteams)

Group Work(as scheduledby the teams)& Closing
DinnerReflections andClosing

EKF ■ Myracle, Oettinger 37

Figure 2: Timeline Exercises
Today

Future1960

1990

cant company or personal career events, accomplishments, and changes. Using materials such as
construction paper, scissors, and markers, the participants are asked to create milestones documenting
the events, and to post them on the timeline. The
participants are typically very tentative at the beginning. Once a few of the extroverts begin to write,
cut, and post, the quiet room comes alive as participants read one another’s creations and begin learning about each another. The learning process isfurther enhanced with a facilitated debrief of thecompleted timeline. One takeaway from this debrief
is recognizing the constancy of change. This realization allows participants to feel more confident intheir roles as participants in and leaders of change.
The design of the next program module depends
on the availability and capability of the senior executive team. We like to use the timeline as a backdrop
for a facilitated conversation between the participants and company leaders that considers the past as
foundation for the present day company. In addition,
this conversation can focus on good decisions, lessons learned and consistent cultural elements in thefoundation, such as integrity. This examination ofhistory ends with discussion of the present and isfollowed by senior executives using custom-designed
exercises or questions to lead an exploration into thevision for the future.

Strategy Café
The purpose of the Strategy Café is to engage theparticipants in defining and analyzing the current
business situation through a process of strategic

38 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

2006thinking and dialog. This analysis will be usedthroughout the week to create a strategic definitionof the business, a collective vision of success anddescriptions of their future roles in ensuring success.
The café leads to evening team work and team presentations on days two and five to senior executives,
creating raison d’être for full individual engagement
and competitive spirit among the teams. The Strategy
Café consists of five parts: (1) pre-work, (2) the
Café, (3) evening team dialog, (4) first presentation
to senior executives, and (5) second presentation tosenior executives.
A pre-work assignment is provided to the participants a month prior to arrival. The participants are
asked to invest the equivalent of up to a day collecting and assimilating facts and trend data in one ofthree strategic areas important to the company’s current internal or external environment, i.e. people andorganization. Every attempt is made to get a balanced number of participants investigating eacharea. They are provided with examples, thoughtstarters and forms to record the information.
The Strategy Café begins Monday afternoon andjust as with any café, environment contributes toexperience. It is important to create a setting that
supports the mindset desired for the exercise. It isalso important to indicate immediately that something different is about to take place that in turn
encourages participants to think differently. For one
client, we chose to create a café that symbolized
elevating perspectives, innovation, free expression
and learning through practice. The room was decorated to resemble the artists square at Montmartre,reflections.solonline.org

Paris. Montmartre is the highest elevation in Paris,
where it is possible to look out and survey the Cityof Lights complete with the Eiffel tower. On the way
to the artists square in Montmartre one will findmimes entertaining through pantomime. In thesquare there are artists with easels using oils, watercolors, pastels and charcoal creating portraits of
tourists. Artists roam the square with scissors andcut paper silhouettes of anyone standing still.
Montmartre is alive with observation, creativity andwonder. The participants in the Strategy Café enter
the room to find three tables covered with checkered
table cloths, wine glasses and flowers in vases.
Images of Montmartre are projected on the screen.
Each table has two flip chart easels decorated withartists’ palettes and paintbrushes to simulate an artist’s easel and canvas. Smocks are available forrecorders and contributors to wear. The café openswith a description of Montmartre, its spirit of creativity, the numerous art forms created and practiced
there as well as the famous artists that once collaborated there. The metaphor facilitates the assignment
to collectively paint a holistic and realistic picture of
the current business situation that their company isexperiencing on the canvas or flip charts.
The café design incorporates three rotations orrounds to maximize participant contribution andlearning as the three topical areas assigned in the
pre-work are addressed.
In Round One of the café, participants with thesame pre-work topic meet at a table. The pre-designated table anchor – the person who stays with thetable through more than one round – identifies arecorder. The table anchor leads the participants
through a process of distilling the facts and trends
collected in the pre-work assignment. As each participant reviews their facts and trends the recorderbuilds a consolidated list on a flip chart. When thefacts and trends are exhausted, the table anchor will
review the consolidated list with the table. The participants are asked to state the business issues andopportunities that can be drawn from the facts andtrends. The participants are asked to minimize analytical discussion of the information at this pointreflections.solonline.org

although questions for understanding are encouraged. Instead, they are asked to think about “Whatkey issues and opportunities for the business andorganization are suggested by the data” and write
their thoughts on post-it notes in the form of “Howwill we…” questions. They are also encouraged tokeep a rapid pace as they are given about sixty minutes to complete Round One.
In a pre-determined rotation pattern, most of theparticipants move to a new table (see Figure 3 for
one possible pattern). The table anchor remains at
the original table and leads a new group of participants through a review of the facts, trends, businessissues and opportunities. The new table participants
are encouraged to add their own relevant facts andtrends to the list. Again, the participants are asked tominimize discussion of the information at this point
and instead write additional “How will we…” questions. When the review has run its course the participants are directed to move to their pre-assigned
Round Three table.
In Round Three new pre-designated table anchors
identify recorders and the process conducted inRound Two is repeated. Once the review is exhausted each table begins creating their SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis fromthe list of facts and trends identified.
The Round Three table assignments become fixed
for the remainder of the Café steps. Careful examination of the Café participant rotation in Figure 3
reveals that the participants in Round Three end up
at tables with different topics than the pre-work
topic they had prepared for. This is intentional bydesign.
Leaders rarely have all of the facts, data andinformation desired prior to making important decisions. Further, they have to delegate the collection
and analysis of data to others. This leadership simulation is typically met with frustration and resistanceby the participants. Facing up to this frustration andovercoming it is usually the first step in the participants coalescing as a team.
Proper design of the participant rotation requires
careful consideration and collaboration with the cli-

EKF ■ Myracle, Oettinger 39

Figure 3: Strategy Café Design for Rounds One, Two, and Three

Strategic Area 1

Table 1

Table Anchors Participants

Round 1: P1
Round 2: P1
Round 3: P14

R1: P2 – P5
R2: P9, P10, P11, P13, P14
R3: P6, P8, P15, P16, P17

Consolidated
List of Facts& Trends
How will•we...
• How will we...
•
•
•
•

¬

Business
Issues &Opportunities
How will•we...
• How will we...
••••Strategic Area 2

Strategic Area 3

Table Anchors Participants

Table Anchors Participants

Round 1: P6
Round 2: P6
Round 3: P2

Round 1: P12
Round 2: P12
Round 3: P7

Table 2

Consolidated
List of Facts& Trends
How will•we...
• How will we...
••••R1: P7 – P11
R2: P2, P3, P15, P16, P17
R3: P4, P5, P12, P13¬

Business
Issues &Opportunities
How will•we...
• How will we...
••••ent. The key to determining the participant assignment to topics is to decide the make up of the teams
for round three first since it is the round three teams
that remain together for the duration of the week.
Once the Round Three team members are determined, a rotation plan can be designed that will
enable all participants to contribute to at least twoof the three topics; most contribute to all three andwind up at the appropriate Round Three table. It is
desirable to balance the backgrounds and skill sets ofthe participants on each team. Consideration should
also be given to the opportunities offered by the

40 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

Table 3

Consolidated
List of Facts& Trends
How will•we...
• How will we...
••••R1: P13 – P17
R2: P4, P5, P7, P8
R3: P1, P3, P9, P10, P11¬

Business
Issues &Opportunities
How will•we...
• How will we...
••••team leader roles to develop or challenge certain
participants. One should also consider the formationof key relationships that can occur as a result of participants working together for the week.
The SWOT analysis begins with instructing theparticipants to review the list of Business Issues andOpportunities. As each item is reviewed it must be
designated as a strength, weakness, opportunity or
threat. Many times participants are tempted toassign items to multiple categories. Thus, it is important to encourage the participants to continue their
discussion until they can agree on one and only one

reflections.solonline.org

category for each item. The list is then reconstructed
into the four categories as shown in Figure 4.
The participants then create additional “How will
we…” questions as shown in Figure 4 and record
them on Post-it notes. These “How will we…” questions are consolidated with the questions previously
created during rounds one, two and three.
Participants in the Café are now ready to affinity
diagram the “How will we…” questions as shown in
Figure 5. They are encouraged to continue sorting
until three to five broad affinity groups result.
At this point the assignment is given for the
Monday evening group work. The teams are instructed to go back to the facts and trends accumulated
during the Café rounds and review their work. The
groups are usually under time pressure and are unfamiliar with this process. Further, the quality of theirwork may have been affected by the sheer volume of
information delivered as well as their ability to function as a team. The review gives them a second
chance to reflect, think and learn on a deeper level

than they may have at the outset. Once they are satisfied that they have captured all of the information
available on the Business Issues and Opportunities,
generated sufficient “How will we…” questions andrepeated the affinity diagramming, the task is tocreate broad “How will we…” questions from theaffinity categories. The broad “How will we…” questions need to capture the essence of the thoughts
contained on the individual post-it notes.
These questions become the subject of the teampresentations and dialog with senior leaders the following morning. The presentation must be largely
oral, as visual aids are limited to flip charts. We want
the participants to focus their time on content andminimize time spent on form. The participants are
informed that the presentations will take place firstthing on Tuesday morning.
We have found it very beneficial to hold an information meeting with the participating senior executives in advance of the program. At this session, thesenior executives are informed of the process that the

Figure 4: SWOT Analysis

Internal

Business
Issues &Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
•

How will we overcome aweakness to take advantage of an opportunity?

External

Strengths
•
•
•
•
•

Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•

Weaknesses
•
•
•
•
•

Threats•••••

How will we leverage thisstrength to take advantageof this opportunity?

How will we overcome thisweakness to defend against
this threat?
How will we leverage astrength to defend against
a threat?
How will

How will
How will

we...

we...

we...

How will

How will
How will

we...

we...

we...

How will

How will
How will

we...

we...

we...

Record on Post-it Notes

reflections.solonline.org

EKF ■ Myracle, Oettinger 41

Figure 5: Affinity Diagramming
All the How will we...?’s from a topic are sorted
into groups bearing similarity.
How will

How will

How will
How will

How willwe...

How willwe...

How will
How will

we...

we...
How willwe...

How willwe...

How will

we...

we...

we...

How will

How will

How will
How will

How will

we...

we...

How willAffinityGroup 3

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How willwe...

How will

we...

we...

How will

How willAffinityGroup 2

we...

we...
How willAffinityGroup 1

we...

How will

we...

we...

we...

we...

we...

we...

participants will follow and they are coached on
their roles as facilitators and teachers rather than as
decision makers. The executives are also given some
practice with appreciative inquiry techniques, i.e. theeffective use of questions to stimulate dialog with theparticipants.
The remainder of Tuesday is focused on culture
and values. This module first explores culture as aleader’s greatest challenge to effectiveness as well as
their lasting organizational legacy. It next explores
the intersection of that organization’s history, culture
and values; how they affect today’s strategic, tacticaland organizational outcomes, how they will strengthen or inhibit future success, and how they may needto evolve in order to meet future demands. It probes
how multiple cultures developed within the organization, and explores how these differences can work
to strengthen or weaken the organization as a whole.
Our clients have requested that these topics betaught as part of their leadership programs. We havefound the café format to be highly effective as anauthentic way to surface and explore these deeplyinternal organizational issues. Participants are typi-

42 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1cally anxious to discuss these normally undiscussable
topics and the café format is a structured way to
exchange observations, stories and questions between
participants and across different business units.
Through these exchanges, organization-wide awareness grows and questions to consider during theevening group work emerge. Examples of “HowWill We...” questions that have emerged for further
consideration during evening work include, “Howwill we use the rock bottom foundation that binds us
together to help us succeed?,” “How will we recognize our multiple cultures and reconcile them to succeed against our strategy?”, and “How do we learn?”
The second and concluding team assignment ismade prior to closing the day on Tuesday. The
assignment involves three steps and requires thedevelopment of: (1) “Vision of Success,” (2) “We
will…” statements and (3) major strategies. To create the “Vision of Success” the teams are instructedto fast forward the calendar five years into the future
and collaboratively imagine and then describe what
their world would be like if they were able to successfully leverage the strengths and opportunities

reflections.solonline.org

and respond to the weaknesses and threats identified
earlier. This description becomes the Vision of
Success. The next step is to reflect on what theywould have to do to achieve the Vision of Success inthe form of three to five broad “We will…” statements. The final step is to agree upon major strategies and tactics necessary that could deliver the “We
will…” statements created. All of this becomes thecontent for the Friday morning presentations anddialog.
We know through observation and anecdotes thatthe participants experience significant learning andbonding throughout this process. The participants
get deeply engaged in the assignment and designing
their Friday morning presentations. They invest asignificant amount of time and are usually up late

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Diane Oettinger specializes in helping organizations
develop internal leadership and learning capabilities. An
experienced coach to individuals and teams, she has over
30 years of corporate experience in organization change
strategies and leadership development at organizations
including J.D. Penney, Merrill Lynch, and Phillip Morris,
where she was Senior Vice President of Human Resources
for PMUSA graduate of Cornell University, she serves as
adjunct faculty at the University of Richmond, Robins
School of Business Management Institute, and co-founded
and serves as president of TMT Associates.
dbo@tmtassociates.com
Jim Myracle focuses on guiding organizations in strategic
thinking, innovation, leadership and change. He has extensive strategic planning experience and has evolved an
inclusive, inquiry-based approach to planning that energizes organizational commitment. Prior to co-founding TMT
Associates, he spent 22 years at Philip Morris USA, where
he held executive positions in New Product Development,
New Technology, Quality Systems, and Strategic Planning.
A graduate of The Catholic University of America, he also

Thursday night preparing their presentations. They
always find clever ways to bend the “flip chart only”
rule for visual aids when delivering their presentations. We are always amazed at the creativity andpassion that results from this experience.
The senior executives who support the program
throughout the week are similarly affected, withmany expressing an almost speechless enthusiasm at
the quality of ideas, camaraderie and confidence
delivered by their participants. Best of all, there is
excitement that the process itself can be sustained
and spread by those who have experienced it during
the week. In addition to the individual skill-building,strategic discussions and heightened organizationalawareness, the value of questions and good conversation is a lasting takeaway for all involved.

Recommended Readingfrom Jim Myracle and Diane Oettinger
The World Café: Shaping Futures throughConversations that Matter
Juanita Brown with David Isaacs(Berrett-Koehler, 2005 )This book is a foundation reading for understanding
and structuring effective dialog processes and learning
conversations.
The Toyota Way
Jefferey Liker(McGraw-Hill, 2003)
This book examines Toyota’s relentless focus on
consumers, innovation, ongoing learning and community
responsibility.
Shaping Conversations:
Making Strategy, Managing Change
Jeanne M. Liedtka, John W. Rosenblum
California Management Review, Vol. 39,
No. 1, Fall, 1996
(Available: HBS publishing CMR071)
This article examines the connections between strategy
development, organization-wide strategic conversationand organizational adaptability to change.

serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Richmond,
Robins School of Business Management Institute.
jlm@tmtassociates.com

reflections.solonline.org

EKF ■ Myracle, Oettinger 43

B ook E xcerpt

Leadership Agility
Bill Joiner & Stephen Josephs
Jossey-Bass, 2006

Leadership Agility:

Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change
The agile organization and the learning organization have agreat deal in common. In the research we conducted for
Leadership Agility, we discovered that an integral part oforganizational, team, and leadership agility is continuous
learning and development. We discovered three additional
competencies integral to agile leadership: Context-setting
agility (scanning your environment, framing the initiatives
you need to take, and clarifying the outcomes you need toBill Joiner

achieve), stakeholder agility (engaging with key stakeholders in ways that build support for your initiatives), and creative agility (transforming the problems you encounter into
the results you need).
   Why is creativity an integral part of leadership agility?
The pace of change continues to accelerate, and everything continues to become increasingly complex and interdependent. This means that the
problems and opportunities we face are more and more “ill-structured.” That is, they havenovel elements and are subject to multiple perspectives. The most effective responses to

Stephen Josephs

these kinds of problems and opportunities are ones that utilize creative thinking.

   In our research, we found that leaders with higher levels of creative agility have an enhanced ability to make significant connections between seemingly disparate problems and possibilities. They also have a deeper appreciation of
the limitations of any one viewpoint and place greater value on problem solving processes that draw upon multiple perspectives. We also found that, while agile leaders can be quite decisive and never abdicate their decision-making
authority, they take a much more participative approach to solving problems and making decisions than their less agile
counterparts.
   Finally, we were able to identify five distinct stages or levels that managers move through in developing leadershipagility. Extrapolating from a research pool of over 600, we estimate that, so far, only about 10% of today’s managers
have developed into one of the three “post-heroic” levels of leadership agility.

Chapter One:
Agility in a Worldof Change andComplexity

Robert faced the biggest leadership challenge of his
career. An executive in a
Canadian oil corporation, he’djust been named president of its
refining and retailing company.

44 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

Competitively, his company was
positioned around the middle ofthe pack in a mature, margin-sensitive market where long-range
demand was projected to be flat.
With little to distinguish it fromother regionals, it was watchingits earnings go steadily downhill.
In fact, its future looked dismal.
Within the company, morale
was at an all-time low. People at

all levels were frustrated andunhappy. The previous president
had taken many steps to make thecompany more efficient, including
a series of layoffs, but these steps
had not produced the desired
results. The whole organization
was in a state of fear. Privately,
the outgoing president had been
considering which division would
have to be sold or shut down. As

reflections.solonline.org

Robert moved into his new position, everything was truly up for
grabs.
Over the next three years,
Robert led his company throughan amazing turnaround. At theend of this period, it not only survived without selling any of its
divisions, it entered a phase of aggressive growth, clearing $71 million a year more than when he took
over. In the business press, thecompany went from being a “badbet” to “one of the darlings of thestock market.” Why did Robert succeed when his predecessor did not?
The company badly needed ashort-term increase in its stock
price. But Robert wanted to domuch more than that. He wanted
to transform an admittedly lackluster company into the best
regional in North America. In
fact, his vision was to develop an
organization whose business performance and innovative ways ofoperating would be benchmarked
by companies from a wide variety
of industries. By putting the stock
price goal in this larger context,
Robert overturned his predecessor’s
assumption that the company’s
options were limited to difficult
but familiar cost-cutting solutions.
Instead, he decided to create a setof break-out strategies that would
develop a more innovative organization.
Realizing that he and his top
management group might nothave all the answers, Robert hired
a world-class strategy firm. He
also set up ten “idea factories”:
creative strategic-thinking sessions,where employees and other stakeholders developed ideas for the top

reflections.solonline.org

team to consider. People respondedwith enthusiasm, generating a huge
number of ideas.
Robert then held a two-day
retreat where he and his top management group synthesized thestrategy firm’s ideas with thosegenerated by the idea factories. As
he put it later, “We tried to involveas many people as possible in thestrategic review process. We invested time and energy up front tolisten to people, build trust, andget everyone aligned. It paid off,
because we started to think with
one brain. Instead of being at crosspurposes, we could understand andsupport each other’s decisions.”
The new strategies that emerged
went well beyond those Robert,
his team, and the strategy firm
would have generated on their own.
They resulted in a smaller, more
focused organization with a muchstronger “people strategy” designed
to catapult the company into theranks of high-performing organizations. When the new game plan
was ready, Robert and his teampresented it to the employees before
they announced it to the market.
The presentation included somebad news, but the employees gave
it a standing ovation. Over themonths that followed, Robert andhis team repeatedly communicated their new vision and its implications for employees in manydifferent forums. As the new strategies were implemented, the top
team kept everyone updated on
the performance of the business.
Every year, Robert met with eachof the company’s twenty management teams to discuss objectives andstrategies and check for alignment.

Robert’s participative approach
to transforming his organization
not only led to innovative strategies, it also developed the commitment, trust, and alignment
necessary to implement them reliably and effectively. As a result,during his first three years aspresident, annual earnings wentfrom $9 million to $40 million,
and cash expenses were reduced
by $40 million a year. A once-faltering company had become oneof the most efficient and effective
refiners in North America andone of the top retailers in its marketplace.1

The Agility Imperative
Robert’s story is part of a muchlarger drama: The struggle oforganizations around the globe toadapt to a turbulent world economy. Underlying this turbulence are
two deep global trends that haveradically altered what it takes toachieve sustained success: accelerating change and growing complexity and interdependence.
Every year, new technologies,
markets, and competitors emerge
at an ever-increasing pace. Aschange accelerates, so does uncertainty and novelty: future threats
and opportunities are harder topredict, and emerging challenges
increasingly include novel elements.
Further, with the globalization of
the economy and the spread of connective technologies, it’s increasingly clear that we live in a diverse
planetary village where everythingis connected with everything else.2
In this interdependent world, themost successful companies will beBook Excerpt ■ Joiner, Josephs 45

those that create strong, timely alliances and partner effectively withcustomers, suppliers, and other stakeholders.
This means that, while specificfuture developments are increasingly difficult to predict, we canmake two predictions with great
certainty: The pace of change willcontinue to increase, and the levelof complexity and interdependence will continue to grow. For
more than a decade, organizational change experts, acutely
aware of these powerful trends,
have stressed the need to develop“agile” companies—organizations
that anticipate and respond to
rapidly changing conditions byleveraging highly effective internal and external relationships.3
Robert is one of those rare,agile leaders who succeeded indeveloping his management group
into a cohesive leadership teamthat could transform their company into an agile organization.
However, as many companies havediscovered, developing truly agile
teams and organizations is anunfamiliar and demanding task.
Left to their own devices, the vast
majority of today’s managers would
not approach Robert’s challenge
in the way that he did. Consequently, very few firms have developed the level of agility needed tokeep pace with the ever-increasing
degree of change and complexity
in their business environment.4
A major reason for this continuing “agility gap” is the needfor more agile leaders, not just in
the executive suite but at all organizational levels. In a recent survey of CEOs in North America,

46 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

Europe and Asia, 91 percent said
that developing leaders is the mostcritical success factor for thegrowth of their business.5 In
another survey, senior executives
in Fortune 500 companies identified “agility” as a leadership competency “most needed” for the
future success of their business.6
Yet although leadership development programs are a priority formost larger companies, very little
attention has been given to understanding and developing the specific capacities and skills needed
for agile leadership.
Leadership agility is directly
analogous to organizational agility: It’s the ability to take wise andeffective action amid complex,
rapidly changing conditions. In thelast-mentioned survey, executives
said they much preferred agility
to similar-sounding competencies
like flexibility and adaptability.
Why? By themselves, flexibility andadaptability imply a passive, reactive stance, while agility implies
an intentional, proactive stance.

Five Levels of
Leadership Agility
Based on data collected from
more than six hundred managers,
we’ve found that there are five
distinct levels in the mastery ofleadership agility: Expert, Achiever,Catalyst, Co-Creator, and Synergist.7 In Table 1.1, you’ll findprofiles that show how managers
at each agility level carry out initiatives in each of the three action
arenas described in the Introduction: pivotal conversations, leading
teams, and leading organizationalchange. Note that the competencies you need for agile leadership
evolve further with each new levelof mastery. Yet each time you moveto a new level, you retain the ability to use those competencies you
developed at previous levels.
Each level of agility includes
and goes beyond the competencies developed at previous levels.
The percentage figures refer toresearch-based estimates of the
managers currently capable ofoperating at each agility level.8

The Expert Level
The name we’ve chosen for eachagility level is intended to emphasize its strengths. Experts are so
named because they’re strongly
motivated to develop subject-matter expertise, and because they assume that a leader’s legitimate power
comes from expertise and positional authority. Experts (roughly
45 percent of all managers) are
the least agile of those profiled in
the chart, but they’re more agile
than about 10 percent who remain
at Pre-expert levels. With their tactical orientation and their capacity
for analytic problem solving, theExperts’ agility level is best suitedfor environments where successcan be achieved by making incremental improvements to existing
strategies.

The Achiever Level
About 35 percent of today’s managers have developed to the
Achiever level of agility. These
managers are highly motivated toaccomplish outcomes valued byreflections.solonline.org

Table 1.1: Quick Reference Guide to Five Levels of Leadership Agility
Level of
Agility

Leading
Organizational Change

View of Leadership

Pivotal Conversations

Leading Teams

Expert
(~45%)

Tactical, problemsolving orientation.
Believes that leaders
are respected andfollowed by others because of their authority
and expertise.

Style is either to strongly
assert opinions or hold backto accommodate others. May
swing from one style to theother, particularly for different
relationships. Tends to
avoid giving or requesting
feedback.

More of a supervisor thana manager. Creates a groupof individuals rather thana team. Work with direct
reports is primarily one-onone. Too caught up in thedetails of own work to leadin a strategic manner.

Organizational initiatives
focus primarily on incremental improvements inside
unit boundaries with little
attention to stakeholders.

Achiever(~35%)

Strategic, outcome
orientation. Believes
that leaders motivate
others by making it
challenging and satisfying to contribute tolarger objectives.

Primarily assertive or
accommodative with someability to compensate withthe less preferred style.
Will accept or even initiate
feedback, if helpful inachieving desired outcomes.

Operates like a full-fledged
manager. Meetings to discuss important strategic ororganizational issues areoften orchestrated to gain
buy-in to own views.

Organizational initiatives
include analysis of external
environment. Strategies
to gain stakeholder buy-in
range from one-way communication to soliciting
input.

Catalyst(~5%)

Visionary, facilitativeorientation. Believes
that leaders articulate
an innovative, inspiring
vision and bring together
the right people to transform the vision into reality.
Leaders empower others
and actively facilitate
their development.

Adept at balancing assertive
and accommodative styles
as needed in particularsituations. Likely to articulate and question underlying
assumptions. Genuinely
interested in learning fromdiverse viewpoints. Proactive
in seeking and utilizing
feedback.

Intent upon creating a highly
participative team. Acts asa team leader and facilitator.
Models and seeks open exchange of views on difficult
issues. Empowers direct
reports. Uses team development as a vehicle forleadership development.

Organizational initiatives
often include developmentof a culture that promotes
teamwork, participation,and empowerment. Proactive engagement withdiverse stakeholders
reflects a belief that input
increases the quality ofdecisions, not just buy-in.

CoCreator(~4%)

Oriented towardshared purpose andcollaboration. Believes
leadership is ultimately
a service to others.
Leaders collaborate withother leaders to develop
a shared vision thateach experiences as
deeply purposeful.

Integrates his/her assertive
and accommodative sides
in pivotal conversations andis agile in using both styles.
Able to process andseriously consider negative
feedback even when highly
charged emotionally.

Develops a collaborative
leadership team, where
members feel full responsibility not only for their own
areas but also for the unit/organization they collectively
manage. Practical preference
for consensus decisionmaking but doesn’t hesitate
to use authority as needed.

Develops key stakeholder
relationships characterized
by deep levels of mutual
influence and genuine
dedication to the common
good. May create companies or organizational units
where corporate responsibility and deep collaboration are integral practices.

Synergist(~1%)

Holistic orientation.
Experiences leadershipas participation in a
palpable life purposethat benefits others
while serving as avehicle for personaltransformation.

Centered within his/her
assertive and accommodative energies, expressed
appropriately to the situation.
Cultivates a present-centeredawareness that augments
external feedback andsupports a strong, subtle
connection with others,
even during challenging
conversations.

Capable of moving fluidly
between various team leadership styles uniquely suited
to the situation at hand. Can
shape or amplify the energy
dynamics at work in a particular situation to bring aboutmutually beneficial results.

Develops and maintains
a deep, empathetic awareness of conflicting stakeholder interests, including
his/her own. Able to access“synergistic intuitions” thattransform seemingly intractable conflicts into solutions
beneficial for all parties
involved.

Pre-Expert(~10%)

Note: Each level of agility includes and goes beyond the competencies developed at previous levels. The percentage figures refer to researchbased estimates of the managers currently capable of operating at each agility level.9

reflections.solonline.org

Book Excerpt ■ Joiner, Josephs 47

the institutions with which they’ve
identified themselves. They realizethat a leader’s power comes not
only from authority and expertise
but also from motivating othersby making it challenging and satisfying to contribute to important
outcomes. With their capacity forstrategic thinking, Achievers canbe highly effective in moderately
complex environments where thepace of change requires episodic
shifts in corporate strategy.

Heroic and Post-Heroic
Leadership
In their book Power Up: Transforming Organizations ThroughShared Leadership, David Bradford and Allan Cohen distinguishbetween “heroic” and “post-heroic”
leadership. We found that managers at the Pre-expert, Expert, andAchiever levels (about 90 percent
of all managers) operate from aheroic leadership mind-set.9 Thatis, they assume sole responsibility
for setting their organization’s objectives, coordinating the activitiesof their subordinates, and managing their performance.
Heroic leadership can be highly
effective in certain situations. The
predominant combination of Expert and Achiever leadership worked
relatively well for most companies until the waning decades of
the twentieth century, when the
globalization of the economy ushered in an era of constant change
and growing interdependence. In
this new environment, with its
increased demand for collaborative problem solving, teamwork,and continuous organizational

48 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1change, heroic leadership overcontrols and underutilizes subordinates. It discourages people fromfeeling responsible for anything
beyond their assigned area, inhibits optimal teamwork, and implicitly encourages subordinates to
use the heroic approach with theirown units.
In this new century, sustained
success will require post-heroic
leadership. Leaders who develop
beyond the Achiever level of agility retain the ultimate accountability and authority that comeswith any formal leadership role.
At the same time, they work tocreate highly participative teams
and organizations characterizedby shared commitment and responsibility.10 Unfortunately, as notedin the Introduction, only about 10
percent of today’s managers arefunctioning at post-heroic levelsof agility: approximately 5 percent
at the Catalyst level, 4 percent at
the Co-Creator level, and 1 percent at the Synergist level.

The Catalyst Level
Robert’s story provides a clear
example of post-heroic leadershipat the Catalyst level. When appropriate, he exercised Expert andAchiever power, but he led his
company in a way that emphasized the power of vision and participation. While his Achieverlevel predecessor took the company’s existing culture as a given,
Robert, like other Catalysts, wasstrongly motivated to create aparticipative culture capable ofachieving valued outcomes overthe longer term. Catalysts, with

their openness to change, their
willingness to rethink basic assumptions, and their visionary orientation, represent the first level ofagility capable of sustained success in today’s highly complex,
constantly changing businessenvironment.

The Co-Creator Level
Co-Creator leaders derive theirname, in part, from their understanding that everything in business and in the rest of life is interdependent. Because of their principled commitment to the common
good, many of the Co-Creators inour sample have pioneered newforms of organization where corporate responsibility is integral totheir bottom line. Whether or notthey establish new organizations,
Co-Creator leaders are committed
to developing genuinely collaborative team and organizational
relationships rooted in a deep
sense of shared purpose. With theiremotional resilience, their capacity for dialogue, and their ability togenerate creative, win-win solutions, Co-Creators are well-equipped for long-term success in the
rapidly changing and often disruptive global economy of the earlytwenty-first century.

The Synergist Level
In conducting the research for thisbook, we found that the differences between the agility levels
become more subtle as leaders
move to each successive level.
This is particularly true of the
distinctions between Co-Creatorsreflections.solonline.org

and Synergists. More than any
other, the Synergist level is best
understood from the inside out.
Part of what distinguishes theleaders who function at this levelis their ability to enter fully into
the moment-to-moment flow of
their present experience. As thiscapacity for present-centered awareness develops, it gives leaders theability, in contentious and chaotic
situations, to stand in the eye ofthe storm. This ability to remain
centered amid competing demands
allows them to access “synergistic
intuitions” that transform seemingly intractable conflicts into solutions that are beneficial for allparties involved. We believe thatthe capacities and competencies
developed by these men and women represent the cutting edge ofleadership development for thetwenty-first century.

Agility Levels andPersonality Types
In the next chapter, we provide amore detailed walk-through ofthese five levels of leadership agility, designed to help you identify

your own agility level and that ofthe people with whom you work.
Part Two will allow you to finetune these initial assessments byreading real-life stories that illustrate each level of agility.
Before we turn to the next
chapter, we’d like to address a
misimpression people sometimes
have when they first hear about
the five levels of leadership agility:
The assumption that we’re talking about different personality
types or management styles. Overthe past few decades, a numberof frameworks that distinguishbetween various personality types
and management styles have foundtheir way into the workplace.
(Two prominent examples are theMyers-Briggs Type Inventory andthe DISC Personal Profile System).11 Influenced by this way of
thinking, you might assume thatsome people grow up with anExpert personality, while others
grow up with a Synergist personality, and so on.
We believe it’s important tounderstand how personality types
influence leadership styles. However, the levels we’ve just described

are not personality types. As you
may remember from the Introduction, each level of leadershipagility correlates with a particular
stage of personal development.
Decades of research have confirmed that human beings movethrough these stages in a particular sequence. Similarly, the levels
we’ve outlined represent sequential stages in the mastery of leadership agility. This means, forexample, that leaders don’t skip
from the Expert level to the CoCreator level. To operate reliably
at the Co-Creator level of leadership agility, you first need to master the Achiever and Catalyst
levels. So far, we’ve found no
exceptions to this pattern.12
All our research indicates thatlevel of agility and personality typeare completely unrelated variables. Every personality type canbe found at each level of leadership agility. This means that, nomatter what your personality typehappens to be, you have the potential to master advanced levels ofagility—an important thought tokeep in mind as you read the next
chapter.13

Endnotes1.

“Robert” is one of our clients. We tell this story 		

computer-mediated communication technologies; 		

in more detail in Chapter Six. Among other things,

and personal communications technologies.

we designed and facilitated the creative thinking

2.

3.

Organization design experts first used the term agile

sessions that Robert and his management teamin the early 1990s to describe manufacturing firms

used to develop their breakthrough strategies. The

that could quickly adapt to meet changing customer

lead consultant on this project was Sheila Shuman,needs (Agile Manufacturing, Kidd; Pathways to Agility:

who subsequently changed careers and became 		

Mass Customization in Action, Oleson; Responsea Jungian therapist. For more information on our

Ability: The Language, Structure and Culture of thecustomized Breakthrough Strategy Process, go 		Agile Enterprise, Dove; and Transitioning to Agility:

to www.changewise.biz/os-bsp-overview.html.

Creating the 21st Century Enterprise, Gunneson.) By“Connective technologies” include telecommunica-

the end of the millennium, the concept of agility hadtions technologies; the Internet, e-mail, and otherbroadened to mean “the ability to anticipate andreflections.solonline.org

Book Excerpt ■ Joiner, Josephs 49

respond rapidly to changing conditions” (“Building

critical for their organizations. When the responses

Agility and Resiliency During Turbulent Change,”

were in, three competencies clustered together at

McCann). It was also being applied in the service

the top: “delivering measurable business results,”

sector to IT projects, and to the IT systems needed“influencing others to assume leadership in their

to support agile organizations (Agility in Health Care,roles,” and “agility.”

Goldman and Graham; and Cooperate to Compete:

7.

borrowed from the pioneering work of William R.

Goldman, and Nagel. Books and articles on agile IT

Torbert. See Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely andare legion). In 2003, a study of fifty government

Transforming Leadership, Torbert and associates.

agencies in eight countries, conducted with the8.

level is an approximation, extrapolated from fouragencies not only exist, they significantly outperformresearch studies involving a total of 384 managers.

other agencies on virtually every important metric—

For more information about how we arrived atsatisfaction (“Agile Government: It’s Not an

In Power Up, Bradford and Cohen identify two
forms of heroic leadership, the Technician and theAlso see Built to Change: How to Achieve Sustained

Conductor. Although they don’t use the terminology

Organizational Effectiveness, Lawler and Worley.

of levels of agility, their Technician corresponds to

As organizational theorists have pointed out, to

our Expert, and their Conductor corresponds to ourenjoy sustained success, companies need to develop

Achiever. Also see their earlier book, Managing fora level of organizational agility that matches the

Excellence.
10. Conceptually, Bradford and Cohen’s post-heroic

business environment. Some organizational

leader, which they call the Developer, spans ourtheorists prescribe “organizational agility” forCatalyst and Co-Creator levels. However, the primaryenvironments where change is continuous andstory upon which Power Up is based appears to“organizational resilience” for even more turbulent

capture a leader’s transition from the Achiever toenvironments where disruptive change has become

the Catalyst level.

the norm. (“The Quest for Resilience,” Hamel and6.

these estimates, see the last part of Appendix A.
9.

Oxymoron,” Baker, Durante, and Sanin-Gómez).

increasing level of change and complexity in their

5.

In this chart, the percentage of managers at eachLondon School of Economics, concluded that agile

from productivity to employee and customer

4.

The names for our Expert and Achiever levels are

Building Agile Business Relationships, Preiss,

11. Tools such as these are often used to help people

Valikangas, and “Organizational Effectiveness:appreciate the contributions that diverse personality

Changing Concepts for Changing Environments,”

types can bring to a team effort. The Myers-Briggs

McCann). Because of the way we define agility, weType Inventory identifies four “basic temperaments,”

say that extremely turbulent environments require

sometimes called Idealist, Rational, Guardian, andorganizations, teams, and individual leaders to have

Artisan, which are then subdivided into a total ofhigher levels of agility, and we define resilience as a

sixteen personality types. See Type Talk, Kroeger

necessary but not sufficient condition for agility. For

and Thusen, and Please Understand Me II, Keirsey.

a discussion of the relationship between resilience

The names we’ve just given for the four tempera-

and agility at the individual level, see Chapter Ten.

ments come from a very useful pamphlet called The“The Present State of Leadership and Strategies 		

16 Personality Types, Berens and Nardi. The DISC

for Preparing Future Leaders,” Taylor.

Personal Profile System posits four basic personal-

This survey was conducted by the global career-

ity types: Decisive, Influential, Steady, and Com-

management services firm, Lee Hecht Harrison, in

pliant. (See www.discprofile.com.)

2004. Researchers gave a list of leadership com-

12. The Essential Piaget, Piaget; Essays on Moralpetencies to 130 senior executives and humanDevelopment, Volume 1: The Philosophy of Moral

resource professionals in Fortune 500 companies,

Development, Kohlberg; Ego Development, Loevinger;

universities, and professional service organizations

The Evolving Self, Kegan.

and asked them which competencies were most

50 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

reflections.solonline.org

13. For example, the classic study of high-performing
leaders, reported by Bennis and Nanus in Leaders
two decades ago, found no correlation between
personality type (including charismatic personality)and effective leadership. More recently, we conducted an in-depth study of twelve managers representing seven Myers-Briggs personality types and foundno correlation between any dimension of MBTI
personality type (introvert-extravert, intuitive-sensing,
thinking-feeling, or judging-perceiving) and level ofleadership agility.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSBill Joiner is a seasoned leadership and organization development con-sultant withthirty years working with companies based in the US, Canada, and Europe. He is an
adjunct faculty member in Leadership for Change at Boston College and has adoctorate in Organization Development from Harvard University.
bj@changewise.biz
Stephen Josephs is a master coach with twenty-five years experience help-ing leaders
at all levels accelerate their personal and professional devel-opment. He has a doctorate
from the University of Massachusetts and has been extensively trained in NeuroLinguistic Programming, psycho-drama, classical guitar, and the martial arts.
sj@changewise.biz
www.leadershipagility.com
www.changewise.biz

reflections.solonline.org

Book Excerpt ■ Joiner, Josephs 51-R ecommended R eading

New & Recommended Readingby SoL Members and Friends“Collaborating for Systemic
Change” by Peter M. Senge,
Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Katrin
Kaeufer, Hilary Bradbury, John S.
Carroll in the Sloan Management
Review, Winter 2007, pp. 44-53(Reprint # 48211)
A summary of research on the SoL
Sustainability Consortium as an example of a cross organizational consortium with an agenda of large systemchange that will be essential for meeting the sustainability challenge.
“In Praise of the Incomplete
Leader” by Deborah Ancona, Thomas
W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski,Peter M. Senge in the Harvard
Business Review, February 2007
(Reprint R0702E)
No leader is perfect and we shouldn’t
expect them to be. The authors positthat the best ones develop their strengths
and find ways to complement their limitations. They emphasize sense-making,relating, visioning and inventing as thecapabilities most needed in an effective
leadership team.
Theory U: Leading from the Future
as it Emerges (SoL, 2007)
Theory U is SoL’s newest publication
by C. Otto Scharmer. In it, the “U”
process, first introduced in his previous
work Presence, is expanded, deepened,
and offered in comprehensive detail.
The shift in awareness he documentsallows us to connect to our best future
possibility and realize it.
http://www.solonline.org/theoryu/

52 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 1

Inside Out: Stories and Methord
for Generating Collective Will to
Create the Future We Want
by Tracy Huston (SoL, 2007)
Huston builds on U-theory by exploring “collective presencing” approaches
for developing the personal, relational,
and systemic conditions needed to support leaders in collaborating acrosstheir institutional boundaries to create
the future they want. Drawing fromher work in multi-stakeholder change
initiatives, as well as from a variety of“ensemble” practices employed in thearts, Huston offers a rich mix of stories, cases, and practical methods forgenerating and sustaining whole systemchange, from the “inside-out.”
http://www.solonline.org/insideout/
A Leader’s Guide to Reflective
Practice by Judy Brown (Trafford
Publishing, 2006)
What makes a fire burnis space between the logs,
a breathing space…
SoL member Judy Brown offers thisguide complemented by poetry as away for leaders to develop much-neededbreathing space.
http://www.trafford.com/06-2202

Leadership is Global: Co-creatinga Humane and Sustainable World
edited by Walter Link, Thais Corral,and Mark Gerzon (The Global
Leadership Network, 2007)
This wide-ranging collection includes
contributions from SoL members
Adam Kahane and Alain Gauthier.
http://www.globalleadershipnetwork.
net/book.html
The Real Wealth of Nations:
Creating a Caring Economics
by Riane Eisler (Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 2007)
Riane Eisler offers a new way of thinking by transforming “the dismal scienceof economics” into a practical plan forsolving global warming, poverty, andterrorism. Rather than only valuing traditional economic activity, she offers away to value our life sustaining activities and the contributions of nature aswell (“caring economics”), creating thepossibility for everyone to participate inoffering their gifts. Look for an excerpt
in an upcoming issue of Reflections.
http://www.bkconnection.com/
ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576753880&Type=SB&SUBSEL=BKP.CURR&
Title=BK+Currents&ref=lib

The Change Handbook: The
Definitive Resource on Today’s
Best Methods for Engaging Whole
Systems, 2nd Edition by Peggy
Holman, Tom Devane, Steven Cady
(Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007)
This new edition is an essential reference for those using “getting the wholesystem in the (proverbial) room” approaches to organizational change andeffectiveness. There are many contributions by SoL members. http://www.
bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576753798&PG=1&Type=RL
Ma&PCS=BKP

reflections.solonline.org

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 8, Number 1

Editorial Team
Editor-in-Chief
Peter Senge
Managing Editor
Nina Kruschwitz
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato
Publications Assistant
Megan Bencivenni
Subscription Options
To order online and for a full description ofsubscription options, visit our website: reflections.
solonline.org.
Receive Reflections as a SoL Connections
member:• USD$125 U.S.
• USD$135 International
One year individual subscription:• USD$75 U.S.
• USD$85 International
University/Non-profit Institution• USD$175 United States• USD$195 Canada (includes 7% GST)
• USD$195 International

ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2007 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational
Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)

For-profit Institution• USD$275 United States• USD$295 Canada (includes 7% GST)
• USD$295 International
Reflections: The SoL Journal is published quarterly inelectronic format and once per year as a hard copy
compilation by the Society for Organizational
Learning. Inquiries regarding subscriptions, addresschanges, back issues, reprints, and permission
requests should be directed to:reflections@solonline.org
Reflections: The SoL Journal
25 First Street, Suite 414
Cambridge, MA 02141 USA+1.617.300.9515 (phone)+1.617.354.2093 (fax)E-mail: reflections@solonline.org