VOLUME 8, NUMBER 4

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

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

The Future of the Corporation
Charles Handy

Inside the Theory of the U:
An Interview with Peter
Senge and Otto Scharmer
George Hall

Distributed Knowing:
A Conversation with
Philippe Descola
Thierry Groussin
research update

A “SoL” Way of Seeing
Manfred Mack
EMERGING KNOWLEDGE

Vulnerability and Shifting
Leadership Values
Greg Jemsek

Rewriting the Rulesof the Game
Alexandre de Carvalho
BOOK EXCERPTThe Real Wealth of Nations
Riane Eisler

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

PUBLISHER’S NOTE 8.4

Collective awareness, intention, and action remain thesubject of practical and philosophical interest for most SoL members. Whether weare concerned with the governance of our countries or innovation in our companies, we want to know how we can change for the better, and to learn from thefuture as well as from the past. In this issue of Reflections, we’re pleased to havea group of articles revolving around these key questions, from the perspective of
the individual, society, and many points in between.
   Charles Handy begins with his perspective on “The Future of the Corporation.”
C. Sherry Immediato
Starting with the premise that corporations should be designed in the future tomeet societal needs and expectations, as well as those of shareholders, Handy treats us to an historical aswell as futuristic view. He effectively argues that while there may be more democracy in the marketplace,there is little in the modern corporate castle. While many of us strive to create more participative systems
within organizations, he encourages us to think more systemically. From this point of view, he makes apersuasive case for us to advocate for system change in which capitalism and democracy can mutuallyflourish by changing the context in which the corporation operates.
  How might our current theories help? George Hall takes us “Inside the Theory of the U” in an interview with Peter Senge and Otto Scharmer. He asks the tough questions you’ve wondered about: Isn’t ithardest to be present when we most need to be? Does the process require more self-awareness than mostof us seem to possess? Does surrendering to what the situation calls for always seem like an epiphany or“ah ha” moment? Peter Senge and Otto Scharmer share their views on innovation, insight, and leadershipand the role the U process can play.
  Insight can also come from related disciplines. In our continuing partnership with Les Cahiers de
SoL France, we are pleased to offer a translation of “A Conversation with Philippe Descola” by Thierry
Groussin on distributed knowing. As an anthropologist, Descola has had the opportunity to observe societies with remarkable capacities for self-organizing. He comments on how the relationships and practices
they develop are ones that can contribute to our own collective intelligence.
  The interview with Descola is part of a larger initiative to surface the theories and experience of collective intelligence throughout the SoL community. In our Research Update, Manfred Mack summarizes
an initial survey of SoL researchers and practitioners in “A ‘SoL’ Way of Seeing: Investigating Conditions
Enabling and Inhibiting Collective Intelligence.”  In our Emerging Knowledge Forum, Greg Jemsek proposes that the insights we’re looking for require
a humility and openness that some people know well. In “Vulnerability and Shifting Leadership Values:
How Lived Disability Makes Con-text Inescapable,” he uses his work with this challenged population toshow us how we can create new possibilities by taking nothing for granted.
  The final contribution to emerging knowledge is a reflection on a personal leadership journey offeredby Alexandre de Carvalho – “Rewriting the Rules of the Game: Integrating Personal and Professional
Aspirations in Practice.” After years of playing by the rules of performance management, Carvalho takes
feedback to heart about his demanding and disconnected methods. He describes what happens when helistens deeply to his employees and the communities he serves. The results exceed his professional expectations and cause him to redefine his work as a manager and leader.

ii Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

PUBLISHER’S NOTE continued   This issue ends with a book excerpt from The Real Wealth of Nations by Riane Eisler. Returning to
Handy’s view of the necessity of system change, Eisler proposes in the opening chapter of her new bookthat we need a new economics.“Globalization and the shift to the post-industrial age is bringing great
economic and social dislocation. This dislocation is a source of fear for many people. But it also offers
an unprecedented opening for new and better ways of thinking and living. It offers us the opportunity touse our vision and ingenuity to help create the social and economic conditions that support our evolution
as individuals, as a species, and as a planet.” In her new framing, “caring economics” would value thework and value that occurs in our social exchanges in addition to those with obvious monetary value. A
new economics is part of contextual change that would encourage the quality of thinking and action towhich we aspire.
  While the scope of change can seem daunting, SoL seems to be unique in living its aspirations to bring
together those who discover, integrate and implement the theories, tools and methods so that we develop
as individuals, organizations, and societies. Nothing less will do if we are to address the challenges weface and satisfy our hearts’ desires.
With best wishes for reflection that stimulates action,

C. Sherry Immediato
Managing Director, SoL

reflections.solonline.org

Write iii
n Immediato
Publisher’s NoteReadersF E AT U R E 8 . 4

The Future of the Corporation
Charles Handy© Elizabeth Handy

In November, 2007 the Tellus Institute co-hosted (with SoL) the Summit on the Future of the
Corporation in Boston. The meeting was the culmination of an initiative begun in 2004, Corporation
20/20, which brought together a group of business and civic leaders to grapple with the question of
the nature and purpose of the corporation, and how corporations should be designed in the future tomeet societal needs and expectations. Charles Handy, an author (most recently of the autobiography
Myself and Other More Important Matters) and philosopher focused on organizational behavior andmanagement issues, opened the meeting with the following remarks.
Charles HandyM

any years ago, our home was part of the old palace of King John, at Windsor Castle.
It was from our courtyard that King John rode off one morning, very reluctantly, to put
his stamp on the Magna Carta in 1415, which you might say was a first attempt at a
stakeholder compact. He didn’t like doing it at all. Bear that in mind: People don’t willing give up
away power.
	I was running a study center on social ethics. We brought leaders of various institutions
in society, including business, to come and meet for two or three days to debate the kindsof issues that were also debated in Boston’s Fanueil Hall. I used to tell them, “Look at thisold place. There’s been a monarch sitting and living and working in this castle for 960 years.
Love it or hate it, that’s quite a longevity record, beating even the state corporation here.”Then, late in the evening, I would bring them to the chapel of St. George, which lay acrossfrom my front door. It was built in the 16th Century, and at night, with its dimly lit ceilingand high vaults, it seemed steeped in history. Many of the kings of England are buried there.
I’d walk them round in a suitably subdued mood and then stop by the tomb of one Charles I,
whose head we chopped off. And I would say to them, “The reason the monarchy has lasted
so long is that they managed to adapt the substance while keeping the form. They moved thebalance of power in tune with the needs of society. This man here, Charles I, resented that. He
believed it unwise to yield power to people he thought would use it badly, or at least not aswell as he could. He lost his head for not adapting to the changing world.” The participants
went back to their beds quite quiet after that.
	It’s important to adapt as the power structures change in society, though you may keep
the form, because that makes change slightly easier for others to tolerate. This summer I got
an interesting lesson in how power shifts. I visited the cities of the new European countries,
which were the old Communist world: Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic and so on. You
can see history in front of you. There’s the castle where the kings used to sit, and the cathedrals where the cardinals and bishops who were meant to keep them in control resided,
but usually just colluded with them. Those castles are now museums. No kings reside there
anymore. Cathedrals are more full of tourists than worshippers.
	The Communist bunkers that sprouted after the Second World War, where the newrulers plied their wares, are now concert halls, assembly halls, and meeting places for their new,reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Handy © indexopen

struggling parliaments. Dominating all now, and something people are terribly proud of, arethose glass towers, the homes of the corporate princes. Interesting paradoxes, those towers.
They’re all sheathed in glass, but you can’t see into them. They are the proud symbols of
the new democracies, but inside they are more centrally controlled than any of the regimesthat they displaced. You will forgive any passer-by for thinking that these are very strange,
anonymous places. Yes, they have names. More often than not they have a set of meaninglessstatistics lit up in neon on the top. “What on earth do they mean?” asks the average citizen.
Apparently these corporations are governed by anonymous people, working on behalf ofanonymous investors, many of them actually represented by more anonymous bodies living
in more anonymous towers. You will forgive the citizen for thinking the power has somehow
got out of control. You will forgive him for thinking that he can no longer actually understand or trust or believe in those people, those organizations that inhabit those towers. Yes,
indeed, it may be true that they’re more trusted than the media and the government, but that’s
starting from a pretty low base.
	Those towers will, I suppose, soon disappear. The office that I once worked in at the RoyalDutch Shell Group is now the living room of a luxury apartment. Many of these corporations have vacated to campus-like environments which look like a university. They’re evenstructured like universities. But they’re still surrounded by barbed wires. You still can’t get
into them. They’re still anonymous. Power has moved, as somebody said, from one bunchof apparatchiks to another. We don’t know who they are either. And one has to worry about
that. Because these people are actually now more responsible for your future than governments. I listened with interest to the manager of one of these enterprises in one of these countries being interviewed by the BBC. The interviewer said, “Your government has collapsed Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

again. This must be serious for you.” “Yes, indeed,” said the manager. “It is very serious. But
it’s not important.” Governments don’t matter as much as the businesses.
	Of course, it doesn’t feel like that to the well-meaning people inside these buildings. Theseare people of talent who are working more hours than they should, playing the game as they
understand it, by the rules as they understand them. And the game is making all the moneythat they possibly can while obeying the law and the conventions of society. And giving thatmoney, as much as they sensibly can, back to the people who invested in them and trusted
them with their money. They mean well by that. You who work in these places mean very
well. You are decent citizens.
	I remember too vividly the very first day of my working life. I left university and wentstraight into Royal Dutch Shell, a great company, which was nearly 100 years old at thatpoint. After a bit of briefing about the history of this great organization, expectations about its values and all the rest of it, I was Power has moved, as
posted to Singapore. On the first day the marketing manager sent somebody said, from one
for me and he said “I have an assignment for you. I want you
to update the lubricating oil prices for all the oils to be sold in bunch of apparatchiks
Southeast Asia.” I gulped a little. After all, I had qualified in Greek to another. We don’t know
and Latin philosophy. I felt totally incompetent for this onerous
who they are either.
task. But I discovered that it wasn’t too bad. I just had to go down
And one has to worry
to the accounts department and get from them a table of the direct
and indirect costs allocated to each brand of lubricating oil, add
about that.
those together, add on 18% profit margin, add that up and putthat in the new prices. Not too difficult, even for an innumerate man like myself. But I went
back to the marketing manager and I said “There’s something wrong here, sir.” And he said,“What’s that?” And I said “If you use this formula, what it means is that the higher ourcosts are, the more money we make. To put it very crudely, the more inefficient we are, sir,
the richer we get. This must be immoral.” He looked at me and he said, “No, Handy. That’sbusiness. You’ll learn.”
	Now you will say that was an obviously imperfect marketplace. And indeed it was. There
were only two companies and we had 70% of the market. So naturally enough our competitors were very happy to go along with our prices, whatever they were, because their unit costs
were higher than ours. And indeed Shell was an honorable company and the marketing manager and his colleagues were honorable men. And as they said to me, we could have charged
30% profit margin, but we thought 18% was reasonable. And on balance it is. Reasonable
men they were. And you will say “Well, that was long ago.” And indeed it is true that themarket grew, and more small companies entered, and because they had nothing to lose theychipped away at the margins and the prices, and Shell became leaner and fitter as a result. But
don’t kid me that it doesn’t go on. All big industries follow the market leader. They compete
on service, on quality, and on efficiency, and they hope they’re more productive than theircompetitors. But it’s in nobody’s interest to have a price war.
	Last week, for the first time in history, one oil company marked a liter of gasoline at one
pound. One pound for one liter of gasoline. Nobody thought it would ever happen. By theend of the day all the oil companies were doing the same. Had they colluded? No, I’m surethey hadn’t. They had just followed the leader.
	Similarly, you can’t tell me that the vast fees that the investment banks charge are necessary. Why shouldn’t another investment bank come in, a small minnow, and undercut them,reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Handy Principles for a New Corporate Design
The Tellus Instittue has proposed the following six new principles for corporate design, based on input
from more than 200 members of business, civil society, government, finance, labor, law, and the media.
The principles are envisioned as the foundation for envisioning future forms of the corporation.
1. The purpose of the corporation is to harness private interests to serve the public interst.
2. Corporations shall accrue fair returns for shareholders, but not at the expense of the legitimate
interests of other stakeholders.
3. Corporations shall operate sustainably, meeting the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
4. Corporations shall distribute their wealth equitably among those who contribute to
wealth creation.
5. Corporations shall be governed in a manner that is participatory, transparent, ethical, andaccountable.
6. Corporations shall not infringe on the right of natural persons to govern themselves,
nor infringe on other universal human rights.
For information on the development and context of these principles, visit www.corporation2020.org.

charge half of those fees? Because they wouldn’t be credible. In the professional service business, which banks are in, there’s almost a pride in being able to charge more than your competitor and still hold onto your clients. The market seems to work in reverse. It’s winner-takeall in that kind of world. It applies to bankers. It applies to management consultants. It
applies to lawyers. It applies to doctors. It applies to surgeons. It even applied to businessspeakers on platforms. I know, I’ve been there. The competition is to get higher, not lower.
What a funny world we’ve got ourselves into. And it’s all for the public good. I guess it
depends which public you are.
	How did we get there? Well, you know the history. Great ideas, with unintended consequences. The first great idea was the joint stock company. It started in the early years of the
1500s, soon after Christopher Columbus discovered this great country, which had minding
its own business for 2000 years. But suddenly there it was, and the British decided that they
could exploit it, plus the lands to the East. But in order to do that they needed to collect more
capital than one person could have. They invited friends and associates to join, and soon we
had the first joint stock companies in the early 1500s: the Muscovy Company to trade with
Russia, the East India Company, and the Hudson Bay Company. But these companies were
given a charter for a limited period for a specific purpose. The East India Company had tocome back every 20 years to get its charter renewed by Parliament. So there was some control
by government over the activities of these concerns.
Fast forward to the early years of the 19th Century, in 1800 and this bright idea of limited
liability was conceived by the state. Eventually, in 1854 it became a legal possibility in Britain
and then in America. The combination of joint stock companies and limited liability unleasheda fantastic flow of innovation, enterprise, money, and wealth creation. It was fantastic.
	In between, however, came the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith. His great doctrineof the invisible hand seemed to say that self-interest in a good marketplace worked for public
interest. Very few people read his great book. They just realized that Adam Smith had afairly jaundiced view of human nature. In particular they never read his earlier book, The
Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he said that sympathy or concern for one’s fellow

 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

citizen was the glue that bound societies together. Self-interest, yes, but only with sympathy.
They forgot that bit. Then came, of course, most recently the third great innovative idea, theexecutive stock option. That is the great contribution that your country has given to theworld. Because this seemed to say that executives interests would be identical to the shareholders’. Therefore, what is good for me must be good for the corporation, must be good forthe investors, and must be good for society. This was a fuse. This is working towards thebomb that I can see might actually blow up capitalism.
Capitalism and democracy are meant to be the heady mix that will create the perfect society. But they’re uneasy things to put together. They curdle. They go sour, if you’re not careful.
At the moment, capitalism is winning over democracy. The people express their choices in themarketplace more than they do at the ballot box. But my long term worry is that democracy
will triumph over capitalism. We’ll be so fed up with the excesses and the apparent selfishness
and the arrogant disregard of many of these people that democracy will entangle capitalism
in its chains and its rules and its forfeits and its regulations and take the vivacity out of thisenterprise that is so important to our futures.
	So what do we do? How do we change the rules of the game? Because they desperately
need to be changed. Those great ideas have had unintended consequences. Adam Smith
would be appalled. The six principles that were presented [see sidebar] are a very good startfor a new charter. I think we could take on the challenge that Tomorrow’s Company presented in their report recently published in Britain on the global company, to invent a new
definition of success for a business and find the appropriate measures to measure that success. But how do we do it? Some would say consumers and activist social groups will do it for
us. Others will say concerned shareholders or blocks of shareholders will do it for us. Others
say no, we have enlightened examples and they will shine throughout the world. All thesethings are true and all these things are good. But none of them in my view is enough. In theend, the rules of the game have to be set globally by governments. However, in democracies
it is my experience that governments only move when they are pretty sure that they will befollowed. In other words, the leadership for social change comes from outside government,from opinion formers, from leading examples, from people like you.
	That is why we are here. We need all these pressures. We also need an articulate leader
that the people wandering through those anonymous glass towers can hear, because otherwise they may not notice what we’re saying. Adam Smith would be pleased that we mightresurrect a part of his vision. And old moral philosopher that he was, he would ask me toremind you that there should be a moral purpose in life, for individuals and for companies.
For without that moral purpose we are condemned to be chained to a meaningless treadmill
for the rest of our days. And that is something that we don’t deserve.
A b out th e A uthor

Charles Handy is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, a self-styled social philosopher
and the author of The Hungry Spirit and The Empty Raincoat. He is a writer and broadcaster
whose books have sold over one million copies worldwide. In Britain, he is the popularpresenter of the well-known BBC program Thoughts of the Day.
CandEHandy@aol.com

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Handy 

F E AT U R E 8 . 4

Inside the Theory of the U

Interview with Peter Senge and Otto Scharmer
George HallIn Presence (SoL, 2004), Peter Senge, Otto Scharmer and their coauthors Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue
Flowers provided an intimate look at the development of a new theory about change and learning. The
theory was further refined in Otto Scharmer’s subsequent book Theory U (SoL, 2000). In both books, theauthors seek to explain how profound collective change occurs. Ultimately, they tackle universal and persistent questions – What are we here for? How would the world change if we learned to access, individually and collectively, our deepest capacity to sense and shape the future? What do we really careabout? How can we serve an emerging future that averts environmental degradation and species
destruction – including our own? In this, the first half of an interview conducted by George Hall, PeterPeter Senge

Senge and Otto Scharmer share their views on innovation, insight, and leadership.

George Hall: Did the ability to innovate come naturally to Dr. Brian Arthur, the brilliant
innovator in economics and complexity science you interviewed? Was this a difficult skill tocultivate or did it come naturally to him?

Otto Scharmer

George Hall

Otto Scharmer: No. Acquiring a fresh outlook is often not an effortless process. Most stories
told by those who lead efforts aimed at profound innovation follow a particular pattern:
everything is initially “outside” and “fuzzy.” Then somewhere along the line a profound shift
happens. When you deconstruct the innovators’ story, you get the inside story – the events asthey were experienced. Interestingly enough, many stories begin when an idea shows up
rather unexpectedly, like an uninvited houseguest. Surprised, the innovator is reluctant toconsider the idea in depth, pushes it aside, and may even refuse it because he doesn’t want to
do it. Undaunted, however, the idea refuses to go away and shows up again and again. Whenthe innovator finally submits and discusses the idea with his or her colleagues, they may laughat or ridicule it. If the innovator has the inner strength to persist in following the idea further,he or she may be isolated or excluded from their community.
Whether innovators realize it or not, they are on a journey that may cause them to violate
some of the key assumptions of their professional community. When that happens, the group
may ostracize the innovator. Naturally, that feeling of exclusion hurts. I don’t know of asingle example where the “fresh outlook” developed easily or without paying a certain pricesocially or otherwise. The process of innovation, then, is actually a journey that asks you tocross a threshold and leave behind a world that is known, comfortable, and familiar; where
you are part of a given community. In your journey of discovery, you will move into something that is less known, more unfamiliar. It is a context that only comes into being when you
take a daring step, which almost feels like stepping into nothingness. That is the insider’sstory, the innovator’s story. I know of almost no exception.

 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

Peter Senge: One thing I would add is that oftentimes there is a significant amount of hard
work in preparation. Often you must put in a large amount of hard work before you everreach the point Otto is describing. Brian Arthur was a traditional economist who immersed
himself deeply in human development; first through Taoism, and then Buddhism. We
described Brian’s journey in detail in our book only to offer an illustration: there is no right
way to go on a journey of this nature. There is no set path. But if you are on a journey ofreal development, make no mistake – it will be hard work.
George Hall: How does the theory of the U react under stress? Can one still use a contemplative model like the U theory under pressure?
Otto Scharmer: If the U theory (below) doesn’t work under pressure, then it isn’t very useful. That is when it matters most. Today everybody feels pressure, and that will only continue. Consequently, the question becomes, how can you cope with pressure in a way thatallows you to deal with it from a different plane? How do you balance this increasing pressure from the outside with something you do on the inside? How can you cultivate ordevelop your capacity to deal with these situations more effectively? The principles and theprocess we describe in our book apply to and deal with this situation by answering thefollowing questions:•	What can you do when you are faced with this sort of situation or pressure?
•	What new rules can you follow to successfully navigate these obstacles?

The U Movement1
DOWNLOADING
patterns of the past

ACCESS
YOUR...

SUSPENDING

EMBODYINGOPEN

SEEING
with fresh eyes

MIND

REDIRECTINGSENSING
from the field

LETTING GOPERFORMING
achieve results throughpractices, infrastructures

OPEN
HEART
OPEN

PROTOTYPING
co-create strategic microcosms

ENACTING

CRYSTALLIZING
vision and intention

LETTING COME

WILLPRESENCING

connecting to Source

WHO IS MY SELF?
WHAT IS MY WORK?

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Hall To answer these questions, many academic textbooks on decision-making theory describemodels that follow a certain general sequence of activities: 1) develop your options, 2) create
a set of preferences, 3) compute the correct path, and 4) offer the most preferred option to
the decision-maker. In contrast, the decision-making method we describe in our book is more
applicable to real life and more reflective of the strategies actually used by successful innovators across the globe.
Leaders around the world are increasingly being confronted with complex, intractableproblems. Such situations often have the following characteristics: 1) the solutions are notknown, 2) the problems you are dealing with are going to evolve over time and are only
partially known now, and 3) the key actors you need to deal with in order to be successful
are not fully known. As such, leaders need a different kind of capacity that helps them deal
with situations that are emerging. The traditional decision-making model, which assumes
that you have all the knowledge about the alternatives and preferences, is no longer useful orvalid. In fact, the standard, old-fashioned decision-making frameworks will fail to help you
to be effective. We describe a process leaders can follow to successfully negotiate these challenges. Basically, if you go through the full U-process of opening up and honing your perception and your understanding of the situation, then what needs to be done will become
evident. In the traditional sense, there is no decision making. What needs to be done will justemerge from the process. Your mandate, then, is to just go do it.
Peter Senge: More and more people are going to find themselves in situations that are toocomplex, that they just can’t figure out. There is much too much going on and there is muchtoo much that is uncertain and novel. In such circumstances, it often looks like the mostanyone can do is to say, “Just take your chances and hope for the best.” At that point, it alldegenerates into randomness and educated guesswork. In contrast, we are saying that there
really is an alternative: you can develop your capacity to sense and move with situations –even those that are not fully understood. In a sense, learning to operate in this uncertain
environment is very much like learning the martial arts. You study and study. Training is very
disciplined because when you get to a certain point when there is real stress, for example inreal combat, you don’t have time to figure anything out. But you also do not respond simply
out of habit. You may have a whole repertoire of stylized behaviors, but you have honed anawareness that prepares you for the most stressful, demanding, and uncertain situations.
When acting under stress in real life situations, you are not going to have time to go back andread a bunch of books, and even if you did, it wouldn’t help you.
George Hall: So, the U-process helps you convert your background into an observing capacity,a unique awareness that allows you to react quickly and effectively under stress?
Peter Senge: Exactly. Learning how to develop that capacity is crucial for today’s leaders.
George Hall: This theory reflects a learning model that revolves around actualizing new
realities prior to their emerging. Do you intend this theory to replace existing learning models like that of David Kolb? Could the theory of the U help reshape management education?
Influence public education?
Peter Senge: Yes and no. I don’t think we can call our theory a new philosophy. What istruly new under the sun? Although it is different from the mainstream approach, I don’t think Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

it is that different from what many gifted people do intuitively or spontaneously. What makes
it appear new is that it contradicts our Western, rationalistic view of how things “ought” tohappen and thus much of our formal education. Should it be part of management education?
Yes. It is just a question of how innovative business schools are prepared to be. Most businessschools, and most educational institutions, appeal to a mass market and are very conservative. Nonetheless, if you believe that the purpose of education is to prepare people for the
future rather than the past, we need to do much more than teach people how to solve puzzles
or problems that have been solved in the past and which now just differ plus or minus five
percent. Today’s real problems are fundamentally different from the past. They are global.
They cross institutional boundaries. They require diverse people to think and learn together.
If this theory truly fits the needs of the reality we are living into, then people will find ways
to integrate it upstream in the educational process.
Otto Scharmer: You could say that as an idea or concept, the U theory is not new at all.
What is new is that this way of looking at reality is more relevant today in dealing with thelarge, macro societal and institutional leadership issues. What are the essential problems
in the health sector, in the educational sector, in the energy sector and in the agricultural
sector? What would it take to innovate in these sectors and deal with the issues we are now
facing? After considering these burgeoning issues, we developed a curriculum centered on thecore capability in our book – presencing. We created a comprehensive training program tobuild the capacity to innovate in each one of these spheres. The development of this ability is
by its very nature trans-disciplinary. In the next phase, we could build a school or institutewhere this individual and collective capability would be researched, developed, and disseminated through capacity building and practical applications in business and society. Maybe
it is time to create a global action research school founded on the principles and practices
of presencing.
George Hall: In your book you comment, “The state at the bottom of the U is presencing;seeing from the deepest source and becoming a vehicle for that source. When we suspend or
redirect our attention, perception starts to arise from within the living process of the whole…
perception moves forward to arise from the highest future possibility that connects self andwhole.” Would you describe such movements as an epiphany?
Peter Senge: Not necessarily. The phenomenon of presencing is diverse: it is experienced anddescribed differently by different people in different communities. If, for example, you are
wrestling with certain issues that are difficult and through a process of U-like reflection abreakthrough occurs, then it could be called an “epiphany.” An epiphany, however, is only
one type of breakthrough possible with the theory of the U. In interviews, we spoke withmany people who described their own breakthrough as something subtler than, and evenpreceeded, an epiphany. While not necessarily the big breakthrough experience, they felt thatat the next moment, everything could change. What we refer to in Presence is actually thisdeeper resonance that in some cases may not manifest in something as dramatic as what
people would term an epiphany.
George Hall: What is this elusive yet all-important “living process of the whole” that you
refer to? The theory of the U implies a very optimistic worldview: there are positivereflections.solonline.org

Feature n Hall 

processes out there that can be tapped into if only you know how. By accessing these positive
processes, you are actually tapping into something larger than yourself. Is this correct?
Otto Scharmer: Yes, that is right. This is a central assumption of our model. But it describes
a process that we have heard many people describe. The opposite might be when managers
go through some sort of artificial “visioning exercise” that encourages them to make up
whatever they want to see happening with no real sense of connection to the reality of theirorganization. In the processes we are describing, you are allowing yourself to be drawn orpulled in a certain direction. In so doing, you are entering into a dialogue with an emerging
possibility, not imposing your will upon it. At some point in this process you may crystallize
certain visions, but they are an expression of this dialogue with what is emerging. To thedegree that you are courageous and go through certain steps that help this possibility comeinto being, then doors open up and a “helping hand” of sorts shows up. Resources that you
didn’t even know existed or had no prior access to will be offered to you. In general, people
were initially reluctant to tell us about these experiences. It took time before they built up thelevel of trust needed to reveal the “insider’s” version of the story. Time and time again ourinterviewees described how they felt as if they were on a track: they felt drawn in a certain
direction.
George Hall: I’ve experienced this sort of “helping hand” myself, but never considered it partof a universal process I could affect. I thought of it more as a happy coincidence. My impression is that most people don’t invest themselves in this type of thinking because they don’t see
it as a process or even as a possibility.
Peter Senge: That is right, and it is exactly the argument we make in detail in our book. In
short, more people than we imagine actually have this experience. They don’t notice it as such
because we don’t have a suitable language or a more refined way of paying attention to thissubtle phenomenon.
George Hall: In your book you comment, “The bottom of the U is where you discover who
you really are as a servant or steward to what is needed in the world. This is the inner knowing that Brian Arthur is talking about, and then once you see what is needed of you, you act
spontaneously.” Are most people capable of this degree of self-reflection or altruism? Is aleader someone who embraces his or her capacity to be a “servant” of what is needed?
Peter Senge: Yes. This is one definition of leadership that I have always found very appealing. Leadership, however, can mean many different things to different people. We recognizethat all leadership isn’t about position, but obviously some types of leadership are about how
one operates when in a position of authority. To the extent that you see your purpose as being
to serve the organization, or society, or whatever is considered the meaningful whole, thenthere really are two points of view: 1) my job is to figure out what the whole needs and thenfigure out a way to accomplish it, or 2) my job is to help this “whole” evolve: what is its
highest possibility? What is its purpose? Are we all together? In the second case, to be aleader is to serve the evolution of the whole. Our view is not very different from what Robert
Greenleaf describes in his seminal book, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature ofLegitimate Power and Greatness.

10 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

One of the questions we frequently asked people in our research was, “Who is the leader
who serves the whole?” Serving the whole means not acting in a self-serving way – i.e. How
can I impose my image of what is needed? Rather, it means cultivating a more genuine orauthentic way of being. If I am a true member of a community, I naturally will try to act inservice to the whole. I may not always succeed but it will be my natural inclination.
Is there an important link here between serving the whole and viewing organizations asliving systems? Yes. What I am saying right now would make no sense out of that context – inother words, if we simply considered business as a machine for making money. If my view isthat the organization exists to do what I want it to do or what the board of directors wants
it to do or what the ‘owners’ want it to do, it is in effect a mechanical entity driven by a few
in control. On the other hand, if the organization is a human community, if it is a living
system, it makes all the sense in the world. How will I serve this living whole? I believe thatyou will find this orientation at the heart of those who are real leaders. Basically, they are
doing their very best to serve the health and the evolution of the whole they feel some responsibility for.
Otto Scharmer: You asked, “Are most people capable of this degree of self-reflection andaltruism?” Yes, I think so. I teach a class on corporate responsibility at the Sloan School ofManagement at MIT. Usually, MBA students and mid-career executives take the class.
Initially, a few people are enthusiastic but most are skeptical, even cynical. They want to learn
about corporate responsibility and sustainability but they don’t suspect that a practical modelof innovation might underlie these issues. As the class progresses, we examine thought provoking examples, go to interesting organizations to meet remarkable people, and practice
prototyping new ideas. In the process, students learn to appreciate how much true leadershipis connected to taking responsibility and shaping the larger social and ecological whole.
Further, they realize how much innovation in an institutional setting has to do with accessing
this deeper and more personal source of knowing. Finally, they discover an ethical dimension
within themselves that guides their creativity. What amazes me when watching them going
through this process, is that you don’t have to impose a set of ethical norms or principles totrigger these insights. All you need to do is provide people with a methodology and a context
that helps them to uncover what is already there. This is an amazing process to witness. Many
students have said that as a result of this U-like academic experience, they believe they will
not only be more effective business leaders, but also more effective parents, and social orcommunity leaders. This mode of operating can truly change all aspects of their life.

A b out th e A uthor

George Hall is the Field Editor for Management Development with The American Society
for Training and Development (ASTD) and an active SoL member. He teaches in the Collegeof Business Administration at Strayer University and the University of Phoenix.
georgechall@comcast.net
Endnot e s

1 Figure from Otto Scharmer, Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future, SoL, 2007.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature n Hall 11

F E AT U R E 8 . 4

Distributed Knowing

A Conversation with Philippe Descola
Thierry Groussin

Philippe Descola, a graduate of l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, is an anthropologist and professor atCollège de France. His doctoral thesis, supervised by Claude Levi-Strauss, announced the beginnings ofa new research field: comparative anthropology in the socialization of nature. His field research led him
to study the Jivaro tribe in the Amazon basin. Philippe Descola’s work was discussed at the SoL Forumon Collective Intelligence held on May 11, 2007 in Paris, having been cited by Andreu Solé, a participant
in the panel of researchers. Les Cahiers de SoL, SoL France’s version of Reflections, interviewed Philippe
Descola for its December 2007 issue, which was devoted entirely to the subject of collective intelligence.
Phiippe Descola

A large portion of the original interview is reproduced here.

Thierry Groussin: As an anthropologist you have been able to observe societies that are very
different from ours. Does the term “collective intelligence” have any meaning for you?

Thierry Groussin

Philippe Descola: It does indeed. It is a commonly accepted notion in a field called “distributed cognition,” a research domain led mainly by anthropologists who are interested in what
you call “collective intelligence.” It is another way of naming distributed cognition. I am
thinking of a book by Edwin Hutchins considered a reference regarding this subject:
Cognition in the Wild. It is a very interesting work because it studies distributed knowledge– not necessarily re-organized by procedures – and distributed not only in people but also in
objects, artifacts. The action takes place on an American Navy training vessel. It shows thatanthropologists can be interested in many different subjects, and not only in what happens
among primitive people. Collective intelligence is of course absolutely essential on a war
ship.
Thierry Groussin: And what about the societies like the ones you describe in your book Les
Lances du Crépuscule [The Lance’s Twilight]?
Philippe Descola: My experience, and what concerns me in this domain of distributed cognition, has to do with a society in which there is no technical division of work, a society living
in higher Amazonia – the Achuars – where the only division of tasks is related to sex.
Generally speaking, women work in gardens. They plant, they cultivate, they “manipulate”
plants. These are highly complex gardens, with a large numbers of species. The work requires
a highly developed knowledge of ecology, agronomy, and botany, knowledge that small girls
acquire during their childhood while accompanying their mothers. The men, on the other
hand, are “manipulators” of “wild species” – not just wild plants. but also animals. They fishand hunt. They have a different knowledge of ecology from that of their wives. They are also

12 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

the ones who build houses, and who craft objects used in daily living: canoes, dams forfishing, tools, and blowpipes.
What really struck me was that certain collective tasks which require or would seem torequire a “central coordination” were accomplished without central coordination.
Thierry Groussin: In other words, there was no “supervisor”?

© jupiter images

Philippe Descola: Correct. There is no one who says: you do this, you do that, etc. Twosignificant examples of this involve the building of complex objects: houses and dams. In thecase of houses, we are speaking of family dwellings, but since the Achuars are polygamousand since “family” has a wide meaning – widows and orphans are included – a family canrepresent thirty or forty persons. A house can therefore be thirty meters long, ten meters wideand fifteen high.

reflections.solonline.org

n Groussin
Featuren Handy 13
FeatureTo build a house of this kind obviously requires quite a bit of manpower, and so one needs
to organize “invitations.” The dwellings are widely spread out and so the “master of thehouse” – the one who wants to build or rebuild his house – has to go around to visit all of
his neighbours, which sometimes requires several hours of travel by foot. He invites all ofthem, saying: “On such and such a day we will work on my house.” The whole thing isquite festive. When everyone arrives on the building site, manioc beer is served, a beverageof light alcoholic content, and people talk. The atmosphere is quite relaxed. The master ofthe house does not say anything more; someone else among those invited says: “Now, let’s
start the work.” It is not the master of the house who says: “Let’s go to work, guys!” It issomeone else.
What one needs to know is that building such a house represents several weeks of work
and is done in several steps. People go to the forest to bring in the trunks, they cut and strip
the trees, and the poles are sunk into the ground after having measured the right surface
distances with measuring sticks. Then the whole house frame is built. Then palm leaves arebrought in to cover the roof. This represents a series of operations that require cooperation.
In fact, according to the degree of progress in building the house, as soon as one of the participants says “Now, let’s start the work,” they will, one after the other, choose a task andeach one will “adjust” what he does, taking into account what the others have started to do.
Thierry Groussin: Is there some kind of order which justifies these choices? Who decides
first?
Philippe Descola: Nobody, in fact. It happens in a completely spontaneous way.
Thierry Groussin: There is no codified rule such as the more senior first?
Philippe Descola: Absolutely none. Of course, one can understand that there is a certain
natural way of distributing the work, for example, when it comes to fixing wood strips on
the roof, the more agile are likely to take on the task – even if all men are very athletic andanyone is quite capable of climbing onto the roof. Some will pick up the wood strips fromthe ground, others will shred climbing plants to produce strands for tying the wood strips
and pass them up to the young ones on the roof. You can see the work distributing itself
progressively between the participants.
Thierry Groussin: Does this mean that everyone masters all of the tasks that need to beaccomplished?
Philippe Descola: That is where I was going. The key is being multi-skilled. All the men arecapable of doing any one of the tasks. It would be possible to describe the complete range oftechnical operations to be mastered in order to “be a man” in this society, that is to fulfill themasculine tasks. And such multi-skill capability is absolutely necessary: as I explained, thisis a society of dispersed dwellings, sometimes very dispersed; some of the houses are very
isolated, at more than a day’s travel by foot from the nearest neighbor. Consequently, a man
can only rely upon himself.
One thing that is very striking is that the multi-skill characteristic has probably contributed to what has often been considered, by 19th century observers and others, as a “lack of

14 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

foresight of primitive people.” In fact, it is not necessary to do things ahead of time since
everyone is able to do all of these things rapidly!
For example, when we went harpoon fishing, there were no “permanent” harpoons.
Several times I saw men crafting a harpoon in ten minutes. When you think of it, a harpoon
is quite a complicated object. It requires first a long and straight pole; and a string which isbraided on the spot; a barbed tip which is fixed at one end of the pole. The tip will be
crafted, right then, using a nail split with a machete. So, in a few minutes, because one has
decided to go fishing that day, a harpoon is produced.
I believe each man in this society has, in terms of categories of activity, maybe about ahundred skills of this kind and can therefore be substituted for any other man.
Thierry Groussin: Can you give another example?
Philippe Descola: I saw exactly the same thing with respect to building dams for fishing.
These are not dams to retain water but rather to keep fish from passing through. This is amajor undertaking and it requires important elements of coordination. Rivers are often fifteen to twenty meters wide with a strong current. Some of the men wade into the water,others bring in tree trunks in order to build trestles, others fetch thinner poles, and so on. I
never heard a single instruction being given.
I believe we have lost the habit of this kind of situation where, by observing what ourneighbours are doing, we adjust, so to speak, our actions to what they are doing, so as towork in a co-ordinated and harmonious manner, without the intervention of a work master.
I am even convinced that one of the great technical revolutions in the history of humanity
was the moment when one accepted that a work master could come and tell people, who are
multi-skilled, what they should do in an operation that requires co-operation. And that isprobably how specialization was implemented.
Thierry Groussin: Nevertheless, given the fact that management thinking is increasingly interested in new forms of organization, including self-organization, network functioning, etc.,
can one imagine that we have something to learn from these earlier people?
Philippe Descola: I believe that self-organization – autopoïesis – works if people are highly
attentive to what others are doing. You need work situations of a particular type where several persons gather around a given task. You see this, for example, in a biology or physics
laboratory, where people are doing experimentation work. Very few words are exchanged.
You would probably see the same thing – here I have less experience – on a building site,where a foreman tells people how to do things initially, but then workers mutually adjust according to the circumstances. For more complex tasks, I am not sure. When people are isolated in theiroffices, it is not the same, even if they are connected via the internet.
A b out th e A uthor

Thierry Groussin is group head of executive development at Credit Mutuel, a major French bank.
Co-founder and President of the “Co-evolution Project,” he also is member of several Boards, including SoL France and “Futuribles.” Thierry is an active contributor of the Cahiers de SoL editorial team.
thygr@wanadoo.fr

reflections.solonline.org

n Groussin
Featuren Handy 15
FeatureF E AT U R E 8 . 4

A “SoL” Way of Seeing

ResearchUpdateInvestigating Conditions Enabling andInhibiting Collective Intelligence
Manfred Mack

In 2007, members of SoL France undertook a survey of members in order to determine their familiarity with the idea of “collective intelligence.” The results of the survey were shared with participants at
an international workshop on the subject in Paris, which was attended by more than 200 people. The
survey questions, and a summary of answers, reveal some interesting dichotomies among members about the idea of collective intelligence, and how it can help members grappling with questionsof personal, organizational, and societal change.

Manfred MackP

articipants in the survey were asked four questions. Responses to the survey came infrom 27 contributors, based in 11 different countries. Nine came from the U.S., 14
from Europe, and 4 from Asia and Oceania. The questions were as follows:•	If you were to give an example of collective intelligence, taken from your personal
experience and that you find particularly significant, what would it be?

• For what reasons do you believe this example to be truly significant?
•	What do you believe to be the major challenges which call for favouring the
emergence of collective intelligence?
•	With respect to these challenges, what appear to be the major obstacles preventing
the emergence of collective intelligence?
Some of the highlights include:•	The notion of collective intelligence is still open to multiple interpretations. Several
respondents feel comfortable with the term. Others don’t think it is appropriate.
•	Whatever the term used for it, (collective intelligence, collective consciousness, collective reflection, etc…), the phenomenon or process, or capability itself is “in the making”
and it is considered a key development with respect to our society’s ability to deal
with the major challenges that it faces.
•	There are a surprising number of elements on which respondents converge. In somecases almost the same words or expressions were used by contributors even though
they came from completely different parts of the world.
•	Among the most strikingly convergent ideas is the notion that, for common or collective intelligence to emerge, individuals need to accept going “deep into themselves,”
accept entering into a quality of relationship based on trust of the other and accept
that participating in such a collective process can involve personal transformation.

16 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

•	We have the impression that whatever is taking place within and around SoL in connection with this subject represents a work-in-process of great importance. It is therefore
appropriate and encouraging to see that multiple other initiatives (practice sharing,
research, writing) are being taken around the world.
1. 	Respondents gave a large variety of lived experiences as examples of collective intelligence:•	Retreats to reflect deeply on a given subject•	Work by a group during periods of variable lengths to prepare an important event•	Teams collaborating to solve a difficult problem•	Dialogue (or co-creation) processes to give ex-pression to a shared vision• Young participants sharing of a learning experience•	Workings of semi-permanent entities: ONG, mutual help network
2. 	The responses reflect an extremely open interpretation of what constitutes collective
intelligence:•	A manner of working as a group•	A particular form of exchange, of dialogue, of reflecting together•	A process which brings the participants together according to different modesof relationships (these take the form of a social field)•	An emergent phenomenon, the global property being of another order than
the addition of individual intelligences•	A new capability which can and should be developed
3. 	The nature of collective intelligence, considered as a process, differs according to the typeof relationships between participants:• 	A first type of collective intelligence is that of self-organized teams in which members
have established a high quality form of collaboration.
“No one person was in charge. The accountability… was truly shared by the larger
team. They learned together…. The end result was much better than had this been
managed in a top down way.”“13 people with very different professional and cultural backgrounds together solved
a very difficult task in friendship which each person individually could not have done.”
4. Other forms of collective intelligence are related to changes in behavior or in the way of
being of the participants:•	A first type of change concerns the quality of listening and the manner of listening“(We need) to learn how to really listen to each other to find the underlying common
understanding of a situation.”reflections.solonline.org

ResearchFeature
Update nn Handy
Mack 17

“When we practice empathic listening, our perception shifts to the place from which
the other person is speaking.”“(In these conversations) we could hear the field emerge.”•	Another type of change gives rise to a shift, a move toward a new collective state“What enabled us to succeed was the almost physical depth of our distress…
we had to reach a commitment of each of us to clear it away.”“We cleared the decks of all emotions or as much of the emotional victim stuff
that we were capable of doing.”“A remark, which was meant to be a joke, became the releasing factor…
a collective mobilization took place as a result of a real commitment.”• Changes of perspective or in structure of attention can also occur:“Collective sensing allows one to look from the larger whole.”“The outcome is not another smart thought but a collective sense-making.”“You have to ask the question how do we do what we do? (the system sees itself
and reflects upon itself).”•	Lastly, the participants and the group can experience mutual transformation:“The almost meditative state of the discussion leads to powerful feelings.”“There is something that is emergent from the collective consciousness thatsignificantly am-plifies the experience and the insights that can occur.”“You have to trust the process.”“Certain qualities of the field are such that, having lived the experience,
you are no longer the same person.”
5. The challenges indicated for which, it is hoped, collective intelligence could bring solutions,are by and large the major evils that our world faces today:•	Threats to the biosphere, warming of the planet’s climate•	Other challenges related to the survival of humanity under acceptable conditions(poverty, hunger in the world …)•	Increased complexity in multipe domains (global-ization, technologies, organizations)•	Decreasing quality of social links and in the way we lead our lives•	And, in general, the fact that solutions surpass the capabilities of mere individuals
and of a hierarchical form of management (“what could we create?)

18 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

6. Moving forward will require having in mind the obstacles that could prevent the
emergence of collective intelligence:•	Defending private interests, the need to be right, to win, individual selfishness•	The lack of capacity to listen, lack of trust, lack of collaboration• Being afraid (of the future, of the unknown, of losing one’s posessions)•	Lack of occasions to develop personal mastery and group capabilities•	Highly linear, rational, ways of thinking; not knowing how (not daring) to speakfrom the heart
7. Going forward implies exploring, experimenting, trial and error...
•	Some leaders are showing the way:
“I believe that personal and group selfishness must be explicitly. . . separated out
before enough “innocence . . . will allow the power of collective intelligence to emerge.”“The answer emerges through honest conversation that is connecting to some unseen
and barely perceived truth.”“It is the act of taking ownership of the challenges that releases collective intelligence.”“It was almost as if we used our connection as a process (for decision making).”
8. The contributions that the sciences can bring are necessary to guide and accelerate
the development of this emerging capability:•	What are the learnings that could be drawn from having a better understandingof the way the brain functions?
•	What are the possible transpositions?
•	What can one learn from forms of collective intelligence that can be observedin nature, in other cultures, in society?
•	What tools can provide leverage or act as accelerators?

A b out th e A uthor

Manfred Mack is a Swiss-American residing in Paris. He holds an MBA from Columbia
University. A strategy and organizational consultant, he has authored three books on
evolving leadership and value development capabilities. A founding member of SoL France,
he is responsible for the editorial team of “Les Cahiers de SoL France.”
manfred.mack@libertysurf.fr

reflections.solonline.org

ResearchFeature
Updatenn Handy
Mack 19emerging knowledge forum

Vulnerability and Shifting
Leadership Values

How Lived Disability Makes Context Inescapable
Greg Jemsek
In this article, Greg Jemsek argues that the leadership needed to address the complex problems confronting all sectors of society – business, community, and government – requires afuller understanding of vulnerability in determining the actions taken in relation to these problems. Because confronting personal vulnerability is a daily reality for people living with a disability, many people within this sector are generating ideas that have the potential to transform theway leadership in the broader society is exercised. These ideas emphasize the relationshipbetween the activity of leadership and those impacted by it, incorporating an understanding ofvulnerability in ways which highlight rather than diminish the overall context of the situation
Greg Jemsek

being addressed. In so doing, leadership activity can move from models based more on “heroic”

style individual initiative to more relationally-based, inclusive and collaborative inquiries and action that strive to avoid“de-contextualization.” In preparing the article, the author interviewed over 85 participants and graduates of Leadership
Plus, a program based in Victoria, New South Wales, for people with disabilities.

Leadership theory is in the midst of a significant
shift in focus away from heroic models thathave dominated leadership discourse, particularly in business, for a significant period of time.
Heroic models advocate individual traits such as
charisma, vision, strategic thinking, and negotiation
skills as foundational to the practice of leadership.
Usually, these traits are associated with positional
leaders such as CEOs or senior executives, reinforcing a notion of equivalency between leadership andorganizational position.
Without discounting the value of these skills, theshift away from them has occurred in concert withan increasing awareness of a number of factors
which impact on leadership but which cannot be
resolved by individual, heroic traits in isolation.
These factors include problem complexity and wholesystems awareness. Ronald Heifetz and Margaret
Wheatley are two leadership theorists who have

20 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

acknowledged these factors in their writings. In
stressing that leadership work needs to be adaptive,
Heifetz defines this as the “…ability to clarify values
and make progress on the problems those values
define.”1 He goes on to say that
“By its’ nature, adaptive work does not often
fall within the purview of established organizational and social structures. Pieces of the puzzle– information about the problem – lie scatteredin the hands of stakeholders across divisions, interest groups, organizations, and communities.”2

Wheatley borrows the notion of “strange attractors”
from chaos theory to point out that while a system
may not behave exactly the same way twice, it demonstrates an inherent orderliness if it is viewed overtime. Leadership needs to identify and understandsuch attractors and their relationship to the systembefore acting if it is to be effective.3

reflections.solonline.org

This shift away from heroic models is significant
because it highlights two dimensions of leadershipwhich are frequently ignored:
1) the context in which leadership takes place, and2) the underlying values which drive the activityof leadership.
In this respect, this takes the discussion about leadership back to earlier concerns posited by scholars
such as James MacGregor Burns. Burns emphasizedthat any meaningful discussion of leadership must
incorporate the values and motivations of both leaders and followers:“Leadership (is) leaders including followers to
act for certain goals that represent the values andthe motivations – the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations - of both leaders andfollowers. The genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own
and their followers’ values and motivations.”4© jupiter images

Examining the values of everyone seeking to addressa complex problem, regardless of whether they are ina position of “leadership” or “followership,” is afundamental way the context of leadership remains
foreground in any discussion of leadership effectiveness. It can be argued that the current demand forbetter leadership in all sectors – government, private
enterprise, and community – is largely generated by
the fact that the surrounding context has been forgotten or deliberately ignored by individuals in positions of leadership. Those who have done so consider themselves unaccountable to followers in ways
which Burns, Heifetz and Wheatley would all challenge.
Values underpin all leadership activity. This does
not guarantee, however, that leadership activity
reflects the values of the wider context in which that
activity occurs.
“Context” envelops all activity, including all leadership activity. If the context is seen as “doing what
is best for shareholders” then leadership is seen as
any activity which increases shareholder value. If
the context is seen as all the citizens with HIV in acountry, then leadership activity is anything that
reduces the number of such people. In both instances,values underpin how the context is viewed. The firstreflections.solonline.org

EKF ■ Jemsek 21

context is predicated on the value placed on economic growth and individual prosperity. The second
context concerns itself with the value of keeping
public health strong and the measures necessary to
do that.
In these examples, the context is narrowed to
specific groups with specific interests. Not everyone
places a value on economic prosperity. Not everyone
places a value on assisting people with HIV either,
particularly if doing so is seen as running contrary toanother value placed in higher regard, such as economic prosperity. How willing a person is to sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to better
public health is thus a matter of ascertaining which
values hold greater significance in the minds of people who make decisions about issues or are affectedby them. In other words, context is always connectedto the affairs of people, hence it is important to surface the underlying values of anything that calls itself
leadership to see how broadly or narrowly the context is being considered. What happens when theperception of context is narrowed to such a degree
that sectors of the population become “decontextualized,” i.e. are not considered as part of the context? What values narrow focus in this way, andwhat values broaden focus in ways that inspireawareness of and interaction with a larger context?

Disabilities and Leadership
One group in society that has been severely decontextualized are people with a disability – whether
that disability be physically or psychologically based.
What do members of this group have to offer to thepractice of leadership in contemporary society? Are
there ways of leading that are emerging from this
sector, despite the diversity of people who fit thisdescription? If so, what are the values that underpin
this, and what mainstream values would be challenged by a society that embraced rather than shunned those of its’ members who have a disability?
The values associated with heroic models of leadership are too narrow to effectively address theincreasingly complex problems society is facing.

22 Reflections ■ Volume 7, Number 4

Problems such as climate change, terrorism, and awidening social divide require leadership whichbroadens awareness of the overall context, increases
capacity to collaborate across interest groups, develops tolerance for not having answers immediately,and sustains an awareness of interdependence.
Navigating successfully through problems such asthese is aided by basing leadership activity on values
inclusive of all segments of society. One step that canfacilitate this process is to gain a better comprehension of some key values guiding people frequently on
the outskirts of discussions about leadership, such as
people with a disability.
Having a disability can impact the values a person
emphasizes in her life, how she looks at mainstream
values which may decontextualize her experience,and the implications of both these factors for leadership in the larger society. In particular, attention ispaid to the values that become central to a person
when she learns to deal successfully with vulnerability on a daily basis. Vulnerability is examined in the
belief that those who are able to come to terms withit orient to the surrounding context in ways that cansignificantly contribute to the way leadership is exercised in the broader society.

Coming to Terms with Vulnerability
In February, 2007, I was conducting a workshop forthe incoming participants of the Leadership Plus
program, a Melbourne based leadership program forpeople with a disability. I hadn’t had the opportunity
to meet each of the participants individually, but I
knew their disabilities covered a wide range: ABI,5
Parkinson’s, Autism, Blindness, and Quadriplegia, toname just a few. The workshop was at a point where
the participants had been asked to address how their
particular disability affected their leadership. At one
point the discussion turned to how easy it was to bea victim of one’s disability. The discussion on thishad just gotten started when the emphatic voice of
one of the participants resounded through theroom: “Being a victim about your disability is a oneway road to defeat and despair. It serves no usefulreflections.solonline.org

reflections.solonline.org

thinking. There are plenty of ways vulnerability
affects people with a disability on a daily basis.
If a person with a disability has come to termswith vulnerability, it’s likely she has dealt with atleast two primary challenges. The first of these is thedaily living challenge of the disability itself. How
much pain will have to be endured to make itthrough the day? Will the energy needed to do thetasks that have to be done be available? Being strong
in the face of questions such as these requires aninternal toughness that acknowledges limitation
without being frustrated by it, is capable of adapting
to ever-changing circumstances fluidly, and has asecure sense of identity that is inclusive of his or her
disability but not dominated by it.

© jupiter images

purpose for you, your family, the community, or
whatever leadership you are attempting to demonstrate.” The speaker went on to detail his struggle infacing disability without becoming a victim of it.
How could he not only not feel victimized, but be
speaking so clearly about the obstacles it posed toleadership?
Usually when leadership is discussed, it is equatedwith the notion of strength, but such discussions
rarely include the notion of the type of strength thatcomes from vulnerability. Usually vulnerability isviewed as a weakness. Leaders are advised to be“tough negotiators,” for instance – meaning theyshould not show vulnerability if they wish to forward the needs of their organization or cause.
“Strategic leaders” must be willing to enact
painful measures, such as making staff
redundant for cost-saving purposes, and areadvised not to show vulnerability in thatprocess. Appearance of weakness is generally considered a no-go zone for anyone
with leadership aspirations. Adopting suchan attitude produces strength that is willful,at times overpowering, and very task oriented. This approach works well in mostwork situations – particularly competitive
ones our society so highly values – but it canbe limiting. Dismissing the value of vulnerability can restrict a leader’s ability to
grasp the broader context of the situation
she is facing.
For people with a disability who havecome to terms with vulnerability deal constructively with vulnerability as a conscious
aspect of daily life. They may be late for a
crucial job interview because the taxi driverrefused to take a person in a wheelchair.
Slurred speech resulting from a brain injury
may be misinterpreted and ridiculed as“drunkenness.” Asked to represent the disability community on a local city council,
the person may run out of steam at a crucial
point in a meeting because Multiple Sclerosis
suddenly saps his energy and muddies his

EKF ■ Jemsek 23

The second challenge is stigmatization. When I
talked with David Craig, Executive Officer for
Action for Community Living, he put the challenge
this way:“How people deal with the stigma placed uponthem from being disabled is crucial to that
person’s ability to ‘re-story’ their life.”

Stigma is far more pervasive than the outright rejection and ridicule people with a disability experience
to a greater or lesser degree in their lives, dependingon the nature of their disability and the environments in which they live and function. It includes
things many people without a disability never consider: being patronized by well-intended people,
being overlooked for jobs despite having equivalentor superior skills, having assumptions made about
needs and/or capabilities instead of being directly
asked what would work and about the contributions
they could make.

Creating a New Story
Coming to terms with the stigmatizing aspect of vulnerability requires the same toughness, adaptability
and secure identity mentioned earlier. One of thefirst steps towards achieving this is finding the courage not to see one’s disability solely as a deficit. Thisis immensely challenging because of the difficult
emotion challenge that comes from being decontextualized by others and, as happens all too frequently, internalizing those beliefs. Many people
with a disability fight against this process initially bysimply denying the reality of their disability. A person who is disabled is much bigger than her disability itself. Recognizing this without denying theimpact of the disability in daily life and in the mindsof others is a first step towards what Craig refers to
as “re-storying” one’s life. It requires, in part, thatthe person with the disability broaden the context inwhich she views her life. If successful, this will serve
to shift her values in a direction that matches thisbroader context.
The path to re-storying one’s self is a path of selftransformation. It begins with a brutal self-honesty

24 Reflections ■ Volume 7, Number 4

and proceeds from there, hopefully not in isolation
but ultimately depending on the courage of the person undertaking the journey. No one, with a disability or without one, can transform herself without
courage.
The value placed on self-transformation is not the
only one that is prominent when a person comes toterms with vulnerability. Equally important is thevalue of interdependence. People with a disability
who have come to terms with their vulnerability areusually acutely aware of their interdependence withthose around them. And knowledge of that interdependence brings forward traits such as humility.
Carlene Boucher, Associate Professor in the Schoolof Management at Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology (RMIT), spoke about humility in ourconversation together. She mentioned that becoming“full of herself” is never an option. Irrespective of
any respect she gets from colleagues and friends forthe work she does at RMIT in downtown Melbourne,
she knows that once she goes out the door to catcha cab or navigate a building without proper wheelchair access she is likely to be brought down to earth
in an instant. It’s true, of course, that humbling incidents punctuate the lives of people without disabilities as well – but it is difficult to argue that thefrequency with which these incidents occur to people
with a disability is much greater, and more likely tobring forward an awareness of interdependence.
Awareness of interdependence includes not losing
sight of the broader, surrounding context. As such, it
gives a person with a disability the opportunity tocontextualize his life repeatedly, in ways people
without a disability often find elusive. This can leadto a much greater awareness of how a larger systemis operating, or to the complexities inherent in aparticular situation.
This is a double-edged sword, however. Being consistently aware of a broader context also means
being consistently aware of how others do not see
you as being part of the narrowed context in which
they may be functioning. Addressing that challenge
is foundational to the re-storying process, and to aperson coming to terms with his vulnerability.

reflections.solonline.org

© digital visionThis is why efforts to employ people with a disability, such as those being made by Mark Bagshaw
and the Ability Australia Foundation,6 include
acknowledgement of this challenge in concert withpragmatic efforts to improve access and get people
into work. Ability Australia’s “Whole of Life” modelemphasizes three areas: 1) Insufficient infrastructure,2) Low expectations placed upon people with a disability by the community, and 3) The disempowerment experienced by people with a disability. All ofthese factors emphasize how the decontextualizationof people with a disability – both by others andsometimes by the person himself – has been embedded in mainstream institutional structures. Ability
Australia and similar organizations offer pragmaticways to counter this. Their existence, and the lack ofawareness most people and institutions have about
these issues, highlights how mainstream culture does
not generally incorporate interdependence as a corevalue of leadership activity.
The power of interdependence is amplified when
it operates in concert with the value of self-transfor-

reflections.solonline.org

mation. When this happens, a break with the values
underpinning heroic models of leadership occurs.
While heroic models emphasize a person acting upon
context to change it in some way, a person who hascome to terms with vulnerability acts upon context
to change it but without losing sight of the fact that
she is connected to that context at all times. Before
she takes action in the world, she will consider the
implications on others in ways that have a deeper
level of empathy than that which usually characterizes heroic leadership activity.
This difference is articulated well in an interview
with disability activist Norman Kunc.7 Kunc, who
has cerebral palsy,8 discusses the efforts of a physiotherapist to motivate him to do exercises to improve
his walking. While not denying the good intentionsof the physiotherapist, Kunc summarizes his mainlearning from this experience as follows:“…and what I learned at that moment in life
was that it was not a good thing to be disabled
and that the more I could reduce or minimize

EKF ■ Jemsek 25

my disability the better off I would be. WhenI was in segregated school, I fundamentally
saw myself as deficient and abnormal. I saw
myself as inherently different from the rest of
the human race. The implicit message that permeated all my therapy experiences was that if
I wanted to live as a valued person, wanted aquality life, to have a good job, everything could
be mine. All I had to do was overcome my disability. No one comes up and says ‘Look, if you
want to live a good life you have to be normal,’but it is a powerful, implicit message. Receiving physical therapy and occupational therapy
were important contributors in terms of seeing
myself as abnormal.”9

Kunc and others do not argue against therapy per sefor those who wish it. What he argues against are theinherent assumptions made by therapists who neverconsider that the actions they are taking may have anegative impact on the sovereignty of a person witha disability. What if the person with a disability has
decided that he wants to spend his life in ways that
do not include physiotherapy? What if he is doing so
not out of laziness or resistance, but because he haschosen for himself a quality of life that doesn’t
include getting physiotherapy? Awareness of suchquestions require including people with a disability
contextually, i.e. engaging them and exploring withthem the next steps best suited to their lives.

The False Assumption ofMainstream Values
Much of the economic success society is currently
experiencing has resulted from emphasizing achievement through competitive means. Free market economies open the door to competition. They encourage
conflicting forces to struggle against each other toprevail. It is assumed that the superior product, person, system, etc. will in fact prevail. It is also assumed
that society, as a whole, will benefit as a result of thisprocess. This approach has led to a dramatic improvement in efficiency, technological innovation,

26 Reflections ■ Volume 7, Number 4

individual excellence and economic prosperity.
Heroic models of leadership emerged from this environment and from the values underpinning it:
achievement, competitiveness, and productivity areamong those values. These values are currently
unquestioned in society, perhaps the best indicationthat they are well and truly mainstream.
Increasingly, however, the second half of theassumption these values make – that society as awhole will benefit from operating this way – is being
recognized as false. Despite the benefits to some sectors of society from adopting a market perspective in
all areas of life, a huge number of people are not
only not benefiting, they are finding it difficult toeven survive.
Beyond this is another concern: the growing
awareness that the relentless pursuit of economic
growth has been responsible for creating problems
increasingly complex and increasingly immune toheroic leadership approaches. Climate change, terrorism, and the increasing social divide are all issues
resistant to quick fix approaches and requiring consideration of the broader context. This raises animportant question:
Is there a way forward where values such as
productivity and competitiveness can co-exist
with values such as interdependence and selftransformation?

Heifetz declares that “…the clarification and integration of competing values itself becomes adaptive
work,”10 putting leadership at the centre of any
working through values difference. But what will
this leadership look like? And what role will people
with a disability have to play?

Implications for Leadership“When you have a disability, you realize thatthe universe is not a logical place,orderly and reasonable. So instead of big plans
about big changes, it’s about smallchanges at appropriate leverage points.”– Carlene Bouchert

reflections.solonline.org

“Take heart, people of the future, from our times when prospects seemed bleak andfrightening. I am sure there are aspects of life in your time and place which are equallydifficult.... In every period of history people have fought against impossible odds. . . . Fight
your tendency to avoid pain and suffering. Accept your fears, be informed by them, andlearn how to set them aside. Develop an even deeper connection to the creatures you
share the planet with. Enjoy the absurdity around you. And remember, we put a lot ofeffort into making your life on this planet possible, so don’t let us down.” 11
The process of coming to terms with vulnerability is
one that necessarily shifts a person’s values focus to
one that emphasizes self-transformation and interdependence. As already discussed, it is not an easy task
to do this, and it is not a given that a person with adisability will necessarily undertake it. If he does,
however, he will be required to confront a very complex issue that doesn’t have a prescribed answer. He
is likely to develop traits that bode well for his leadership potential: an increased tolerance for uncertainty, an awareness of limitation, self-honesty,
humility, courage, and resilience. Additionally, thesevalues and his awareness of the broader context willboth give plenty of exercise to his personal conscience: Who will be affected by my actions? How
will this action play out over time? Am I doing thisprimarily for my own benefit, or will this contributeto a larger good?
Questions such as these are necessary to confront
complex, systemic problems in a way that doesn’t
inadvertently make a situation worse. There is no
guarantee that asking these questions will result in aperfect solution, but the likelihood of making adecent start in a positive direction is significantly
increased. This type of leadership is sorely needed in
the government, business and community sectors. It
is needed because the nature of problems themselves
is becoming more complex.
Heifetz uses an example of how this type of leadership functions when he highlights the actions ofWilliam Ruckelshaus in 1983. Ruckelshaus, head of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),12
had to decide on whether the health hazards of acopper smelting plant in Tacoma, Washington, justified closing it down. The plant was emitting arsenic,
which had been shown to cause cancer, but it wasreflections.solonline.org

uncertain whether its’ emissions reduced its’ “marginof safety” to unacceptable standards.
What was unique about Ruckelshaus’ leadershipon this issue was what he didn’t do. He didn’t immediately intervene on the side of either the company– the town’s main employer – or the public healthsector. He didn’t pretend to know the answer and act“decisively” to solve the problem. Instead, he publicly and dramatically refused to decide on his own.
He announced the EPA would actively solicit theviews of the general public in the town itself, anaction virtually unheard of at the time and whose
implementation would require facilitation and collaboration skills foreign to the majority of his EPA
employees. In suggesting this, he was lampooned by
the press and criticized by the public, the copper
company, and even by the national headquarters of
the EPA itself. He went ahead anyway – not becauseof unilateral arrogance but because he knew hedidn’t have the answer and wanted to put in place aprocess that would lead to one. He delayed official
hearings on the matter so that workshops could be
conducted soliciting wide public input.
In the course of these workshops the problem,
initially seen strictly as a zero sum conflict of “jobsvs. public health,” began to take a new shape. Aftera time, the public attending these meetings began toveer in the direction of considering how they might
diversify the economy of their area of Tacoma. A
year later, unrelated to the discussions and to the
EPA’s involvement, the plant owners themselves
decided to close the plant because falling copper
prices were making it economically unviable. The
community, however – through their extended participation in discussions about the issue – was prepared. They had already spent considerable time

EKF ■ Jemsek 27

attracting new industry to the area and finding newjobs for the copper plant workers.
There is, of course, more detail to the story. But
the significant factor to notice is the underlying values driving the leadership action taken. Ruckelshaus
was acutely aware of a broader context, inclusive of
all the interest groups involved. He recognized theinterdependence of the people involved in the situation and understood that the community, the company, and even the EPA itself would have totransform if it was going to address this problem ina successful way. There was no certainty that a solution would in fact be reached, and no predictability
even about what would happen next.
This stands in contrast to heroic leadership thatfrequently acts too quickly in order to be seen as
decisive, and unilaterally so as to avoid conflicting
opinions. Both of these approaches appear to beleadership when heroic values are the only reference
point, but both often narrow context in order to create this impression. Problems such as terrorism, thesocial divide and climate change require broadening
the context to include everyone. Each of these issues
will require leadership that can acknowledge anddeal with that fact. Furthermore, it will require leadership that understands the values that underpin thissort of approach. The disability community has
many such people among its’ ranks: people whohave come to terms with vulnerability and are wellestablished in the values of self-transformation andinterdependence.
This suggests another values shift inclusive ofboth heroic model values and values that acknowledge the wider context: viewing society not as composed of consumers, but of citizens. This perspective
has been lost, despite the lip service paid to it bypoliticians in particular. Truly seeing society as anaggregate of citizens greater than any individual in it
acknowledges interdependence from the outset,
without restricting anyone’s capacity to pursue individual success and excel. It broadens the context byplacing the responsibility for progressing society
onto the shoulders of everyone. It encourages transparency in our interactions with each other, better

28 Reflections ■ Volume 7, Number 4communications, and a capacity to function outsideof cynical self-interest. It also encourages a return toan awareness of the “common good” as a guiding
value closely aligned with interdependence.
It does not, however, mean the assimilation ofpeople with disabilities. Assimilation without a values shift would ignore the insights gained by people
with a disability who have come to terms with theirvulnerability largely through shifting their values.
Those insights need to be brought to the conversation. Paul Dunn, Senior Project Officer with the Department of Health Services (DHS) Victoria, pointed
out to me the perils of assimilation in our conversation together. “What’s really needed,” said Dunn,“are new ways in which we organize ourselves.”
Organizing ourselves differently may seem risky
in terms of productivity, but only if productivity isnarrowly defined in a context of short term balance
sheets. Long term productivity incorporates thevalue of quality into its’ thinking, which in turn puts
greater emphasis on creating environments where
people interact with each other in more creative andsignificant ways. This in turn increases the likelihoodof sorting through complexity. It would requireorganizations to take the “step back” in order toactivate personal conscience and view the broader
context surrounding an issue before jumping into
action, a reflective practice increasing rare yet desperately needed for whole system, complex problems. There are obvious implications to thisperspective that the disability community has been
alerting us to for decades: improving access andinfrastructure, providing opportunity, and widening
our compassion to trust that just because people arein a position where they can’t always achieve at thehighest levels does not mean that they can’t contribute hugely to society’s most significant and pressing
problems.
Indeed, people with a disability may well have justthe perspective needed to provide unique and creative contributions to problems that will not be
resolved by simple technical solutions which ignore
the wider context – no matter how competent or
heroic those solutions may appear to be.

reflections.solonline.org

A b out th e A uthor

R e f e r e nc e s

Greg Jemsek works as a leadership consultant to

Burns, James MacGregor (1978), Leadership,
New York: Harper Colophon.

the Leaders Institute of South Australia and Leadership
Plus, a Victorian leadership program focused on participants with a disability. He is based in Adelaide,
South Australia.
gjemsek@iprimus.com.au

Heifetz, Ronald A. (1994), Leadership Without
Easy Answers, Cambridge: Belknap.
Shakespeare, Tom (2006), Disability Rights andWrongs,New York: Routledge.
UPIAS (1976), Fundamental Principles of Disability,
London: UPIASThe author gratefully acknowledges the contributions
made to this article by the Australian disability community. In particular, the participants in the Leadership Plus
program in 2005, 2006, and 2007 whose willingness 		
to share their stories with me has been instrumental in
helping me begin to understand “from the inside” howdisability is experienced. I would also like to thank thewillingness of the people listed below, all of whom tooktime away from their work with people with a disability to
discuss the issues covered in this paper. Thank you foryour input, and for the important contributions you aremaking to our community.

Wheatley, Margaret (1999), Leadership and the
New Science, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Dr. Mark Bagshaw, Director Accessibility, IBM,

3

Wheatley, Leadership and The New Science, p. 22

4

Burns, Leadership, p. 19

5

ABI is the acronym for “Acquired Brain Injury”

Australia and New Zealand; Chairman,
The Ability Australia Foundation, Pyrmont, NSW.

Werner, Emily (2005), Resilience and Recovery:
Findings From the Kauai Longitudinal Study,
http://www.rtc.pdx.edu

Endnot e s

1

Heifetz, p. 5

2

Ibid., p. 118

and refers to any type of brain damage occurring

Carlene Bouchert, Associate Professor, Healthafter birth, regardless of whether it began throughServices Management, School of Management, RMIT
University, Melbourne, VIC.

infection, disease, lack of oxygen, or a blow to
the head. About 160,000 Australians suffer fromDavid Craig, Executive Officer, Action For Community
Living, Melbourne, VIC.

some form of ABI.
6

Paul Dunn, Senior Project Officer, Community Building,
Disability Services, Department of Human Services,
Melbourne, VIC.

implement broad-based disability reform.
7“The Stairs Don’t Go Anywhere” from the Journalof the Council for Exceptional Children – Division

Stephen Gianni, Executive Officer, Leadership Plus,
Melbourne, VIC.

Based in Sydney, Ability Australia works tofor Physical and Health Disabilities
8

Cerebral palsy refers to a number of neurological

Dr. Lorna Hallahan, Lecturer in Social Work, Flinders

disorders which appear in infancy or early childhood

University; Manager, Community
Development Anglicare SA, Adelaide, SA.

and which permanently affect body movement andJenny Harrison, Lecturer, Disability Services, Victoria

muscle movement, it is caused by abnormalities

muscle coordination. Although cerebral palsy affects
in parts of the brain that affect such movements.

University, Melbourne, VIC.

Clare Thorn, Manager, Office for Disability, Department
for Victorian Communities, Melbourne, VIC.

Niki Vincent, Chief Executive, Leaders Institute ofSouth Australia, Adelaide, SA.

reflections.solonline.org

9	

Ibid., p. 2

10 Heifetz, p. 3
11 Peavy, Fran (1985), Heart Politics, Phildelphia:
New Society, pp. 181–182
12 Heifetz, pp. 88–100

EKF ■ Jemsek 29

emerging knowledge forum

Rewriting the Rules of the Game
Integrating Personal and Professional
Aspirations in PracticeAlexandre de Carvalho
Alexandre de Carvalho began his professional career with a series of traditional management
positions in the pharmaceutical industry, moving from finance to marketing to directing overseas
operations. His international career brought him from France to Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Latin
America, the United States, Africa, and finally India, before returning to France. While working toreposition a struggling pharmaceutical business in Africa, he experienced a change of heart andunderstanding. By redefining what constituted success, he brought together his professional andpersonal desires in a coherent, integrated stance – and developed a healthier, more profitable,
Alexandre deCarvalhobusiness model.

W

hen I began my professional life, I had arather traditional view of the leader’s role
and what makes a “good corporate citizen.” Success was defined as meeting predetermined
objectives, which first and foremost included financial goals. Before I accepted my position as Managing
Director of the Africa Region, I had to overcome acertain reluctance. I was drawn to the continent
because of my paternal ancestry, but at the sametime, the idea of having to manage a business which
was marked by mediocre results didn’t really excite
me. Africa was considered one of the “problem
countries” by the company I worked for, and it had
few prospects for recovery. The management team
there had a reputation for confrontation, and thesocial climate was problematic.
In addition, the principle of empowerment, towhich I was attached, was sorely lacking. The rulesof the game were set by company headquarters inFrance. For example, the African finance and humanresources functions were located at the company
headquarters. All the other overseas affiliates retained
those functions on site, with positions held by local
managers. I had just spent several years with theBrazilian and American affiliates, where, in contrast,

30 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

local management was truly autonomous, and several different management programs – Quality
Circles, Deming’s Total Quality Management, etc. –had already been implemented. Up until then, thecompany had conceived of Africa as functioning
according to a different model.

A Limited Vision
The management at headquarters had a somewhat
limited vision. They couldn’t conceive of any substantial growth in these countries, because the market for branded medicines was considered insignificant. Paradoxically, generic products and over-thecounter medications weren’t encouraged by thecompany’s strategies in general, not even for Africa.
They relied upon a management team made up
exclusively of expatriates, and were grossly unawareof the lack of motivation among local teams. In reality, the management team followed a top-down
application of the company’s global strategy, and theoverarching pursuit of the financial objectives determined by the headquarters. There was strong pressure to meet these goals, which generated a great
deal of stress within the organization. The fact was,reflections.solonline.org

however, that these objectives hadn’t been achievedfor years.
Additionally, partnering with local authorities
wasn’t considered, as these groups were focused on
prevention. For example, the proper use of mosquito
nets was known to be an effective tool for preventing
malaria, notably in children, who are the principal
victims of the disease. This was the central messageof public health campaigns. In contrast, the company’s African marketing was entirely conceived interms of treating prevalent diseases. They could not
imagine that synergies could emerge from partnerships with public health projects. The company’s
policy revolved around making the minimum investment necessary, including the closure of so-called“non-strategic” African sites.
Gradually, I realized that this rationale was notdoing much to meet the basic needs of local populations in terms of health, nor was it in keeping withthe best interests of business development. However,when I took the position of Managing Director, I still
implicitly accepted the “rules of the game.” I justified this to myself by saying that being a leader inmedicine was in itself a contribution to Africa. At
this point, I still relied purely upon my “corporate
citizen’s intelligence.” My definition of success was
based on external reference points, not internal. I
had yet to commit myself to a comprehensive vision,and certainly hadn’t affirmed any sort of truly
human stance in my professional life. I was satisfied
with my professional position, and only really envisioned solutions better adapted for Africa in private
conversation. My professional sphere resisted any
sort of citizen or human-oriented vision for Africa.

The Power of Feedback
This changed when the human resources department
at headquarters offered the managing directors a
training opportunity for their management teams.
These programs were carried out by a specialized
consulting firm. I enrolled, along with my five direct
reports. The training took place locally over one
year, with four modules spread out over four days. It

reflections.solonline.org

started off with the consulting firm interviewing participants individually. When I got my feedback, I was
taken aback: my associates felt my management style
was too hard, too demanding, and stressful. I had
thought of myself as encouraging participation!
They said things such as: “When you speak to us like
that, we really don’t feel good.”
The process allowed me to see this as more than amere exercise carried out in a seminar. Over time I
came to understand the truth of what my associates
were actually experiencing. At first, I was on the
defensive, and I started justifying myself by saying
things like, “African results are improving thanks tothis ‘strict,’ ‘demanding’ approach, but we have yet
to attain all of our objectives, so we must keep
going.” Finally, I realized that the feedback from myassociates reflected the truth. They were not trying
to manipulate me; they were sincere. The process led
me – for the very first time in a business setting – totruly feel empathy toward my associates. I was led toask myself what exactly in me had triggered theseeffects, and why had I, up until then, been insensitive
to what people were going through under my management? Where did it spring from, the adoption ofthis belief that “performance” must be obtained
through pressure? And what exactly was true performance? Shouldn’t I begin to imagine a better quality
performance, something that might really be called“success” – and which could encompass not only
financial performance, but other factors as well?
At the same time, the consultants introduced us
to the concept of “Global Quality on a Human
Scale.” It wasn’t a question of Total Quality Management anymore, a concept capable of producing
goods or services in processes that, although “optimized” from a strict process standpoint, are not designed to respond to the needs of human beings. The
new concept introduced me to a demanding searchfor overall quality for all of the stakeholders of thecompany’s activity. This encompassed its effects onsociety, the environment, our associates, and even on
future generations.
These concepts appeared fair to me. I felt thatthey truly corresponded to both my personal andn Carvalho■ Mack 31
EKF EKF
31

professional aspirations, and would allow me tocombine the two. This meant being able to use thatcapacity of empathy, of feeling the effects my actions
created in other people. I realized that I hadn’t usedthose skills very often in dealing with my associates.
I had been operating according to another, older
paradigm based on the pursuit of results, without
taking into account the human dimension of everyone involved. I saw that I had rationalized my practice of this particular type of management by defining it as “demanding” or “performance-oriented.”

The Power of a Unified Position
This initial awakening which was soon followed byanother. The assessment carried out by the consulting firm didn’t only concern my interactions with myassociates; there were other stakeholders, as well. In
a nutshell, in keeping with this new vision of Global
Quality, I was challenged to figure out exactly what
I could feel for, and what I could strive to bring toAfrica in terms of health. At first, under the oldmodel, I heard myself giving responses in order tojustify or rationalize such as “We must strive toattain our objectives…We can’t resolve every single
problem,” – responses that would have provokedme, coming from others. Deep down, I was ill at easewith these responses.
Then the consultants questioned me as the head ofa leading company in the health sector – someone
who was not powerless, someone who could choose
to make a difference. It was then that I realized that
if I didn’t make a move, I would end up much likethose who I was so quick to criticize privately.
“Elegantly” rationalizing, just like them – up until then,at least – I was evading my responsibilities. But this“contradiction” weighed me down a great deal.
Finally, I realized that I could do something to eliminate
it and enter a more coherent state, but didn’t yet
know what exactly. I gradually set myself straight –and even felt it, physically! It was extremely satisfying.
When I looked at the challenges that I would
inevitably meet along the way, I was tempted to stop
there, with one professional positioning in the com-

32 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4pany and another, more human, in private. But thedemand for coherence brought in by the training,combined with the dynamics generated by the implementation of the principles of Global Quality withmy associates, led to changes in my own performance, as well as that of my executive committee.
First, I established my desire for an in-depth
human dimension to our work – meaning less suffering and better health for the populations. I implemented a more human-centered, yet demanding
system of management: “We want to see an Africa ingood health, and will, in turn, align our strategies
with this prospect in order to contribute to thehealth of the population.” We attained a newrhythmn, and our meetings turned much more productive. Together, we were able to develop a vision
based on the idea that “One day, we will all be
proud to have invented a pharmaceutical company
in Africa that serves as a role model thanks to its
global approach to health, its performance and its
sustainability.” It was akin to collective growth. A
sense of pride, which had dimmed, was reignited infull force. We were planning on implementing aseries of pioneering actions in the name of a single
objective: health in Africa, which included the notionof prevention, as well. And we were also planning onreaching our financial goals and demonstrating that
Africa could perform, too! We shared this vision
with everyone, all 170 employees – from management to clerks and sales reps – at once at a weeklong seminar that we organized in South Africa. It
resulted in the birth of a new and enduring senseof motivation among participants. Our salespeople
went so far as to begin calling themselves “healthagents.”I developed a five-point strategy: identify andbring together the major players in the health sector
in order to establish effective partnerships; to develop both generic and self-medication lines of products; to develop a portfolio of local products adapted
to local pathologies; and to promote international
strategic products by developing programs promoting access to medication and the education ofpatients and their families. And to be profitable.

reflections.solonline.org

© jupiter images

Headquarters expected certain financial results,
but they didn’t really expect any great performancefrom Africa. The strategies that headquarters’ implicitly believed should be implemented in Africa were
often in direct opposition to what motivated thechanges that we executed. When I met with them, I
presented business plans that were attractive interms of projected financial results. Then, I revealed
the five-point strategy. I’d committed myself to increased performance, so they accepted my propositions.
Gradually, we made progress. We developed a lineof generic medication and non-prescription products. We implemented a series of partnerships withvarious governments, and were able, for example,
with the help of local public opinion leaders on
matters of malaria, diabetes and infectious diseases,
to organize a series of “caravans.” We travelled todifferent regions to inform citizens about the basic
principles of prevention (including mosquito nets), andto ensure continued training for paramedical and medical
personnel.
We were playing a role in the health of hundredsof thousands of people. We were able to convince
headquarters to invest in our factories in order toraise the level of quality and ensure the developmentof the local line of products. I also started recruitingreflections.solonline.org

skilled local managers. Eventually we replaced all
the expatriates in managerial positions with competent local managerial teams. They were graduallysent as expats to headquarters, reversing the “migratory” flow of skills. That was a true first! Finally, interms of finance, we managed to vigorously improvesales and bottom-line trends, and for the first time inyears, the African affiliate met its financial targets,and teams were able to access their bonus. Africa haspermanently left the “club of problematic business
units.” In 2003, I was named by the Economia
review (Groupe Jeune Afrique) as one of the “50managers that are changing Africa.”

Redefining Success
And that’s when problems broke out in Côte d’Ivoire,
which is where I’d been living and working. Headquarters in France quickly sent me three options, allof which included a substantial reduction in activity
in the region. I proposed a fourth one, which was
designed to allow us to pursue our work with our
structure intact by moving the regional headquarters
and our associates to another, safer, African capital. The
proposal was sent up the ladder for a decision. The
answer was “Yes, but there is no budget available forn Carvalho■ Mack 33
EKF EKF

an operation as costly as relocation!” What could I
do? Tell myself that I had done my best? Tell myassociates that the adventure was over?
  I had had the chance to prepare myself over thecourse of a Master’s program on the development of
Ethical Leadership. It was offered by the consulting
firm we had been working with; I had enrolled in thewake of their initial intervention. I was faced with aprofound issue: whether or not to pursue the “adventure” I started. If I wanted to perform, I would haveto be honest, demanding, and generous with myself
all at the same time. To say “I’ve done my best”
would be allowing room for failure. The consultants
and program participants helped me analyze myself.
I found that when faced with those higher up on the
chain of command, despite my success, on the inside,
I wasn’t as assertive as I needed to be. On the nonverbal level, for example, I often found myself, in themost crucial moments, in a position of asking, rather
than being affirmative. I performed role-playing
exercises once, twice, ten times, connecting internally with all of the positive effects that I had beenable to create with my positioning, the vision and the
new strategies.
  I kept it up until I could gather within myself theresources and the genuine attitude that I needed to
be able to create common ground with the decision
makers, and to unequivocally carry out a successful
strategy. Then I went for it! I described to my boss’s
boss (the International Division’s senior executive
vice president) what I had implemented, and theresults that we were obtaining on a financial as wellas on a human level. I got him to admit that theresults were noticeable, and impressive, and I finallyreached the conclusion that it was out of the question that such an experiment should be cut short.
Out of the question! I had a well-rooted, centeredposition. I had a vision and a strategy. I created common ground. And I succeeded in getting the green
light and the budget to relocate the regional headquarters in good conditions for the teams.
  Eventually I was promoted to Managing Directorof our Indian affiliate, but the approach we began in
Africa continued. Not only were the expatriates

34 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

replaced with locals, but my successor at the head of
the African region was, for the very first time, notonly local but female. I counted that as a mark ofreal success.

Lessons Learned
I started off my professional career with the idea ofsuccess as being “success in the eyes of others.” Myexperience in Brazil broadened that definition to
include the implementation of well-conceived processes – in a participative manner, if at all possible– but this was still limited to guaranteeing theaccomplishment of predetermined economic objectives. In the wake of my experiences in Africa andIndia, I see success as the alignment of my aspirations as a business person with my aspirations as a
citizen and human being, and as creating added
value for human beings (empathy and feeling) whileachieving economic results.
  I learned from my experience in Africa that allleaders have the potential for a vision with a humandimension that can be both consistent with their
deepest aspirations for humanity, and economically
viable. Fully rolling out this vision depends on leaders’ability to harmonize their different levels of being,i.e., intellectual, emotional, creative/intuitive, andtheir ability to position themselves, take a stand,and manifest their vision. Only then may they beable to use strategies that are coherent with thatvision, and to develop their own personal position in
a way that is both forceful and respectful of the position of their bosses.
  I learned that these “know-how-to-be” skills arevital for the autonomous implementation of strategies that will bring about both economic performance and a long-lasting added value for humanbeings. It is necessary to know that this possibility
exists; if you really are aware of it, then the rightactions and qualitative economic effects will emerge.
I know that it is necessary to know that this possibility exists because each one of us has the potential torealize it. And though this skill is not usually readily
accessible, it is nonetheless essential for managers,

reflections.solonline.org

companies, and all stakeholders. Using this skill isthe fruit of a process by which one may surpass theirown limits. Mastering the facilitation of such a process is a potential service offering that meets a serious need within companies, whether or not that needis expressed. This investment can definitely find areturn, both economically and socially. I am certainthat more companies can make the core of their business model respond to the crucial needs of humanity,
while continuing to be economically successful.
A b out th e A uthor

Alexandre de Carvalho studied Management at the
HEC School of Management in Paris, and Harvard Business School. The turning point in his career was attend-

reflections.solonline.org

ing a three year Master program in the Development of
Ethical Leadership, conducted by Recherches et Evolution, the consulting firm that worked with him on repositioning the African pharmaceutical business described in
the article. After a 23-year career in the pharmaceuticalsector, he joined the Clinton Foundation, heading up
their Global HIV/AIDS Pediatric Program. Fluent in four
languages, and at home in many countries and cultures,
he subsequently established himself as an independent
consultant.
adecarvalho01@gmail.com
This article was adapated from an interview conductedin June 2007 by Manfred Mack and Thierry Groussin
for Les Cahiers de SoL France.

n Carvalho■ Mack 35
EKF EKF

B ook E xcerpt

The Real Wealth of Nations
Riane Eisler
Berrett-Kohler, 2007

We Need a New Economics
Recognized as a truly original thinker, Riane Eisler, authorof the best seller The Chalice and the Blade continues tobring fresh solutions to the world’s social problems in her
new book, The Real Wealth of Nations. Hailed as “revolutionary” by Gloria Steinem, and “desperately needed” byPeter Senge, the book begins with a look at our day-to-day
behaviors and values, and then moves to the changes
needed in the policies and practices of governments andRiane Eislerbusiness leaders. A renowned social scientist, macrohisto-

rian, attorney, and activist for human rights, peace, and the environment, Eisler
offers solutions based on solid research that are compassionate, sustainable, andpractical. Here we excerpt the first chapter, in which she introduces the first of fivefoundations for a caring economics: a full-spectrum economic map that includes thelife-supporting activities of households, communities, and nature.

Economic Models
Impact Our Day-to-Day
Lives

J

im Cross graduated at the topof his applied computer scienceclass. But he hasn’t found a job
in California’s prosperous Silicon
Valley, once the golden Mecca forhigh-wage technology jobs. While
sales and profits in the region havebeen skyrocketing again – an average of more than 500 percent overthree years – employ.
In Nigeria, Marian Mfunde
has just buried her second baby.
Like her first son – and millionsof African children every year –her five-month-old daughter diedof hunger. Marian herself is sickwith HIV, which she contracted
from her husband before he left toseek work in the capital, and wasnever heard from again.

36 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

In Rio de Janeiro, nine-yearold Rosario Menen sleeps on thestreet. She lives in terror of rats,
rapists, and the police squads that
periodically evict and brutalize
street children. Like thousands ofBrazilian girls and boys, Rosario
has no place to go and no one tocare for her.
In Riyadh, 18-year-old Ahmad
Haman just joined a fundamentalist terrorist cell. In his native
Saudi Arabia, his financial prospects are dim.1 Population in the
Middle East has tripled in the last
fifty years, to 380 million in 2000
from 100 million in 1950 – andtoday close to two-thirds of those
380 million Middle Easterners areunder age 25, and jobs are scarce.2
Even in his oil-rich nation, Ahmad
finds the promise of a heavenly
afterlife with seventy virgins if heblows himself up in a suicidebombing more promising than his
earthly future.3
In the midst of all this runaway
dislocation, misery, and insanity,
economists argue endlessly about
free markets versus government
regulations, privatization versus central economic planning. They talkabout corporate profits, international trade agreements, job outsourcing, employment figures, interest rates, inflation, and grossnational product. That’s what’s
discussed in the news, in businessschools, and in thousands of economic treatises – usually in a jargon most people find frustratingly
out of touch with their real needs.
Of course, it’s not that economists are unaware of people’s
real-life needs. Some, like Nobel
laureates Amartya Sen and Joseph

reflections.solonline.org

Stiglitz, vigorously criticize practices that cause hunger, ill health,and environmental destruction
and pollution.4 A few, like MacArthur fellows Nancy Folbre andHeidi Hartmann, also note thateven in the rich United States working parents are stressed because
they have too little time to carefor their children, and even wellto-do people find it hard to juggle
work and family.5 But even now,
when globalization is creating
increasing stress for many families, most mainstream economic
writings don’t pay much attention
to how economic models impact
our day-to-day lives.6
Generally, economists don’t
write about people’s daily lives –except as employers, employees,
and consumers. And when they address our environmental and social
problems, they’re usually stillcaught in the free markets/privatization versus central planning/government regulation debatethat framed the conflict between
capitalism and communism.
These discussions ignore thefact that neither capitalist nor communist systems have been able tosolve chronic problems such asenvironmental degradation, poverty, and the violence of war andterrorism that diverts and destroys
economic resources and blights somany lives. Indeed, many of these
problems have been the result ofboth capitalist and communist
economic policies.
To effectively address our problems, we need a different way oflooking at economics. In our timeof rapidly changing technologicaland social conditions, we have to goreflections.solonline.org

much deeper, to matters that conventional economic analyses andtheories have ignored.
There’s a common denominator
underlying our mounting personal,social, and environmental problems:
lack of caring.7 We need an economic system that takes us beyond
communism, capitalism, and other
old isms. We need economic models, rules, and policies that support
caring for ourselves, others, and ourMother Earth.8
An economics based on caring
may seem unrealistic to some people.
Actually, it’s much more realistic
than the old economic models. Our
old models strangely ignore some of
the most basic facts about humanexistence – beginning with the crucial importance of caring and caregiving for all economic activities.
Consider that without caring andcaregiving none of us would be here.
There would be no households, noworkforce, no economy, nothing.
Yet most current economic discussions don’t even mention caring andcaregiving. This too is odd, sinceeconomics comes from oikonomia,
which is the Greek word for managing the household – and a core component of households is caring andcaregiving.9
This book proposes that a radical
reformulation of economics is needed for us not only to survive, but tothrive. It shows that the exclusion ofcaring and caregiving from mainstream economic theory and practicehas had, and continues to have, terrible effects on people’s quality oflife, on our natural life-support systems, and on economic productivity,
innovativeness, and adaptability to
new conditions. Failing to include

caring and caregiving in economic
models is totally inappropriate forthe postindustrial economy, where
the most important capital is what
economists like to call human capital: people. Moreover, it’s not realistic to expect changes in uncaring
economic policies and practices
unless caring and caregiving are
given greater value.
As Einstein remarked, we cannot
solve problems with the same thinking that created them. We are at a
critical juncture where a new way of
thinking about economics is needed.
Giving greater value to caring
and caregiving won’t cure all our

It’s not realistic to expect changes in uncaring
economic policies andpractices unless caring
and caregiving are given
greater value.
problems. But it is impossible tosolve our current global crises, muchless advance our personal, economic, and global development, unless
we do. If we are to change dysfunctional government policies and business practices, we need a new approach to economics in which supporting caring – or even talking
about caring – is no longer taboo.
What Is Economics?
In the fall of 2004, I was invited by
the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
to a meeting to explore the future of
economics. The site was the home of
my long-time friend and colleague
Hazel Henderson, a leading light in

Book
Book Excerpt
Excerpt n■ Eisler 37

the movement toward a new economics. The 25 other participants
came from Latin America, Europe,Asia, Africa, Australia, and theUnited States. They included academicians, social activists, and former
government officials.
The departure point for our
discussions was a critique of theso-called neoclassical economics
that is today the dominant, often
only, economic analysis taught inWestern universities. Deriving fromthe earlier classical economics
developed by Adam Smith, David
Ricardo, and other “fathers” ofmodern capitalist theory, neoclassical economics is primarily concerned with analyzing and predicting how markets function. It
relies heavily on mathematicalmodeling, and this modeling issomething of a closed loop, as it isfounded on some basic, indeed
hallowed, assumptions.
One of these assumptions isthat “rational economic man”
makes informed economic choices
based on rational self-interest.
Another assumption is that competition then regulates these selfinterested choices in a self-organizing dynamic that ultimately
works for the common good. Stillanother assumption is that governments should keep a hands-off
policy when it comes to the operation of markets. This last assumption is a centerpiece of the mostrecent offshoot of neoclassicaltheory: the so-called neoliberalism espoused by neoconservatives
in the United States and elsewhere, who claim that privatization, market deregulation, andtrade unhampered by national

38 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

Two Meanings of Economics
The term economics has both a scholarly and a popular meaning.
The academic meaning of economics is as a social science; forexample, the branch of social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and their
management. When used in this sense, the term describes economic theories and economic models. The popular meaning of economics is much broader. It is often used as a shorthand for describing
economic systems, policies, and practices; for example, in common
phrases such as “U.S. economics and politics.” I use the term economics in both its academic and popular sense, depending on thecontext.

borders or interests will cure all
our ills.
For a while, the Hammarskjöld
Foundation meeting focused on
the shortcomings of neoclassicaland neoliberal economic theories
and models. Some participantsargued that these models are outof sync with scientific advancements. They cited the new workof physicists debunking the mathof orthodox economic models,pointed out errors in computerized analysis methodology, andargued that these “reductionist”
methods produce false pictures ofreality. Some pointed to how markets are today heavily manipulated by sophisticated advertising
campaigns that create artificial
tastes, even artificial needs. Others
critiqued the premise that competition regulates the market, pointing out how, all around us, hugecorporations gobble up smallerfirms through acquisitions andtakeovers, or put them out of business by cutting prices until competitors are out of the picture.
The discussion then turned
from economic theory to what is

actually happening in the world
today. Many participants criticized the trend toward privatizing
water and other essentials of life
and the consolidation of evermore wealth and power in multinational corporations. Others deplored the lack of accountabilityof globalization agencies such as
the International Monetary Fundand the disastrous lack of regard
for the destruction of our natural
habitat. Still others advocatedinnovations such as new qualityof-life indicators like the Kingdomof Bhutan’s “happiness index,”
international tribunals on productliability, and new textbooks andclasses that would propagate alternative economic perspectives.
But as our discussions progressed, something else graduallybecame apparent. Despite many
common concerns and critiques,
there was one area of strong disagreement. This disagreement focused on what the domain of
economics is and should be.
Some of the participants were
only interested in the narrow bandof economic relations in the mar-reflections.solonline.org

ket economy – just like the conventional economists they critiqued. They were adamantly
opposed to economic models thattake into account the nonmarket
work of caring and caregiving
performed primarily in the household and other parts of the nonmonetized economy.10 They began
by arguing that this work could
not be quantified. When it waspointed out that it can, and actually has been, quantified, they
were unified in holding that itshouldn’t be.11 While they notedthat flawed economic models
make for flawed economic policies, they made it clear that they
were not interested in expanding,much less redefining, the domainof economics.
Nonetheless, this expansion andredefinition of economic models
is already in progress. Thousandsof women and men worldwide
have for some time noted theirony of not including the mostfoundational human work in economic measures and policies. A
few years ago, Marilyn Waring
wrote a groundbreaking book on
the subject.12 More recently Barbara Brandt, Ann Crittenden, Mari-anne Ferber, Nancy Folbre, Janet
Gornick, Heidi Hartmann, Hazel
Henderson, Marcia Meyers, Julie
Nelson, Hilkka Pietila, Genevieve
Vaughan, and other economic
thinkers have focused on the needto make caring visible in economic theory and practice.13 Edgar
Cahn, Nirmala Banerjee, Herman
Daly, Devaki Jain, David Korten,Paul Krugman, Amartya Sen, andother pioneering thinkers havealso started to insist that we lookat economic relations from a
broader perspective.14 Their work,
particularly that of Pietila andHenderson, provides the basis forthe expanded economic model
needed for a caring economics.

A New Economic Map
To build a new economic model,
we must include the full spectrumof economic relations – all theway from how humans relate to
our natural habitat to intrahousehold economic interactions. Thisrequires a complete and accurate
map that includes all economic
sectors.
This new economic map begins
with the household as the core
inner sector. This sector is the realheart of economic productivity, as
it supports and makes possible
economic activity in all the othersectors. The household is not, as
most economics texts have it, justa unit of consumption. It is, andhas always also been, a unit ofproduction. Its most important
product is, and always has been,
people – and this product is ofparamount importance in thepostindustrial economy where“high-quality human capital” hasbecome a business mantra.
But no attention is given inconventional economic analyses
to what is needed to produce thishigh-quality human capital: caring and caregiving. (See “The New
Economic Map,” below, and “TheOld Economic Map” on page 40.)
The second sector is the unpaid
community economy. This includes volunteers working for charitable and social justice groups inwhat is today often called civilsociety, as well as some aspects ofthe barter and community currency economy (which is growing). Here too caring and caregiving are important activities.
The third sector is the market
economy. This sector is the focus

The New Economic Map
The new economic map includes all six
economic sectors:

MarketEconomyGovernment
EconomyCore inner sector: Household economy
Second sector: Unpaid community economy
Third sector: Market economy

UnpaidCommunity
EconomyIllegalEconomyFourth sector: Illegal economy
Fifth sector: Government economy
Sixth sector: Natural economy

reflections.solonline.org

HouseholdEconomyNaturalEconomyBook Excerpt ■ Eisler 39

The Old Economic Map

MarketEconomyIn the old economic models, the foundational
economic sectors—household, unpaid community, and natural—are omitted, which leads
to distorted views and policies
Our challenge is to develop a caring economics where human needs and capacities are
nurtured, our natural habitat is conserved,
and our great potential for caring andcreativity is supported.

of conventional economic analyses and indicators. The market isfueled by the first two economic
sectors, but its measurements andrules accord them no value. As
presently structured, the market
economy often tends to discourage rather than encourage caring– even though studies show thatwhen employees feel cared forthey are much more creative andproductive.
The fourth sector is the illegal
economy, which includes the drugtrade, the sex trade, some of thearms trade, and other economic
activities that are in the hands ofcrime syndicates and gangs. The
illegal sector’s defining characteristic is lack of caring – not tospeak of the killings and otherhorrors that are its hallmarks.
The fifth sector is the government economy: the sector thatmakes the policies, laws, and rules
governing the market economy andprovides public services, either directly or by contracting them out
to private enterprises. Some ofthese services entail caring activities; for example, services provided by public health agencies. But

40 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

UnpaidCommunity
EconomyGovernment
EconomyIllegalEconomyNaturalEconomyHouseholdEconomyin most nations, government policies give little support to the caring and caregiving activities of thehousehold and unpaid community
economy on which all economic
sectors depend. Present government policies are often also uncaring of the mass of people, channeling funds to the wealthy. Andin many nations, including theUnited States, government policies
fail to protect nature from reckless exploitation and pollution.
The sixth sector is the natural
economy, which like the household, is basic. Our natural environment, too, produces resources
out of which the market economy
maintains itself. But again, conventional economic models givelittle value to nature. Consequently,
nature is exploited, with increasingly disastrous results as wemove to ever more powerful technologies. Caring for Mother Earthis viewed as a liability in the conventional cost-benefit analysis, anduntil recently was not even an
issue in economic theories.
These six economic sectors arein constant interaction. Only bytaking all of them into accountcan we make the changes we needin our world today.
The challenge is to develop
economic models, measures, andrules where the first, second, andsixth sectors are recognized andhighly valued. This is foundational to a caring economic system where human needs andcapacities are nurtured rather
than exploited, our natural habitat is conserved rather thandestroyed, and our great potential
for caring and creativity is supported rather than inhibited.

Culture, Economics,
and Values
Economic systems are human creations. They can, and do, change.
During the last five hundredyears of Western history, different
technological phases gave rise todifferent economic systems. Gradually, as we shifted from mainly
agricultural to primarily industrial technologies, feudalism was
replaced by capitalism and insome areas, socialism. Today, we
are in the throes of another major
technological shift. But the shiftreflections.solonline.org

taking us from industrial topostindustrial society is different
from earlier ones.
Unlike earlier shifts, the shift
to postindustrial/nuclear/electronic/biochemical technologies is not
happening over several centuries
but over a few decades. Unlike
earlier shifts, it is the subject of intense analyses while it is happening.
Moreover, it is happening globallyand is accompanied by growing
consciousness that we cannot go
on with business as usual: that weface a very uncertain future unless
we make fundamental changes.
Historically, the introductionof new technologies has broughtsome changes in valuations. For
example, in a primarily agricultural economy, land was considered the most valuable asset. Withthe technological shift to a primarily industrial economy, machinery and other capital assets
gradually acquired greater value.
But valuations based on technological factors are only a smallpart of the values side of the economic equation. Much more important, and more resistant to change,
are the underlying cultural values
and social structures of which
economic systems are a part.
Our beliefs about what is or is
not valuable are largely unconscious. As we will see, they havebeen profoundly affected by assumptions we inherited from earlier times when anything associated with the female half ofhumanity—such as caring andcaregiving—was devalued. In ourWestern world today, the ideal isequality between women andmen, and men are increasingly

reflections.solonline.org

embracing “feminine” activities,
like the many fathers now caring
for babies and young children inways once considered inappropriate for “real men.” But the failureof most current economic systems
to give real value to caring andcaregiving, whether in families orin the larger society, continues tolie behind massive economic inequities and dysfunctions.
Indeed, this systemic devaluation of the activities that contribute the most to human welfare
and development lies behind akind of economic insanity. For
example, the bulk of caring work
is not even included in indicatorsof economic productivity such as
GDP (gross domestic product) andGNP (gross national product).15
Nor is that all. Not only is thework of caregiving – without
which there would be no workforce – given little support ineconomic policy when it’s done in
the home. Work that entails caregiving is paid substandard wages
in the market economy.
So in the United States, people
think nothing of paying plumbers, the people to whom we entrust
our pipes, $50 to $60 per hour.
But child care workers, the people
to whom we entrust our children,
are paid an average of $10 anhour according to the U.S.
Department of Labor.16 And we
demand that plumbers have sometraining, but not that all childcare workers have training.
This is not logical. It’s pathological. But to change it, we haveto look beyond areas traditionallytaken into account in economic
analyses.

The Value of Caring
As current economic theory has
it, what is valued is a matter ofsupply and demand, with scarcegoods and services more valued
than abundant ones. But thisignores two key points. The first,
as I will develop in later chapters,
is that current economic policies
and practices often artificially create scarcities. The second point,
to which I will also return, is thatdemand is largely determined bycultural beliefs about what is andis not valuable.
A much more sensible, andrealistic, standard for what isgiven economic value is what supports and advances human survival and human development. By
this standard, a caring orientation– that is, concern for the welfare
and development of ourselves,
others, and our natural environment – is highly valued. So also is
the work of caregiving and thecreation of caring environments,
whether in homes, businesses,
communities, or governments.
This does not mean that all
caring and caregiving should be
paid in money. As we will see,
there are many other ways inwhich this work can, and must,
be recognized and rewarded –from informal community networks where caregiving is exchanged to business and government policies that support andencourage caring and caregiving.
We will look more closely at
caring economics in later chapters. Here, I want to clarify thatby caring work I mean actions
based on empathy, responsibility,
and concern for human welfareBook Excerpt ■ Eisler 41

and optimal human development.
Moreover, as detailed in “Caring,
Caregiving, and a Caring Orientation,” following, a caring orientation
gives visibility and value to caring
and caregiving in all areas of life –from households and communities tobusinesses and governments.
As we will see in chapter 3, a
caring business orientation can actually be more profitable in simple
dollars and cents than the old
uncaring one. For example, thehighly successful software company SAS Institute has been extremely profitable precisely because its policies make the welfareof employees a top priority. The
same is true of the successful East
Coast supermarket chain, Wegmans. Ranked Number 1 on Fortune’s list of “100 Best Companies
to Work For” in 2005, Wegmans
states on its website that it offers“a welcoming, caring, diverse

workplace that gives all people
the opportunity to grow and succeed.” Some companies have evenincorporated caring into their
management training programs;
for example, the successful kitchen and bath cabinets manufacturer American Woodmark.
These companies are findingthat concern for the welfare of
employees and their families
translates into increased competence and collaboration, encourages creativity and innovation,
contributes to the organization’s
collective capacity, and transfers
into better business relations, internally as well as externally. In
short, they are seeing that a caring
rather than uncaring orientationis good both for people and forbusiness.
A caring orientation also offersa more effective approach to economic policy – not only in humanterms but also in purely financial
terms. For example, crime rates
and attendant costs would belowered. And the high-quality
human capital needed for ahealthy future economy would beassured because child care and education would be fully supported.
To provide just one illustration, in the United States alone, asingle measure of caring work in
the economy – early childhood
development programs – has been
proven to provide a 12 percent
return on public investment. The
North Carolina Abecedarian
Project of the National Institutefor Early Education found thatparticipants in high-quality earlychild development programs can
expect to earn approximately$143,000 more over their lifetimes than children who did notreceive these benefits.18
Similarly, the Canadian Healthy

Caring, Caregiving, and a Caring Orientation
When I speak of caring and caregiving, I mean activities guided by a caring orientation. A caring orientation not
only fulfills human needs and aspirations. It also offers a wholly different approach to business and government policies that is both financially and socially profitable. A caring orientation is not solely a matter of giving
visibility and value to the work of caring for children, the sick, and the elderly in households, as essential as
this is. It is not only about giving more value to caring work in the market economy, such as child care, teaching, nursing, and caring for people in retirement homes. Nor is it only about being ethical in business andgovernment.
A caring orientation spans the gamut, from caring for children, the sick, and the elderly, to caring for employees, customers, and other business stakeholders, to what Edgar Cahn calls the civic labor of building healthy
communities, the social justice labor of progressive social movements, and the environmental labor needed
to preserve a healthy natural environment for ourselves and future generations.17
A caring orientation is also distinguished by a longer time horizon. In other words, a caring orientation takes
into account not only short-term but also long-term considerations. For instance, it takes into account thelong-term costs of uncaring environmental policies as compared to the short-term profits they may yield. Or
to come back to the example of the plumber and the child care worker, a caring orientation recognizes thatthe long-term economic impact of properly caring for a child is infinitely greater than that of fixing a pipe –and that this difference must be factored into the economic valuation of these two activities.

42 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

reflections.solonline.org

Trends Showing Recognition of the Economic Valueof Caring and Caregiving• A number of nations have already quantified the value of the unpaid work of caring and caregiving
performed in households, and found that its monetary value is very high.

• The U.S. company Salary.com estimated that a fair wage for a typical stay-at-home parent would be$134,471 a year.21• The U.N. Human Development Reports measure the health of communities by looking at maternal
and infant mortality, education, the environment, and other factors that were not previously quantified.

• Most industrialized countries provide universal health care as an investment in their human capital.
• Many businesses recognize that valuing and rewarding caring leads to greater competence, effective
communication, and successful collaboration.

• Social policies in New Zealand, Canada, and most West European nations recognize the value of 		
caring work through government subsidies for child care (not just tax credits) and paid parental leave.

• Chilean President Michelle Bachelet announced shortly after taking office that a monthly paymentof $40, as well as training courses, would be provided to caregivers of bedridden relatives in
low-income families.22

Babies, Healthy Children program
has been shown to enable children to score higher on most infant development measures. This
includes self-help, gross motor
skills, fine motor skills, and language development – all important indicators of a higher level ofhuman capacity development.
And of course, such programs
directly lead to prospects for abrighter future for these children.19
Nordic nations such as Finland,
Norway, and Sweden have foundthat investing in caring policies
and programs – from universal
health care and child care to generous paid parental leave – is aninvestment in a higher general
quality of life, a happier population, and a more efficient, innovative economy. In 2003–04 and2005–06, Finland was even aheadof the much richer and powerfulreflections.solonline.org

United States in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness ratings.20
These examples illustrate theenormous personal, social, andeconomic benefits of giving morevalue to caring and caregiving.
They also show that we don’t
have to start from square one.
There is already movement in thisdirection: policies and programs
that offer models that can be replicated and adapted worldwide as
we move into the postindustrial
economy.

Building a Caring
Economics
We stand at what a 2006 Timemagazine article on global warming called a tipping point, a juncture in our planet’s history whennothing less than fundamental

change is needed.23 As we use theeconomic measurements detailed
in the pages that follow, we seethat our global economy is running at a gigantic loss. It becomes
evident that we can’t continue toexploit and pollute our naturalenvironment. It also becomes evident that to live more fulfilling
and less stressful lives, we must
adequately value caring and caregiving not only in the market but
in all economic sectors, from thehousehold to nature.
We delude ourselves if we thinkthat we can solve our environmental problems by just trying to
introduce less polluting technologies or changing consumption
patterns. Even if we were successful in these efforts, which is doubtful without going deeper, newcrises will erupt unless we makemore fundamental changes.

Book Excerpt ■ Eisler 43

We can make these changes
once we become aware that asociety’s economic structures andrules, its system of values, and its
other social institutions are in acontinually interactive feedback
loop. During periods of social
equilibrium, this loop remains
relatively stable, and the guiding
system of values is so taken for
granted that it’s largely invisible.
But during periods of great instability or disequilibrium such as
ours, it is possible to more clearly
see the system’s underlying organizational structure and operant
values. Hence, today, fundamental changes – changes that transform the system rather thansimply modify it to some degree– are possible.
To construct a caring economics – and here I use the term economics in its popular sense as ashorthand for describing economic systems – we must focus not
only on economic theory and practice but also on cultural values
and social institutions.24 We canbegin with three basic questions:• First, to what kinds of qualities, activities, services, andgoods do we want to give highor low economic value?
• Second, can we realistically
expect the advantages of moresocially and environmentallycaring government policies andbusiness practices as long as
caring is not valued and rewarded?
• 	Third, what kinds of economic
inventions do we need for theconstruction of a more caring,effective, innovative, and sustainable economic system?

44 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

All economic institutions are
economic inventions – from banks,
stock exchanges, Social Security,and health care programs to colonialism, sweatshops, and childlabor. Unemployment insurance
and parental leave are economic
inventions designed to better carefor the welfare of all members of
the group. Slavery, forced labor
camps, and extermination camps
where Nazis collected the gold in
their victims’ teeth and used theirbody fats to make soap, are also
economic inventions. But likesweatshops, colonialism, and childlabor, these are economic inventions designed to more effectively
exploit certain members of thegroup, even, if “necessary,” tomurder them.
In other words, an economic
invention is a way of utilizing andallocating natural, human, andhuman-made resources. But theshape it takes – and the consequences it has – depend on thegoverning system of values andthe social institutions it supports.
In our time, when high technology guided by values such asconquest, exploitation, and domination threaten our very survival,
we need economic inventions
driven by an ethos of caring. We
need a caring revolution.
It’s up to us to determine which
existing economic inventions wewant to retain, and which wewant to discard. We must also
develop new economic indicators,
rules, policies, and practices guided by values appropriate for the
more equitable and sustainable
future we want and need. Above
all, we must change the imbal-

anced cultural foundations on
which both capitalist and communist economic systems werebuilt, and move toward an economic system where the mostessential human work – the workof caring and caregiving – is given
real value.
A caring economics supports
caring and caregiving on the individual, organizational, social, andenvironmental levels. It takes into
account the full range of humanneeds, not only our material needs
for food and shelter but also ourneeds for meaningful work andmeaningful lives.

The Six Foundations
for a Caring Economics
As detailed in the next sidebar, acaring economics has six foundations: a full-spectrum economic
map; cultural beliefs and institutions that value caring and caregiving; caring economic rules,
policies, and practices; inclusive
and accurate economic indicators; partnership economic andsocial structures; and an economic
theory I call partnerism because it
incorporates the partnership elements of both capitalism andsocialism but goes beyond themto recognize the essential economic value of caring for ourselves, others, and nature.
The shift to a caring economics
will take time, and it won’t happen all at once. It will move inincrements, with advances in any
one area setting in motion ripplesof change in all the others.
Changes in beliefs about what is
or is not economically productive

reflections.solonline.org

What We Can Do: Building Six
Foundations for a Caring Economic System
Progress in building any one of these foundations will set in motion progress in all the others in aninteractive dynamic of change.
   Foundation 1: A Full-Spectrum Economic Map: A full-spectrum economic map includes the household economy, the unpaid community economy, the market economy, the illegal economy, the government
economy, and the natural economy. This more accurate and inclusive map for economics is introducedin this chapter.
   Foundation 2: Cultural Beliefs and Institutions That Value Caring and Caregiving: Beliefs andinstitutions orient to the partnership system rather than the domination system, and include a shift fromdominator to partnership relations in the formative parent-child and gender relations. The configurationsof the Partnership System and the Domination System are introduced in chapter 2.
   Foundation 3: Caring Economic Rules, Policies, and Practices: Government and business rules,
policies, and practices encourage and reward caring and caregiving; meet basic human needs, both material
needs and needs for human development; direct technological breakthroughs to life-sustaining applications;and consider effects on future generations. Chapter 3 describes these rules, policies, and practices, showing their enormous business and social benefits.
   Foundation 4: Inclusive and Accurate Economic Indicators: Indicators include the life-sustaining
activities traditionally performed by women in households and other parts of the nonmonetized economy, as
well as the life-sustaining processes of nature, and do not include activities that harm us and our naturalenvironment. Chapter 4 describes new economic indicators that include the life sustaining 		activities of households, communities, and nature.
   Foundation 5: Partnership Economic and Social Structures: More equitable and participatory
structures support relations of mutual benefit, responsibility, and accountability rather than the concentration of economic assets and power at the top. Chapter 5 contrasts partnership and domination economic
and social structures, showing how these affect all aspects of our lives.
   Foundation 6: An Evolving Economic Theory of Partnerism: Economic theory incorporates thepartnership elements of both capitalism and socialism, but goes beyond them to recognize the essential
economic value of caring for ourselves, others, and nature. Chapter 7 introduces the concept of partnerism.

reflections.solonline.org

R
U
L
E
S

INDICATORS

C
U
L
T
U
R
E

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
INDICATORSO inclusiveandR accurate
economic
S indicators

STRUCTURE
partnership
S economic
andsocialT structures

R
U
C
T
U
R
E

STRUCTURE

MAP
full
spectrum
economicmap

RULES
caringeconomicrules,
policies,andpractices

RULES

M
A
P

CULTURE
culturalbeliefs andinstitutions
that value
and support
caring andcaregiving

CULTUREMAP

CARING ECONOMICSTHEORYandevolving
economictheoryofpartnerism

T
H
E
O
R
Y

THEORYBook Excerpt ■ Eisler 45

will lead to new ways of thinking
about economics, and from thisto more accurate economic indicators. These changes in beliefs
and indicators will spur movement toward more caring policies
and practices, which in turn willlead to more partnership-oriented
economic and social structures.
And all this will support further
movement to a full-spectrum economic map, more inclusive economic theories and indicators, andcultural beliefs and institutions
that value caring and caregiving.
In other words, progress in any
one area drives progress in others.
So the more we do to advancechange in any one area, the sooner we will see a shift in the whole
economic system.
The first step is changing theconversation about economics toinclude the term caring and raising awareness of the economic
importance of caregiving. This issomething every one of us can do.
The failure of present economic theories and policies to recognize that caring and caregiving
are integral to personal, economic, ecological, and social healthdirectly affects our lives and ourchildren’s future. It has saddled us
with dysfunctional economic
models and measures, which in

46 Reflections ■ Volume 8, Number 4

turn have led to dysfunctional
policies and practices. These policies and practices are major factors behind seemingly insoluble
global problems such as poverty,
overpopulation, and environmental devastation. They are obstacles
to success in the postindustrial
economy, where, more than money,

In our time, whenhigh technology guided
by values such as conquest, exploitation, anddomination threaten ourvery survival, we need
economic inventions
driven by an ethos
of caring. We need acaring revolution.
markets, or super-computerized
office equipment, human capitalis the most important capital.
And they have perpetuated an
imbalanced and unhealthy systemof values.
The alternative seems obvious
once we step aside from what
we’ve been taught to focus on ineconomics and look at what wevalue most in our own homes andlives. It then is evident that without bringing equity and value tothe work of caring and caregiving, we can’t realistically expect
more caring, peaceful, environmentally healthy, and just societies in which people live meaningful,creative, and fulfilling lives.
This isn’t a matter of theory.
It’s a matter of immense practical,
day-to-day impact on everything– from our families and the education of our children, to our workand business lives, and ultimately
to our species’ survival.
Globalization and the shift tothe postindustrial age is bringing
great economic and social dislocation. This dislocation is a sourceof fear for many people. But it
also offers an unprecedented opening for new and better ways ofthinking and living. It offers us
the opportunity to use our visionand ingenuity to help create thesocial and economic conditions that
support our evolution as individuals, as a species, and as a planet.
  The chapters that follow point
the way to a way of living andmaking a living that meets humanneeds and aspirations and preserves the beauty and bounty ofour planet.
eisler@partnershipway.org		reflections.solonline.org

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 8, Number 4

Editorial TeamManaging Editor
Nina Kruschwitz
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato
Publications Assistant
Chris Doyon
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
For-profit Institution• USD$275 United States• USD$295 Canada (includes 7% GST)
• USD$295 International
ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2008 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational
Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)

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
reflections.solonline.org