V O LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 2 / 3

Reflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Nature of Social
Collaboration
Dennis Sandow andAnne Murray Allen

Commentary
George Greenfield

Commentary
Peter Senge

EMERGING KNOWLEDGE

Group Magic
Renee A. Levi

BOOK EXCERPT

Who Really Matters
Art Kleiner

RECOMMENDED READING

Recent and Relevant Work
Marc Ian Barasch
Juanita Brown and David Isaacs
John R. Ehrenfeld
J. L. Moreno
David Rooke and William R. Torbert
Duncan J. Watts

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

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: VOL. 6, NO. 2/3

I N T H I S D O U B L E I S S U E O F R E F L E C T I O N S , we’re experimenting with combining a featurearticle, book excerpt, working paper, commentaries, and a brief digest of current and related readings.
Based on your feedback to our survey on Volume 5, this synthesis is one of the things you hoped
Reflections would provide. We’re delighted to feature in this issue a range of perspectives on what is often
referred to as the “informal organization” – the unofficial network of relationships that represents thecollective intelligence and power for change that resides in organizations.

In June of 1998, cognitive biologist Humberto Maturana spoke at SoL’s Annual Meeting. His remarks
catalyzed a variety of conversations and projects in SoL about how networks of social relationships create
learning and results.* SoL researcher Dennis Sandow has been working with Hewlett-Packard (HP) for
several years, helping the organization develop the capacity to see, name, and leverage the network ofhuman relationships that produce product innovation, environmentally sustainable design, and enviablebusiness. In our feature article, Sandow and HP executive Anne Murray Allen describe their experience of
discovering “The Nature of Social Collaboration: How Work Really Gets Done.”
Our Emerging Knowledge feature, “Group Magic: An Inquiry into Experiences of Collective Resonance,”
presents the results of research that examined the characteristics of “collective resonance,” the felt physical, intuitive, and energetic sources of connection between people that influence their interactions towardachieving goals. Author Renee Levi applied laws of physics to human experience in group situations toanswer the question, “How are diverse contexts in which collective resonance occur described in terms offelt experience, shift awareness, assigned significance, and recurrence of the original felt experience?” In
her article she also discusses her findings and their usefulness in designing groups to cultivate resonancetoward collective goals that enhance human spirit and life.
In our featured book excerpt, author and educator Art Kleiner poses and responds to a question that many
people ask: “How does change happen from within an organization? And what can a small group ofpeople do to effect change?” By appreciating network principles, Kleiner outlines how small groups build
legitimacy and power in a larger social context. This selection is a chapter entitled “The Shadow CoreGroup,” taken from his recently published book: Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power,
Privilege, and Success (Doubleday, 2003).
Despite genuine inquiry, we’ve concluded that relatively little organizational literature exists that addresses these kinds of questions well. For those of you who might enjoy the field notes of a few pioneers
in this new territory, we bring recent and relevant work to your attention in our “Recommended Reading”
column. We invite you to share your responses and recommendations by emailing us at reflections@solonline.org.

C. Sherry Immediato
Managing Director, SoL* You can find a synthesis of his remarks at www.solonline.org/static/research/workingpapers/maturana/index.html

ii Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

FEATURE

The Nature of Social Collaboration:
How Work Really Gets DoneBy Dennis Sandow, Reflexus Company andAnne Murray Allen, Hewlett-Packard Company

rganizations are in the midst of a significant transformation as knowledge and innovation – fundamental in the creation of intellectual property – become importantsources of capital in a rapidly changing global economy. At the very heart of thesechanges lies a shift in our perception of how work is done. In the Industrial Age, which symbolically began with Ford’s assembly line, value was found in the application of physicalsciences to the manufacturing of products. Mechanistic philosophies, creating practices suchas separation and reductionism, dominated this era and affected the social sciences, as well.
The “father of sociology,” Auguste Comte (1852), divided education into categories such as
biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Organizational science followed this pattern, subdividingorganizations into departments such as finance, manufacturing, and purchasing. According
to the practices of mechanical engineering, the organization was divided horizontally by adivision of specialization and vertically by a division of authority. This network image,
known as the “org chart,” is still popular today. Missing from the chart are vendors, customers, and families of employees – all of whom are part of the system by which an organization
creates value.
We are now in a Knowledge Age (Drucker 1988; Sakaiya 1991; Deming 1993; Senge 1993)
and can look at how the system sciences explain the process of value creation. As a philosophy of the physical sciences dominated the Industrial Age, a philosophy of the biologicalsciences is beginning to dominate the Knowledge Age. This philosophy views knowledge,
people, and organizations as living systems. This transformation of perspective was laid out
by Gregory Bateson (1951), who described a way of viewing the world that shifted from:(1) focusing on parts to focusing on the whole, (2) focusing on categorization to focusing on
integration, (3) focusing on the individual to focusing on interactions, and (4) focusing uponsystems outside the observer to focusing on systems that include the observer.
Perhaps the most profound contributor in this area is the Chilean biologist, Dr. Humberto
Maturana. In his seminal book (coauthored with Francisco Varela), Autopoiesis andCognition: The Realization of the Living (1980), he described knowing from a perspective ofliving systems and living systems from a perspective of knowing. He defined knowing as
doing. His unique understanding has influenced sociologists, psychologists, and organizational scientists. At Hewlett-Packard (HP) we have carefully studied Dr. Maturana’s workand have found that his insights into social systems are particularly helpful. He claims that
intelligent action is created in social systems where all the members of a network accept
everyone else in the social network as legitimate participants in the network (Maturana andBunnell 1998). Legitimacy, or the mututal acceptance of one by another, is our natural social

O
Dennis Sandow

Anne Murray Allen

reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 1

order. Conversely, negation of one person by another is an invention of more-modern society.
We concur with many studies that show that performance improvement, innovation, andinvention occur in social systems where this principle of legitimization is present.
Through many years of research and collaboration we have come toconclude that value is created in dynamic, self-organizing social systems
We define “value” aswhere shared knowl-edge is created through the collective coordination
those accomplishments of action. While contemporary management literature has described different organizational concepts such as high-performing organizations,that result in the
self-directed work teams, communities of practices, chaordic organizacreation of organizations, learning organizations, etc., we have become increasingly intertional, shareholder,
ested in the nature of social organizations. Through the use of social
customer, or employee action research we have documented that organizational value is createdin dynamic social systems that cross the boundaries of traditional orgawell-being.
nizational charts – charts that are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We
maintain that these collaborative social systems are our natural social
order. They are networks of relations that, like language and learning, are innate building
blocks of human, social, and organizational development.

The Value of Collaborative Social Systems
Today it is common for organizations to distinguish between formal and informal systems.
This is a good sign. It indicates that we are beginning to discern the differences between
Industrial Age hierarchies (formal systems) and Knowledge Age collaborative social systems(informal systems). But we have learned that we can accelerate organizational transformationby leaving these distinctions behind. The distinction between formal and informal systems
maintains the tension between management hierarchies and self-organizing employee networks. We believe this tension is unnecessary and impedes organizational performance.
Instead, we would like to make one distinction of importance to the company – value-creating social systems. Value-creating social systems are the associations of employees, vendors,
customers, and other stakeholders that share the purpose of creating business value. Here aresome examples.

Material compatibility
Hewlett-Packard’s inkjet cartridges depend upon a sophisticated understanding of the interaction between ink and other materials. To solve a particularly perplexing problem, HP
engineers brought two highly competitive vendors together to collaborate on the developmentof a new understanding of material chemistry. Figure 1 is a social-network map of the HPvendor social system that reduced new inkjet cartridge development time by 16 weeks after
just a few weeks of collaboration. Though people always work together to get work done,
what made this simple network more effective than others was that all members were equallylegitimized through building trust and openness early on, and through focusing on a common
purpose: HP’s success. This was accomplished through HP’s insistence that the vendors focus
on their customer (HP) and on the agreement to generate value for all three organizations.

2 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

Quality escalations

Figure 1: HP-Vendor Social System

Customers purchasing HP inkjet carCary
tridges demand consistent and reliable(HP Product Engineer)
performance. To meet this demand, HP
has established a set of procedures that
ensure that any potential quality probPaulBill
lem is identified, isolated, and corrected(HP Chemist)(Supplier #1)
long before the customer purchases the
new cartridge. Quality issues reachinga predetermined level of severity arecalled quality escalations and can cost
John
(Supplier #2)
the company millions of dollars eachtime they occur.
The social system shown in Figure 2
Figure 2: Initial Quality Escalation Social System– composed of the initial group of
managers who discussed quality escaDave
Boyd(Technical(Enterpriselations – began the process of selfMarketing
Supply Chain
organization, resulting in a significant
Manager)Manager)decrease in quality escalations in inkjet
cartridges. That social system would
Georgegrow over time, attracting new mem(Supplies Quality
Manager)bers, through the process of self-organization. Self-organization occurs whenpeople inside a given system change the pattern of their relations with each other or withothers outside the social system.
After such self-organization, quality escalations that historically had occurred every 20
days (on average) virtually vanished. The last escalation occurred more than three years ago,
and the decrease has saved HP hundreds of millions of dollars.
We have learned that collaborative social systems such as this expand rapidly in numbers
because employees are eager to contribute to a solution that will serve the business. Thisparticular collaborative social system, aimed at resolving quality escalations, actually generated a very large network (shown in part on the social map in Figure 3) that spanned theSocial Action Research
We have used social action research to generate the case studies in this article. Social
action research is a configuration of relationships that include the following qualities:• being social: social action research generates a social system of reflection wherein
everyone in the social system is a legitimate contributor to explaining how value iscreated. This follows the principle of love and legitimacy.
• being in action: social action research reflects on the praxis of living (or emergent)and collective coordination of action in the daily lives of the participants.
• being in research: social action research studies the theories of living and knowing andhow social, biological, and financial well-being are interdependent in a new economy.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 3

Figure 3: George’s Social Network

WW Supply
Chain TeamJohn

Ink Team

Chee

LionelIPG Quality
Managers

Anthony's
Staff
Anthony

Boyd

Marco
Dave

Material
Engineering
Team

Dave
Ed
Bill

Dave

GeorgeStuartStan

AngelikaLou

TechMarketing

Joseph

Stan

Terry

NorbertSam

Eric
FinolaKirk
ChiquiGeorge’s network graph: George documented his social network ties by drawing a social
network. The basic social pattern is a radial, or hub and spoke, graph. This is typical of social
networks drawn from an individual’s perspective. It is important to note that the relative position of, or distance between, George and others in the network does not indicate quality ofrelationships. Everyone in George’s social network is a legitimate contributor.

entire company. It differed from the standard quality escalation approach by appealing toemployees who were already in the cartridge-production design, work, and distribution network, rather than forming a special outside “SWAT” team to fix the problem. The existingproduction network became a learning network that created the knowledge not only to solve
the problem but also to prevent it in the future.

New product invention
The social system represented in Figure 4 is in the process of inventing a new product thathas a significant potential market size and could save hundreds of thousands of lives. The
originator of the idea mapped his social network as he worked on the idea, documenting its
growth over time. In doing so, he was learning about the nature of self-organizing networks
while he was in the process of inventing. He found that value creation lies at the heart ofhealthy, dynamic social systems.
Employees in this network have already developed the initial concept, built the first
prototype, and begun testing regulatory requirements. Accomplishments expected to takeup to six months to achieve were realized in a matter of weeks. We have found that group

4 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

Figure 4: Chris’s Social Network

Carlos

John
Yang
Ken
Doug

Ed

Steve

Sharon
Ron
Ron
Butch

Ray

Chris
Loren
Tim

DennisBill
Ed

Sukanya

Eric
Ink
Technicians
Bruce

Niels

Charlie
Fred

Like George, Chris also drew his social network. In doing so he captured three social systems
in which participants were connected in reciprocal relationships. Both Chris and George updated
their social network graphs over time and found that the social networks expanded with time.
Their social networks’ growth in size is an indicator of collaborators being attracted to thevalue they were creating.

productivity expands in self-organizing social systems because the process of coordination ofaction requires no outside management practices.

The Nature of Social Collaboration
By applying the principles of biological science (Maturana and Bunnell 1998) to the studyof social systems, we can see how these networks constantly self-organize to generate theknowledge necessary to create extraordinary value. For example, in an organization where relationships are strong, as an engineer develops a new prod- Collaboration is
uct others will usually contribute their skills, resources, and knowledge to simply the social
accelerate the product’s development. This phenomenon is commonly called
coordination of“collaboration” and relies on knowledge and learning.
As we mentioned earlier, knowledge is doing (Maturana and Varela 1992, action around a26) or the coordination of action (Piaget 1971). Learning occurs when weshared purpose.
reflect on our actions. Social learning is our collective reflection on our coordinated actions. By creating an environment that nurtures social learning, leaders assure
greater organizational performance. We predict such a process will someday be as routine astoday’s popular process of individual performance evaluations. However, it will be much

reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 5more effective as a means of understanding how work is done and as a means to improving
the productivity of the system of value creation.
Collaboration can be initiated in many ways, depending on your perspective and beliefs
about collaboration. You might teach a class on collaboration with the belief that students
will leave the class and collaborate. Or perhaps you approach someone and declare, “Wemust work together on this.” Someone may write about collaboration (as we are now),
thinking that his or her explanation will move the reader to take action. One common thread
here is that none of these approaches, by itself, will generate collaboration or knowledge ofthe power of collaboration. We have discovered that the most profound knowledge of collaboration emerges in the doing – that is, as we work and reflect on our work with others.

“Listening to learn” and learning to listen
Collaboration begins with listening (Jewell-Larsen and Sandow 1999). This is simple, but noteasy. It is especially difficult if we tend to dominate others by believing that talking, teaching, describing, convincing, debating, and influencing them is the most effective approach
to social collaboration. In a few words, “The world would be better if
As we become
everyone would just listen to me.” What is often implied with these words
curious and interested is, “I know the right answer.”
In true listening one learns from others. When we listen to a groupin learning more about describe a common experience, we learn from the group. If we wish tocollaboraton we also learn about the nature of social performance we simply listen to those who
demonstrate exemplary group performance. We know when we are “lislearn to listen better tening to learn.” As we become curious and interested in learning more
about collaboration we also learn to listen better to others. This increases
to others.
mutual trust and respect in the organization, resulting in an added and not
insignificant benefit – the expansion of social well-being. Why is this so? Because we all likenot only to be heard but also to be recognized and accepted by others for our contribution.
This social capital, defined as the potential productivity of a social network or organization,
is a valuable asset that adds a force factor to sustained organizational performance.
Listening to others explain how they create value leads to the sharing of collective knowledge. This was a key role for both Chris and George. By viewing everyone as legitimate, they
took the time to listen to them and thereby gather knowledge from the entire group to coordinate action. The knowledge inside the social system is shared with us as we begin to understand the nature of group performance. We become rapacious learners as we explore thewisdom of the group – a requirement for any leader in the new knowledge economy. Thisapproach is often described by employees as a reduction in informal meetings, and has
become popularly referred to as “management by walking around” – a management practiceof Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard.
Performance improvement is proportional to the collective knowledge that flows throughsocial systems; listening is the key to accessing the flow of that knowledge. This is a bit difficult to discuss because most people intellectually know that listening is a critical personal
skill for success. Still, many people may appear to be listening when actually their listening
is superficial at best. It is helpful to understand when we are listening to learn and when weare not really listening at all.

6 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

Consider some examples of how poor listening can slow the flow of knowledge sharing:
1. You begin to explain an experience and are interrupted. This is a common problem inlistening. We interrupt someone because we do not understand. But we cannot understandsomeone unless we give the person a chance to finish his or her explanation! This sort ofinterruption confuses and frustrates the storyteller. These emotions arise because in the process of interrupting, we restructure the storyteller’s story, replacing theemotion intertwined in the story with the frustration of trying to tell the Adhering to prestory while being interrupted. The explanation no longer follows the pathdetermined questionsof the storyteller, but the structure we create through our interruptions.
This also occurs when we prepare for listening by over-structuring our interrupts the flowquestions. It seems logical to organize a set of categorized questions, but of the storyteller’s
adhering to the predetermined questions once again interrupts the flow of
the storyteller’s explanation and his or her sharing of knowledge and explantion and his
experiences. Of course, true questions for clarity add value to a conversa- or her sharing oftion, but many times prepared questions fired at the speaker serve only toknowledge anddissect the story and obscure the knowledge being shared.
2. Colleagues feel as though they have little or no time to listen to you.

experience.

This emotion results in our wanting to speed up the listening. We want to move the storyteller along quickly so we can get to the “bottom line.” This form of “speed listening” generates inaccurate assumptions. We leap to conclusions and fundamentally misunderstand theexperience of the storyteller. The irony here is that in our attempts to “manage” our listening
productively, we have actually wasted our time and the time of the storyteller.
3. Others act as if they already know what the your story is. Moments into the explanation,
before the storyteller has finished, we begin to nod our heads up and down, interrupt thestoryteller, and finish the explanation for him or her! We do this because we believe that wealready know what the story is. In this case, it is obvious that we do not really want to listen,and have quickly done a match between what was heard and our own past experience.

All of these attributes of pseudo-listening not only slow the flow of knowledge and performance improvement, but also create misunderstanding and misalignment in action. As we
often see, misunderstanding erodes relationships and leads to social separation, greatly
reducing the effectiveness of any team.

Understanding understanding
A consequence of listening to learn from others is that the others come to understand that you
understand them. This is not a trivial outcome, but one that conserves openness in social systems. Without openness, knowledge, innovation, and collaboration cannot occur as quickly
and effectively as they naturally would. Response time to business demands plummets.
In today’s turbulent corporate world we are constantly finding ourselves in newly forming
teams – whether due to reorganization, customer responsiveness, new opportunities, or new
hiring. As you join a new group it sometimes feels as though you are lost. You begin by asking exploratory questions, such as, “What’s happening?” or perhaps, “What do you do?
How does this work?” Soon you are so absorbed in what is being explained to you that you
forget about everything except what you are hearing. As your interest in what is being said
becomes self-evident, the explanation broadens. Your trainer may say, “Oh, if you are inter-reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 7ested in this you should meet Maria.” So off you go to listen to Maria’s explanation about
what you just heard. Maybe Maria invites you to join her as she does what has been explained
to you. Soon Maria passes you to another and by the end of the day you realize just how
much you have learned, and have a growing appreciation that the group, individually andcollectively, would be so willing to share their knowledge with you.
The consequence of listening to learn and learning to listen to others in a social networkis that at some point in time the group understands that you understand them. There is an
expansion in the knowledge shared as the group realizes that this is not superficial knowledge
for you, but meaningful understanding. Your listening has created a space of collective reflection, fluency, and learning.
Once you’ve accepted the invitation to listen, learn, and understand how people collaborate, you might do so routinely with more than one group. With multiple experiences ofshared understanding we begin to see the flow of knowledge and performance in social systems – much like one begins to see the flow in a
Shared meaning
successful musical, theatrical, or sports performance.
is a matter of underShared meaning is critical to collaboration and the flow of knowlstanding (i.e. listening, edge. It is easy to agree on words. However, the difficulty is in developreflecting, and dialogue) ing a shared meaning for our words. This shared meaning is a matter ofunderstanding (i.e., listening, reflecting, and dialogue) and greatly
and greatly improves
improves our productivity. When meaning is shared among the workteam members, no one is outside the social system. Everyone becomesour productivity.
an accepted or legitimate member. When high-performing teams
describe the magic of their experience (“flawless execution doing the impossible,” “readingeach others’ minds,” etc.), they are reflecting on the power of their common understanding
and flow of knowledge, which resulted in exceptional accomplishments.

Trusting
Trust is the silent connector in social networks. We take it for granted but it is actually quite
fascinating. Think about the person you trust most in your life. Perhaps it is a spouse, parent,
sibling, teacher, or friend. Trust is an emotional attitude that grows with the realization thatsomeone understands you, because you come to see yourself, as in a reflective pool, throughtheir observations and experiences in listening to you.
Carried to the social level, once the group realizes that you understand them, the relational ties between yourself and everyone else in the social system strengthen. You havebecome a legitimate member of the group and are now included in their network of conversations. Building trust in this way brings one from outside to inside the network. Conversations
become deeper and reveal and generate more and more knowledge. Everyone in the group is
accepted as a member of the social system and all are trusted to act in a manner that is alignedwith their shared purpose. As trust grows, the focus shifts from me to we. I become moreinterested in learning from others than I am in their learning from me. Although I contributewhenever I can, I serve the purpose of the whole team or system.
Creating new knowledge is very different from creating products. This is one of the reasons organizations find themselves in a state of transformation today. We do not have license
to learn from others – one cannot force another to share knowledge. Learning from others isa privilege and trust conserves this privilege. When an organization loses trust it also loses
the privilege to learn and the capacity to generate new knowledge in a productive manner.

8 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

Collaborating
As we said earlier, collaboration is the social coordination of action, and occurs in a social
5: xxxx else in the netsystem of relations wherein everyone in the network is acceptedFigure
by everyone
work as a contributor toward a shared purpose. The flow
Figure 5: Reinforcing Trustof reflective relations resulting in collaboration allows any
individual within the network to access the knowledge ofTrusting
the whole. In a high-trust environment, this is a continuous, generative process that is repeated as those in the
network continue to reflect on how they perform together
and take action based on that evolving knowledge, as
Collaborating
Understanding
depicted in Figure 5.
Social capital is improved by collaboration. The converse is also true. Social capital diminishes as collaboration diminishes. We know this because in the absence ofListeningcollaboration, there is social separation, which can result
in redundant costs, misalignment, and often, mistrust andfear. This deterioration of relations reinforces internal competition and diminishes social
capital. In short, without collaboration we are headed down the road of resource depletion(see Figure 6).

Social-network pattern of collaboration
If we take the time to use social-network mapping to study the pattern of relations in a collaborative work group, as in our earlier examples, we will discover a social system structure
wherein everyone is connected to everyone else in reciprocal relations. This is simple to measure. If you ask a group about value they have created, and Zhao tells you that Marcie hashelped and Marcie tells you that Zhao has helped, you have revealed reciprocal social relations.

Figure 6: Resource Depletion

Increase
Costs

Lack of
Trust

Misunderstanding

Decrease in
Listening and
Observingreflections.solonline.org

Decreased
Resources

Redundancy

Social
Separation

Internal
Competition

Fear

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 9

We have learned through yearsof doing this research that thisreciprocal pattern is the mostcohesive social structure andthe source of invention, continuous performance improvement,
knowledge creation, and social
well-being.

Figure 7: The Cohesion of Collaborative Social Systems

Worker C
Worker B

Worker D

Worker A

Worker E

Worker F
Worker Q

The Bottom Line
Worker G

Our experience, from years ofstudying collaborative social
systems, has proven to us thatthey are not only the source ofWorker H
significant value creation but
Worker O
also the source of accelerationin value creation. We also beWorker I
lieve that collaborative social
Worker N
systems are our natural social
Worker J
order. This becomes obvious toWorker M
us when we consider our relaWorker K
Worker L
tions away from work, with ourfriends and families. So thisbegs the question: if this is our
natural social structure that generates significant value and well-being, why do we spend solittle time nurturing or understanding it?
Now we come back to a point raised at the beginning: we are in a transformational period
in the history of our perception. The mechanistic view taught us to see the organization as
static when actually, like life itself, it is constantly changing. We have believed organizational
performance is a function of individual contribution when actually, real contribution is asocial phenomenon. And finally, we have seen that historically, management has focused
almost exclusively on what to change in the organization rather than what to conserve in theorganization.
Our own perceptual transformation is a matter of ongoing personal development. Though
the following recommendations may not represent all the actions one can take, we believethat they are worthy of time and attention from those who are not only genuinely interested
in people and their innate capability to collaborate and accomplish extraordinary things, butalso interested in increasing value in their own organizations and communities.

Worker P

Practice the power of reflection and “listening to learn” in your own organization to understandknowledge-based performance.

HP founders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard were masters at managing by walking around.
They shared a genuine interest in learning from employees. This both broadened theirunderstanding of how productive HP’s workforce was and inspired the workforce, thereby
improving productivity. We invite you to identify new value that has resulted in shareholder,
employee, or customer well-being either recently or currently in your own world. Find

10 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

someone responsible for the value creation and ask him or her to explain it to you. Was
this accomplished by one person or by collaboration with others? If collaboration is theanswer, ask that individual to list those involved, and then go to those people and ask themto describe their collaboration. In doing so you will reveal the nature of performance andlearn how to improve social capital in your organization. This new insight will expand yourperception of how work really gets done and will help you improve the organization’s productivity by putting your new awareness into action.
Do no harm.

Due to our lack of understanding of the nature of collaborative social systems we can unintentionally diminish social capital. For example, we have studied how reorganization cansometimes disrupt or destroy value creation by disconnecting employees who were collaborating. When done effectively, reorganization follows the social structure of the work itself.
To make reorganizations productive, managers must notice the emergent social structurearound the work and support it appropriately. Oftentimes, social structure emerges aroundcore processes of an organization. At the top of this support list is creating a knowledge andinformation management strategy that is aligned with the social nature of knowledge creation. We have observed shared data as a form of language that coordinates effective actions
within a team. Once shared data are in place, new knowledge is built upon those data as thegroup works together. When reference data are standardized in a social
system, the level of action and contribution rises dramatically. This is When reference data
because data-based decision making is far more effective than decisions are standardized in a
made on the basis of opinions, judgments, or a power position in thesocial system, the level
organization.
“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”of action and contribution rises dramatically.

The Knowledge Age is a new economic age we live in, and it coincides with a proliferation of concepts and models. One need look no further than the
Organizational Development field to understand that some concepts are helpful guides toaction while others are so complex that they actually create confusion and contempt in
the organization. During times of radical change simplicity has value. Employees organize
themselves to improve performance; they seldom organize themselves around organizational
concepts such as ”high-performance work teams,” etc. By keeping a focus on value creation(i.e., what we want to accomplish together), we can create a simple understanding that bothhonors and credits employees for their contributions. This will improve both decision making
and social capital.
Develop competence in, and capacity for, reflection. It is the “secret sauce” in creating
sustaining business value.

When Dr. Deming and Walter Shewhart created the continuous quality improvement cycle ofPlan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA), they introduced learning or reflection as a “scientific process
for acquiring dynamic knowledge.” Without reflection built into our work processes, we riskcreating “busy-ness” that has no real value. Rushing through tasks to check them off ourlists does not increase our knowledge and understanding of what is important or how we can
improve our performance and business value. As a social system, organizations must institutionalize learning. Learning can occur only through group reflection on what we do, how we
do it, what we value about our practices, and how we can improve them.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 11

There is often a perception that “reflection” takes too long and requires endless consensusbuilding conversations to gain buy-in to a plan or decision. We offer a different view.
Reflection is a foundational ingredient to effective value creation since it is how we collectively learn and improve. We have found that endless conversations for buy-in are usually the
result of a lack of shared purpose, common data, and true listening. When these are lacking,there is no compelling work around which to organize.
Watch your language. It shapes your perception and affects your capacity to contribute.

In shifting from mechanistic mental models, we must recognize that language plays a key role.
We should listen to the words we choose to describe change, management, and the future. For
example, language such as “driving change,” “re-engineering the organization,” and similarphrases all connote an intention to do something to people rather than with people. Languagethat treats the organization as a machine to be driven and people as cogs in the machine will
not result in networks of collaboration, but in networks of contempt and ambition. If we hear
ourselves talking as if we have the answer and must push or sell others to adopt it, we areprobably acting from the old paradigm. These kinds of words shape the perceptions of otherswith respect to your intentions, and reinforce the mechanistic view of organizations.
Leading with “what to change” rather than with “what to conserve” always creates resistance and leads an organization to overlook, unwittingly, what is already working. Change
initiatives that lack this important first step – appreciating what is precious to keep and build
upon – can result in losing the formula for what makes value-creating networks thrive in their

Ideas for Transforming Your Own Perceptions and Actions
to Maximize Value-Creating Social Networks in Your Workplace
When . . .

Instead (or consider first) . . .

you think you need to reorganize

ask, “Where are the value-creating social networks where
the work is actually getting done? How can I contribute totheir success?”you want to drive or lead change froma particular place in the organization

ask, “What is it we need to create or accomplish together?
What is important to conserve or expand?”you think there is no time to reflect
on past actions as a teamdedicate a specific amount of time to reflection anddialogue on what the team is learning and how to buildthat into next actions.

you are feeling discounted

listen to learn; explore the networks most essential toyour responsibilities to understand more fully how work
is really getting done.

you want to learn more about social
systems but the literature makes it
seem complex and irrelevant

begin with a valued accomplishment and ask, “How wasthis created? Who contributed? How do they describe theirexperiences?”someone claims all the credit forgetting a tough problem solved

ask, “How was the work accomplished? Who else wasinvolved?” Reward the larger network for its contribution.

12 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

organizations. As our friend, former executive for both Volvo and IKEA Göran Carstedt,
points out, “What if people don’t mind change, but mind being changed?”
Look in the mirror. Are you legitimizing networks of collaboration or networks of ambition?

If we reflect for a moment on the networks that surround us and in which we participate, weshould be able to recognize whether they are collaborative networks or networks of ambition.
As described in this article, the former are social systems that create new knowledge, generatepossibilities, and build trust and excitement. When we participate in a social network that is
highly collaborative, it feels generative and positive for all those whoare part of it. Often it is described as special or magic. No one wants Often it is describedto leave and extraordinary results occur, often repeatedly. In contrast, as special or magic. This
networks of ambition are not open and do not build trust. They areabout power and competition within the network. Some members will limits possibilities andserve as gatekeepers to information and to limit access to others. This social capital.
type of social structure limits possibilities and social capital. Members are usually fearful that they will “look bad” or fail to please their boss by collaborating
and sharing. People are happy and often relieved to leave these networks when the opportunity presents itself. These networks are easy to shift when we ask to know more about how
value was created, who was involved, and what new knowledge was generated.

In Conclusion
In the Industrial Age value was created by managing resources. In the Knowledge Age value
is created through collaborative relationships. Understanding the social principles governing
collaborative networks and the intellectual and social capital they create will be necessaryand new skills for managers who have always been responsible for managing the productivity and performance of an organization. Collaborative action and learning through collective
reflection will be the source for understanding new practices that improve the creation of
new value for customers, employees, and other stakeholders. While teaching social systems
theory may be difficult, we have found that learning about social systems is simple and easy
when groups have the time to reflect on their performance. Perception about the nature ofsocial systems will continue to be shaped through our collective reflection – the site where
Dr. Deming’s mentor, C. I. Lewis, claimed our “social truth” resides.
The authors wish to thank George Greenfield, Chris Vitello, and Paul Nashfor their participation in research for and preparation of this manuscript.

References
Bateson, G. 1951. Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. In The Convergence of Science andPsychiatry, J. Ruesch and G. Bateson. eds., 257–272. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Comte, A. 1852. System of Positive Polity. Paris: Carilian-Goeury and Vor Dalmont.
Deming, W. E. 1993. The New Economics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Drucker, P. 1988. The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review (January-February):
45–53.
Jewell-Larsen, S. and D. Sandow. 1999. Personal Development: The Key to Change Acceleration in
Global Operations. Target 15(4): 15–20.

reflections.solonline.org

Feature ■ Sandow, Allen 13

Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: Realization of the Living. Dordrecht,
Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.
Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela. 1992. The Tree of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Maturana, H. R. and Bunnell, P. 1998. Biosphere, Homosphere and Robosphere. Society for Organizational
Learning. www.solonline.org/res/wp/maturana/index.html
Piaget, J. 1971. Biology and Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sakaiya, T. 1991. The Knowledge Value Revolution. Toyko: Kodansha International Ltd.
Senge, P. M. 1993. Transforming the Practice of Management. Human Resource Development Quarterly
4(1): 5–31.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Since 1987 Dennis Sandow has been developing social action research
as a process to promote social, biological and financial well-being, and to
study Dr. Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition and biology of love.
Dennis is a research member of SoL and has been conducting social
action research in China.
dennis.sandow@hp.com
Anne Murray Allen is currently HP’s director for Knowledge and Intranet
Management. She has been with HP for over 15 years and has been in roles
and positions that include organization development, manufacturing management, worldwide IT manager, strategic planning manager, and implementation of strategic change initiatives across the corporation.
annemurray.allen@hp.com

14 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

COMMENTARY

Commentary
By George Greenfield
Working in the Hewlett-Packard (HP) InkJet

through the network, business moved very

Cartridge business has sometimes been likefast and effectively.

living in the eye of a tornado. Hyper-growth,and the intersection of science, technology,
manufacturing, and vendor capability all playinto maintaining a healthy balance among
cost, quality, and availability. Decisions conGeorge Greenfieldcerning the release of new products often had
to be made months – and sometimes years –before enough data was available to know thatour product quality and reliability would be

A few years ago we were getting ready to launcha new line of printers and cartridges. It was tobe the biggest launch in our printer history, andit also needed to be accomplished more quickly
than any previous launch. We knew that even asmall mistake could cost millions of dollars, notto mention impact customer satisfaction andthe HP brand. A lot was at stake.

good enough to meet our customers’ expec-

At the time we were experiencing a rash of pesky

tations and our company’s commitments.

quality problems that diverted our precious re-

To be sure, our quality system was always
good enough to protect our customers. Almost
without exception, quality issues were spottedand corrected before product reached the market, but at a price. Many times quality problems
were detected with only enough time to “catch”
the product in distribution. Then we would
have to pull it back and rebalance inventories
so we had the availability needed to feed thechannel and meet our customers’ needs.
This could be very costly and frustrating foreveryone involved.

sources. We had two choices: assign a team of
specialists to solve the problems, as we had in
the past, or employ the methods and techniquesespoused by Sandow. We chose the latter, andas they say, “The rest is history!” Sandow andAllen’s article talks about the power of real
listening to influence learning. During this time
we made the choice to listen to the advice of
our own leaders and experts throughout the business about what HP needed. We had not realized how much knowledge was embedded in
our own internal networks. By listening, welearned what we needed to do together to im-

About four years ago, a group of us started

prove the overall quality of our products in aworking with Dennis Sandow and began “experi-

way we would not have if we had continued

menting” with the social theories he was test-

to operate in our old ways.

ing. We did social action research, mapping
our networks in a number of areas in the business, and always found that the network wasmuch larger than expected and much more
complex than we were capable of managing
with conventional techniques. We also noticed
that when information flowed effectively

reflections.solonline.org

The leaders in our collaborative social network
focused on pertinent information, like metrics
displaying the quality issues, with the result thatproblems were spotted faster and resolved more
quickly and completely than ever before. The
business has now gone more than three years
without a serious quality issue and we have

■ Greenfield
Commentary
Feature ■ Sandow,
Allen 15

virtually eliminated the “distribution thrash”

And best of all, we knew we had made – andcommon in earlier periods.

could continue to make – a difference to the

The business results were stunning. Equallyimportant, however, was the way employees
and vendors felt about their role in the work.
A feeling of well-being and accomplishment
permeated the organization. Being at work
was a joy. We were happy with each other.

business through a new way of getting ourwork done.
George Greenfield
Program Manager, Imaging and Printing
Business, Hewlett-Packard Company
george.greenfield@hp.com© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

16 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

COMMENTARY

Commentary
By Peter Senge

Peter Senge

Anyone who has ever worked in an organiza-

to enable the organization to function, let alone

tion recognizes the distinction between how

innovate. That is because the organization’s

things are supposed to work and how things

actual knowledge is embodied in the shared

actually do. The former encompasses the guid-

history of its living members. This is why Dennis

ance of explicit roles, written rules, publicly

Sandow and Anne Murray Allen open their article

expressed management strategies and values,

by declaring that their primary aim in utilizing

and organization charts. The latter includes

social action research is to understand how

all the unwritten norms that govern action andwork gets done, and how to appreciate andbehavior: knowing what is actually expected ofgrow the knowledge that enables this.

you; knowing who is good at doing what, who
is helpful or difficult to get along with, who hasreal influence, and how management decisions
really get made. While people tend to think thatthe formal management hierarchy is “where
the action is” (it is certainly where the moneyis), this is an oversimplification, and a potentially dangerous one if we care about performance and innovation.

In my judgment, the research on social collaboration that Sandow and Allen, along with manycolleagues at Hewlett-Packard (HP), have done
represents a landmark accomplishment in theemerging philosophy and practice of knowledgebased management. I first learned about thiswork when I attended a two-day workshop that
HP hosted for Humberto Maturana, the Chilean
biologist cited in the article. The fact that a

Imagine what might happen if every person incompany would get together almost one hun-your organization were replaced overnight withdred engineers and managers, including Anne’s

another person with a comparable education,

boss, the “Ink Supply” division general manager,

cultural background, and intellectual ability. How

for two days with an eminent scientist of living

would they do? Members of this new groupsystems was itself surprising. But what was

would start to work with all the artifacts of theeven more surprising was that the participants

formal organization: the written rules, job de-were there to learn how to deepen work many

scriptions, procedures, online manuals, sales

were already doing. For some years, Dennis hadrecords, customer contact information, andbeen listening and learning from several engi-

personnel files. They would not know any cus-

neering teams in his division, seeing first hand

tomers or suppliers – their problems, needs, or

how they did their work and who they depended

accomplishments. They would not have learned

upon to do it. As he introduced initially skepticaleach other’s interests, capabilities, or idiosyn-

engineers to social network mapping, they foundcrasies. They would have no past experiencethat it gave them a tool to legitimate and explain

working with any of the organization’s processes.

to their managers how and why their personal

Without a history of collaboration, the replace-

networks mattered. Managers started to pay

ment workers might have a fresh perspective,

attention as the evidence linking particular

but they would lack the knowledge necessarysocial networks and the results they achieved

reflections.solonline.org■ Sandow,■ SengeFeatureCommentary
Allen 17

became compelling. For the first time, theA few weeks ago, Anne Murray Allen and I

engineers had a language to reinforce theirspent a weekend with a small group of execu-

claims that reorganizations and other manage-

tives from SoL member organizations to reflect

ment actions taken without an understanding

together on deep trends that are shaping theof these networks often had negative sidebusiness environment. The first meeting ofeffects that outweighed the intended benefits.

this group produced a statement we call theThis is why the interest in the Maturana work-“Marblehead Letter.” It identified six “issues

shop extended well beyond the intellectual –shaping the future, especially for corporations

which made the juxtaposition of this pragmaticwith global scope,” which started with the grow-motivation with its content even more striking.

ing “social divide” and the need to “redefine
economic growth” so that economic progress

In those two days, Maturana shared with theeager HP engineers his fifty-year journey ofunderstanding “the biology of love.” Startingas an MIT post-doctoral experimental biologist
trying to understand how “the frog sees a fly,”he had gradually established a radical new
foundation for understanding perception inliving systems. Perception, Maturana explained,
is not ultimately about what we see but what
we can do. From an evolutionary perspective,“catching flies” matters a good deal more than“seeing flies.” In human systems, the quality

can be “consistent with a finite planet.”1 In
our recent meeting, everyone agreed thatthese global imbalances persisted and, if anything, were growing worse. Not surprisingly, theconversation turned to the features of our system of management that seem to drive these
imbalances, making them so intractable. At
one point, after sharing many of the ideas andexperiences presented in this article, Anne
asked a simple question that resonated deeply
in the group, “Why is it so much easier for us
to manage by fear than to manage by love?”of perception is inseparable from the quality ofcollaboration; it is about the coordination of

While it has become acceptable in recent

action that arises in networks of social inter-

years to talk about “the formal system” andactions. Effectiveness depends on the qualities“the informal system,” to laud the importanceof the social relationships. When we are dis-of “communities of practice” and social net-

tant from one another, when we distrust or

works in knowledge creation and innovation, thefeel at risk, our relationships and consequently

matter of how we are with one another – andour awareness suffers. Conversely, when we

the consequences for how our businesses oper-

build trusting relationships that allow us to be

ate and the results they produce in the world –open, honest and vulnerable with one another,remains largely undiscussable. Increasingly, fear

our ability to sense and respond to complex

dominates our societies and most of our organi-and changing environments grows. “Love,zations. But you cannot fight fear directly. “Driv-allowing the other to be a legitimate other, is

ing out fear” will only make people more fearful.

the only emotion that expands intelligence,”

It is only possible to gradually supplant fear as

Maturana declared to the HP engineers andthe dominant emotion in our system of man-

managers. And they understood what heagement by building respect, appreciation andmeant.

legitimacy – that is love.

© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

18 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

reflections.solonline.org

I will never forget that group of HP engineers
and mangers talking in the most matter of fact
way about love – not as a romantic sentiment
but as the utmost practical truth about what theyknew to work in their work – by the end of the twodays with Humberto Maturana. Making it easier tomanage by love than by fear will undoubtedly bea long-term, ongoing journey for us all – I suspect
a defining journey of our times.
Peter Senge
Founding Chairperson, SoL
reflections@solonline.org

Endnote1 For the full text of the “Marblehead Letter,”see SoL’s online Knowledge Repository,
www.solonline.org© 2005, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

reflections.solonline.org■ Sandow,■ SengeFeatureCommentary
Allen 19

Group Magic:
An Inquiry into Experiences of Collective Resonance
By Renee A. Levi
“The human spirit is not measured by the size of the act
nbut by the size of the heart.”— BILLBOARD SIGN PRESIDING OVERGROUND ZERO COMMEMORATION CEREMONY,NEW YORK CITY. SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

We are at a crossroads inhuman evolution. We havearrived on the doorstep of the
21st century in great global
disarray. Anxiety, hate, terrorism, and war are the pervasive
themes of our time. We live infear, and our relationships withRenee A. Levi
one another reflect this undercurrent. We mistrust others in personal dealings andgroup dialogues on important issues affecting ourcollective future are marked by skepticism and competition for perceived scarce resources. Our media captures and magnifies it all – every unsettling detail –live and 24/7. This is dissonance: collective dissonance.
Even so, occurrences of resonance between individuals and within groups happen every day in situations in which people come together and experience
intimacy and bonding, a felt sense of being in theflow or transcending, personal transformation, andsometimes the satisfaction of accomplishing extraordinary things.
This is group magic and these are the experiencesthat inform a phenomenological study I recently
completed as part of my doctoral work in organizational systems. They are extraordinary but they arealso ordinary because they happen every day in all
kinds of contexts to ordinary people. They are diffi-

20
20 Reflections
Reflections■■Volume
Volume6,6,Number
Number2/3
2/3

cult to describe, but we know when they have occurred. It is in the space between us, beyond the level ofintellectual exchange, and felt in a different way thanas a meeting of the minds. It is a meeting, but one ofa different sort: it is a meeting of hearts, of souls, ofenergies, and memories, and although it exists in therealm of physical space and time, it may reflect adimension beyond the immediate interaction.
Collective resonance experiences occur more frequently than we may know. They do not sell newspapers and therefore may go unnoticed in the courseof a busy life, but they need to be brought to light,
to be better understood because they serve as guideposts pointing to ways of working and living together that sustain human life and spirit rather than destroy
it. They are points of light that illuminate the way toa better world than the one with which we entered
this century and they need to be told in the voices of
the individuals who experienced them.
Group Magic: An Inquiry Into Experiences ofCollective Resonance gathers and interprets such
experiences. In it I explore the broad range of contexts in which people report experiencing this phenomenon and the many levels of connection associatedwith it: energetic, physical, emotional, and spiritualas well as intellectual. I discovered, talking with athletes, soldiers, dancers, educators and students, construction workers, singers, police officers, corporate

reflections.solonline.org
reflections.solonline.org

executives, weekend fishermen, and many others what
the experience of collective resonance feels like, what
they believe shifted their group into resonance, howsignificant the experience was for their life or work,
and whether a similar sense recurred during theremembering and retelling of their stories.
Bringing this information to light is important, I
believe, for two main reasons. First, by having accessto examples of collective resonance, readers of thestudy may be able to recall similar encounters intheir own lives, raising awareness that it is available
to us all and that its effects can be transformative. I
also believe that increasing conscious recognition offelt experience actually amplifies the positive energy
field around and between human beings and canaffect decisions leading to right action in the world.
Second, by understanding the components of such
experiences, tools and methods can be created tohelp design and facilitate groups in ways thatenhance the possibility of the emergence of resonance, again in service of decision-making thatmoves our societies forward, but also for the intrinsic satisfaction and joy that can heal the wounds
already inflicted by a dissonant age.
Collective resonance is, by my definition, a felt
sense of energy, rhythm, or intuitive knowing that
occurs in a group of human beings and positively
affects the way they interact toward a common purpose. The word resonance means “re-sound,” indicating a flow of vibration between two things, in thiscase two or more people. In psychology the word
resonance has been used to describe empathy
between human beings. In the spiritual realm, particularly in the Eastern traditions, it refers to thesense of oneness with the universe that is the goal of
meditative practices. In this study, however, thephysical level of connection through vibrational
interchange was the focus and suggested the use of
the word resonance in the descriptor, collective resonance. It is a level that operates constantly whenhuman beings interact in the same space, whether or
not they are communicating verbally. It is based on
the laws of physics, that vibrating bodies – in thiscase, human beings – transmit and receive soundreflections.solonline.org

waves that impact one another. When waves ofsimilar enough frequency interact, they can entrain
or become one wave with greater amplitude.
Informed by these concepts, I interviewed 34
people from 32 group situations identified as resonant. I wanted to include the broadest possible rangeof experience and participant characteristics todetermine what commonalities existed in the elements of experience, that is, how, precisely, it was
felt, what shifted groups into resonance, how significant it was deemed to be, and whether a similar
sense recurred during the interview itself. The hourlong interviews were conducted using five core questions and were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed
using phenomenological and participant observation
methodologies common in human science research.
The study was partially funded by the Collective
Wisdom Initiative of the Fetzer Institute.
Despite the diversity of participants and theirgroup contexts, surprisingly common threads ofexperience were discovered (Figure 1). Asked toremember and recount the situation and how it felt
to them, more than two-thirds of the people interviewed mentioned six things:• a very definite felt sensation in the body, primarily in the upper torso or heart area and secondarily in the eyes, often associated with recognitionof greater clarity or comprehension;• a dynamic aspect to the experience characterizedby movement, rhythm, or a sense of flow;• the involvement of emotion, primarily joy, appreciation, compassion, and love;• a strong sense of connection to others in the groupthrough discovery of commonalities and to thegroup through a feeling of belonging;• an experience of shift in personal or collective
boundaries that affected perception of self, of thegroup, or self within the group; and• a feeling of high energy in the room described invarious ways including aliveness, excitement, heightened senses, and surges of personal power orstrength.

EKF ■ Levi 21

Figure 1: Visual Map of Elements of Experience

Touch & Priority

EnergyField

EmotionConnection
to Others

Self Connection

Movement/Rhythm
Altered
Consciousness

SpiritConnection

Total
Presence

Shift Out of Head
Calm

Boundary Shifting

Body Sense

High Energy

MOST Widely Shared
Elements of Experience

Another four elements that characterized the experience of collective resonance for one-third to twothirds of the interviewees were
• an awareness that physical touching or close
physical proximity of the people (spontaneously
or deliberately created) was present during theexperience;• a shift from intellectual, cognitive, and brain-centered thinking to reliance on physical, intuitive, or
spiritual sources of information to experience collective resonance;• a profound connection with self occurred and was
mentioned in many ways such as realization of
personal gifts or talents, important insights, andhealing;• a feeling of calm, groundedness, or relaxation wasreported, sometimes in the midst of highly charged
or dangerous situations.
Finally, four additional aspects of collective resonance experiences were mentioned by one-third of
the study’s participants. These were

22 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

More Widely Shared
Elements of Experience

Shared Elementsof Experience• a distinct sense that they had experienced analtered state of consciousness, often described asa lost awareness of time passing but also creatively expressed as being “in a bubble,” surreal,
an immersion, a spell, or being “in the zone”;• acknowledgment of an energy field around or
weaving through the group that held it together
and required, for some, either letting go of control
to relax into the experience, a conscious intention
to hold the space, a willingness to suspend judgment of what is or is not reality, or a shift fromouter to inner orientation;• recognition of a spiritual force or source, described in various ways such as nature, God, orOther, even though the vast majority of groupcontexts were not traditionally religious in nature;and• an awareness that they were fully and totally present, engaged, and in the moment during the experience, unaware of distractions of any kind.
Having gained an understanding of what collective resonance feels like, I wanted to know whatreflections.solonline.org©2003 Renee Levi, Ph.D.

Collective Resonance Elements of Experiencethings shifted groups into resonance; in other words,
what were the behaviors, events, or other occurrences people remembered as having changed thecharacter of the group? This is important to know
when considering the applicability of these factors togroup situations in which collective resonance isdesired (Figure 2).
Nine factors were widely identified from thisinquiry. Two, vulnerability and silence, were sharedby considerably more than two-thirds of all interviewees despite their very different situations. A
sense of being vulnerable, either personally or as agroup, was the most widely shared shifting factor.
Many ways of feeling vulnerable were expressed.
Personal vulnerability in the form of self-revelation,
an approach of openness in new situations, not having an answer, not knowing what to do, or fatigue or
illness were mentioned frequently. Feeling vulnerable
as a group due to difficult times or conditions or
disaster situations was also mentioned as influential
in shifting groups into resonance. All shared thetheme of feeling that they had less control of thesituation than usual.

Figure 2: Visual Map of Shifting Factors

Vu
lne
rab
ilit
y

Spirit

ion
rat

Vib

d/

un

So

Truth
Collective
Resonance

Silence

Strongestreflections.solonline.org

St
or
y

Place/Space

Co
nta
ine
rC

on
tra
cti
on

Intention
SharedStrongLess Strong

Silence, the second most widely mentioned shifting factor, was described as a pause in the action, atime that allowed individuals to connect with one
another and with themselves, a space to “hear”
other sources of information, and as a collectively
felt necessary next step in the group’s process.
Half of the participants in this study identified theuse of story or storytelling in the group as influencing emerging collective resonance. The stories wereof a personal nature and revealed aspects of the individual. This was reported as significant in establishing the close bonds that were created. Anothershifting factor that half of the interviewees mentioned was the importance of the physical place orenergetic space that held the group during resonance.
Aspects of the physical space that were identified
were its historical significance, its layout, its aesthetic beauty, or its location in natural settings.
Ritual or intention were also mentioned as conscious
activities that altered the energetic space resonanceemerged in.
An observation by more than one-third of thestudy participants was a sense of the collective“boundary” contracting, either literally or metaphorically, enough to provide a kind of containerthat held the experience. Some collective boundaries
that were mentioned were walls of fog, walls of aroom, or a circle made by people standing close
together with their arms around each other.
More obviously, perhaps, was the role of a sharedgroup purpose, goal, or intention to a group’s shift
into resonance. In some groups there was a specifictask to accomplish that served as its goal; in others,a shared desire such as wanting to know one anotherbetter, learning something together, or a commitment
to having fun were the common threads.
Telling the truth, to oneself and to the group, wasidentified as a significant source of group shift. The
content of the truth was less important than the perception that group members were being honest withthemselves and courageous enough to voice theirtruth in the group. A sense that the group was safeenough to allow for this was a prerequisite in thesesituations. One person’s example of truth-telling in a

EKF ■ Levi 23

group was sometimes enough to give others permission to follow suit and this in itself was identified asa shifting factor.
In a third of the group contexts, sound and vibration were recognized as shifting factors. These
appeared in the form of music, singing, physicalmovement causing vibrations in the surrounding air,and the subtle gradations of the human voice inspeech. One woman used the sonic abilities of dolphins to enhance emotional healing in groups in thewater.
Finally, although a felt sense of connection to
spirit was identified as an element of the experienceof collective resonance, spirit was also acknowledged
as a shifting factor. In other words, an outside force
or higher being was reported to have entered thegroup and affected it, according to one-third of thestudy’s participants. Again, only three of the groupsituations were religious in the traditional sense.
After learning about what collective resonancefeels like and what causes it to emerge, I was curious
to know what impact it had on the individual. This,for me, was an important indicator of the usefulnessof further research and application in this arena. A
large majority of my interviewees indicated that theirexperience of collective resonance was highly significant in changing their lives, their work, their relationships, and themselves. Some described it astransformational overall.
Finally, and of great interest to me, was the discovery that in 30 of the 32 interviews, participants
reported that they felt the same physical, emotional,
psychological, and energetic feelings return during
the interview as they had originally experienced.
This was confirmed by the changes that I observed intheir physical selves, such as tears, animation, gestures, and silences. Many realized and revealed thatthey were saddened by the lack of such experiencesin their current lives or were missing the people withwhom they had become so connected. I think this finding has significant potential for further exploration.
Having collected and assembled the many themesthat illuminate the experience of collective reso-

24 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

nance, I sat, for a time, with them like puzzle pieces
wanting to be made whole. Although the goal of aphenomenological study is to map the constructs ofexperience, there were lingering questions for me,
mainly about how the reported felt sense of resonance related to the physical laws of rhythm entrainment. Was it possible that sound waves emanatingfrom human beings in close proximity and in certain
situations rhythmically entrain and amplify, creatinga physical field between them that feels satisfactory
and allows them to move together toward achieving
goals? Might these fields be interacting with other,larger fields in the universe? To my knowledge, thishas not been proposed before in the context ofgroups, although brain-heart entrainment in thesame individual has been documented, as have theeffects of one person’s heartbeat on another’s brain
waves (Childre & Martin, 1999; Lynch, 2000).
Nearly all of my interviewees felt physical body sensation and more than two-thirds of them felt it in theheart or upper torso area, the location of the largest
vibrating organ in the body. What were the participants in my study saying about the kinds of situations in which resonance can occur and what,
specifically, were the conditions likely causing it?
The themes from this study offer clues. In addition to physical sensation, many people mentioned a
profound connection with themselves and with others stemming from vulnerability of some kind. They
reported that they felt a sense of individual and collective boundary movement. They also agreed thattruth and honesty in an atmosphere of safety, often
communicated in story form, were conditions ofresonance. Silence, as a space in which a different
kind of knowing can occur, was a pervasive theme.
Taken together, I think these themes point to a very
real getting in touch with what is true for the individual, an experience of authenticity simultaneouswith a sense of connecting with others throughreflection of themselves in their stories. Perhaps
these are important clues to discovering how human
wavelengths become “similar” enough in frequency
to entrain.

reflections.solonline.org

It may be that as human beings become moreauthentic, more deeply in touch with themselves andwhat they believe, and display behaviors that express
this, that their energy fields change. In physics, fundamental frequency – the frequency at which an
object most naturally vibrates – allows for the mostefficient use of energy. Human beings, too, as vibrating bodies, have fundamental frequencies. In meditation, for example, it is thought to be the entrainingof the mind and heart to the natural rhythm of theperson’s breathing that helps reduce stress and anxiety and leads to cardiac and overall physical health(Childre & Martin, 1999). Perhaps getting in touchwith and articulating one’s own truth through participation with others in various ways can also affectthe waves emanating from a person and alter theirelectromagnetic field. As one participant, a massage
therapist, told me,reflections.solonline.org

It’s about speaking the truth. And when you
hear the truth, you relax. And if somebody
says something to you and it doesn’t feellike the truth to you, whether it’s consciousor unconscious, you say, “We’re not on thesame playing field here.”If several people undergo this shift simultaneously,
such as in occurrences of collective resonance, how
might the wavelengths affect one another? In rhythm
entrainment, wavelengths of similar frequency merge
into a single wave and amplify. Could this be the felt
sense of an energy field, an altered consciousness,
palpable high energy, or the distinct sense of rhythm
and movement reported by many of my study’s participants? In the emotional realm, could the widely
shared reports of connection to others in the groupin the form of feelings of belonging, common
humanity, and even love be another manifestation of

EKF ■ Levi 25

the entrained energy waves? Is it possible, further,that mention of spirituality, especially in the secular realm in which most of the experiences describedin this study occurred, or a sense of connection
to outside forces, nature, or the universe may also
be a form of entrainment of the group with larger
collectives?
How is collective resonance different from groupthink, a phenomenon in which the buzz in a group
can lead to acts of violence and war? What prevents
the tilting of the balance toward evil? There is one
major difference that I believe is perhaps the essential element of collective resonance experiences, andthis is the deep, self-connection that occurs alongside
the bonding with others, grounded in personal truth
and authentic expression. In examples of groupthink– that is, cults, gangs, terrorist organizations, andnationalistic movements that profess superiority ofthemselves over others – the bond between people
usually involves what I would call a “third party” tothe experience: an ideology, a perceived enemy, acommon cause, an idealized leader. As individuals
connect around this third party, potential for evil
emerges.
In collective resonance there is no third party,
necessarily, around which the bonding occurs. The
connection, instead, is through the self, throughinternal authenticity and truth-telling, which influences physiological and energetic processes and ultimately entrainment with others who are doing thesame. Although there may be a specific collective
purpose, it is the inner component in collective resonance, indeed the key component, that shifts theindividual and the group into resonance and possibly
affects the group’s connection with still larger forces.
This connection, then, can propel the group toward
its goals, sometimes enabling them to achieve
extraordinary things.
In closing, I would like to comment on why thisstudy is important and what some avenues for further exploration might be. I believe that knowledgeof the physical ways human beings are fundamentally connected can accelerate progress towardcollaborations toward common human goals, com-

26 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

plementing the many intellectual efforts to the sameend. I believe that collective resonance is healthy for
individuals, organizations, and whole societal systems on a physical level as well as a behavioral one.
I also believe that the integration of many kinds ofknowing fuses perceived opposites – East and West,male and female, mind and heart, science and spirituality, contemporary and indigenous cultures, andothers. Balance and wholeness are fundamentals of
all healthy systems and essential to successful functioning in all spheres.
Finally, where might we go from here? Physiological validation of the theory of rhythm entrainment between people in groups seems important for
those inclined toward scientific proof. Monitoringheart activity during group work designed with collective resonance principles is being explored at thistime. Also, it seems important to know if collective
resonance can occur at a distance, especially as wemove toward ways of interacting, enabled by technology, that take human beings further and further
apart physically.
The conscious convening of groups using practices that enable resonance to emerge is anotherimportant application of the information uncoveredin this study. Using storytelling formats, incorporating questions that invite honesty and self connection,
providing opportunities for relationship-building
through seeing oneself mirrored in others, attending
to the place or space in which groups convene, taking time for silence as well as dialogue or action,
being clear about collective expectations or grouppurpose, incorporating sound and vibration into thegathering, and attempting to create emotional safety
in the group are some ways to craft environmentsthat cultivate collective resonance.
Have we been focused for too long on “figuringout” fundamental problems that plague our world
and on analyzing how we might live together inpeace and prosperity? Maybe the direct, aggressive,
laser-like approach can be complemented by “relaxing into” the intricate web of physical connectionthat surrounds and enfolds us, a level of connectionthat only needs to be sensed, intuited, felt, andreflections.solonline.org

accepted instead of actively produced by discussion,negotiation, compromise, and agreement.
Can we feel it? Our challenge is to let go andreceive, to be as well as do. For all the good things
our doing has provided, the mystery and the magicthat are life need to be remembered. I believe thatawareness is always the first step toward change.
The voices from this study help to make us aware of
the physical web of connection that can inform ourevolution toward the future we desire.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Renee A. Levi is director of The Resonance Project, a
not-for-profit organization created to further research into
and application of Collective Resonance. She is also principal of Resonance Consulting, an organization development practice dedicated to individual and organizationaltransformation. Renee is a research member of SoL andis working on a book called Group Magic.
rlevi@resonanceproject.org
www.resonanceproject.org

References
Childre, D., & Martin, H. 1999. The Heartmath Solution.
San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Lynch, J. 2000. A Cry Unheard. Baltimore: Bancroft
Press.

© 2005, Society for Organization Learning. All right reserved.

reflections.solonline.org

EKF ■ Levi 27

BOOK EXCERPT

Who Really Matters:
The Core Group Theory
of Power, Privilege andSuccess

The Shadow Core GroupArt Kleiner

Art Kleiner
Doubleday, 2003

Margaret Mead’s famous quotebigger, a kind of “macrocosmic ‘we’” that took on the chal-(“Never forget that a small group

lenge of making the organization around itself better.

of committed people can change

Here is the chapter from Who Really Matters in which I

the world. In fact, it’s the onlylaid out a rationale for starting and maintaining such athing that ever has.”) resonatesgroup. To understand it, you need a quick introduction towith us because we want to

my definition of Core Group: the people whose perceived

believe it’s true. In fact, it’s a par-needs and priorities drive the decisions made by everyone

tial truth. Small groups of com-in an organization, at least in aggregate. The Core Group ismitted people are (probably) the

not necessarily the people at the top of the hierarchy

only thing that has changed the world for the better.

(though it often includes some of them). It’s the people

But how do you organize such a small group? I came up

who are regarded as important, either because they control

against that question several times during the past decade.

key resources, they make key decisions, they oversee someOnce when putting together the fieldbook The Dance of

critical bottleneck or gate, or they have the kind of integrity

Change (with Peter Senge, Charlotte Roberts, Rick Ross,

that makes everyone want to follow them.

George Roth, and Bryan Smith); once when working with

I still believe that small groups of people can effectively

Dialogos; and once when preparing my own book Whochange organizations. (“In fact, it’s the only thing that everReally Matters. In all three circumstances, it was clear thathas.”) But the small groups have to know what they’relong-lasting organic change could only take place when it

doing. This chapter provides a start.

was championed by a small “pilot group” that gradually got

A

re you aware how dangerous
it is to talk about this?” The
speaker was a Dutch corporate executive, a member of an
audience at a talk I gave in Maastricht. He had put his finger on theheart of the Core Group dilemma.
In most organizations, open conversation about the Core Group istaboo, and for good reason. It triggers deeply emotional feelings
about privilege, power, and rank.
And yet, having become awareof the Core Group’s impact, how
can you ignore it? People seriously
trying to influence an organization
can only be effective if they understand how the Core Group’s priorities are perceived, and how thoseperceptions differ from the CoreGroup’s actual intentions. That means

28 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

raising awareness of “who reallymatters” dispassionately, without
triggering a backlash of resentment,
mistrust, vulnerability or fear, either
from Core Group members or fromothers on their behalf. How on— Art Kleiner

Earth are we supposed to accomplish that?
There are ways to do it, evenwhen you’re not in the Core Group
yourself. It takes a certain finesse, afair amount of relationship andreputation equity, a willingness toexperiment, and an awareness of
the limits of appropriate experimentation. Most of all, it takes thekind of time and commitment thatpeople generally do not invest inorganizations unless they see their
future bound up with them. That
combination – dispassion plus timeplus commitment – is so counterintuitive that those who intervene tochange organizations, whether fromthe inside or outside, have to learn
to create it practically from scratch.
Here, then, before anything else,reflections.solonline.org

is a list of what not to do, based on
the unfortunate experiences of those
who have followed their intuition
as a guide:• Do not try to bully the organization’s Core Group into improvement. For example, do not loudly
and angrily go to your bosses and say:
“Aren’t you ashamed of the way
this organization excludes some people? Why haven’t you done anything
about this?” They would probably
just look at you, shake their heads
in disbelief, and make a note neverto let you into their offices again.
• Do not adopt a passiveaggressive campaign. Do not talkbehind the Core Group’s backabout the abuses they engender, or
try to “punish” them in subtle orindirect ways. For instance, don’t
say anything about the Core Groupto others unless you would also say
it to them directly. Some people dothis kind of thing, almost despite
themselves, as a passive-aggressive
way of maintaining their selfrespect. But it has the effect of notjust insulting the Core Group, but
yourself and everyone else in theorganization as well.
• Do not put yourself down as away to curry favor or influencewith the Core Group – or with therest of the organization. At best,
this turns you into a Core Group
Enabler, and sets you up to be exploited by the organization. At worst,
it marks you as a mediocre courtierin a democratic civilization. Flattery
and sycophancy are games thathave been honed through centuriesof play in monarchies and empires;playing them well requires a level ofskill and experience that (with anyluck) is beyond the typical 21stCentury individual except, perhaps,
Stanley Bing.

reflections.solonline.org• Do not put your hopes on a
“Skunk Works” or other innovative
operation buried within the organization and shielded from above.
Conventional wisdom says that if
you want to innovate from within,“don’t ask permission – ask forgiveness.” But Core Groups don’t workthat way. Every organization has its
share of wonderfully innovative
projects that achieved remarkable
results, and in some cases saved thecompany, but failed to influence therest of the company or to provide
sufficient recognition or reward forthe people involved (at least by
their standards). Three prominent
examples: the Ford Taurus, whose
launch leader, Lew Veraldi, wasrepudiated by his bosses at Ford;the innovative Topeka dog foodfactory, whose organizers Lyman
Ketchum and Ed Dulworth were
pushed out of the parent company
General Foods; and the Apple Macintosh, whose creator, Steve Jobs,
was forced out of the company hehad founded in the 1980s. Only
Jobs recouped, and that was after
watching Apple fail without him
and creating dramatic success elsewhere (with Pixar).
There is a usually an unspoken
understanding that the strange,
heretical practices of the Skunk
Works won’t leak out to contaminate the rest of the organization.
Trouble ensues when the countercultural leaders of the Skunk Works
start to believe the stories of theirown success. They convince themselves that their terrific results andinnovative methods will allow themto transcend the agreement they
made; and if not, then the rest of
the organization obviously justdoesn’t “get it.” When the Skunk
Works leaders find themselves fro-zen without support by Core Group
members, or locked out of advancement or promotion elsewhere, theirfrustration takes on a life of its
own. It can poison the rest of theircareers – and the Skunk Works’
future as well.
• Don’t start a revolution. You
may be wondering, why not justreplace the Core Group wholesale?
That’s what incoming CEOs sometimes do. I suppose it’s possible that
another group could do it as well,perhaps through a stock repurchase.
But a revolution, besides being immeasurably disruptive to ongoing
business, merely substitutes one
Core Group for another. It wouldn’tchange the structure of the organization, and maybe not even theCore Group dynamics, unless it
also seriously changes the thinkingof the Core Group members andthe people around them.
What then do you do? In
answering that question, I’m influenced by the ongoing experimentation and thinking of a group ofpeople associated with the Dialogos
organization in Cambridge, MA,
who have studied and developed
the art of intervention in living systems: William Isaacs, Peter Garrett,Robert Hanig, Kelvy Bird, Skip
Griffin, Glennifer Gillespie, Ian
Yolles, the Reverend Jeffrey Brown,
David Kantor, and others. I’ve
learned that intervention in a complex system is a kind of art form in
itself: the art of crafting legitimacy
for a set of new ideas.
Before you even begin: who isintervening with you, and for what
purpose are you all taking thistrouble? Why do you want tochange the organization in the firstplace? If you succeed, what willthat get you? What difference will it

Book Excerpt ■ Kleiner 29

make – to you, the organization,and the rest of the world? How will
you know when you’re getting close?
And what will it look like, in yourimagination, when you’re done?
Without at least preliminary,heartfelt answers to those questions, it’s hardly worth starting. For
this is a significant undertaking. It
involves a campaign on the organizational level, intensive mutual exploration on the team level, andcourageous internal efforts to reacha level of maturity within yourself.
It is intensely personal, but it cannot
be done alone; ultimately, it will
involve everyone in the organization. It will take time and concentration, but you will have to “doyour job” at the same time, and you
may never get rewarded or evenrecognized for this. The payoff is in
the changes that it produces withinyourself.
Furthermore, there’s no recipe for
conducting this kind of intervention. On one hand you’d probably
want to build up some equity, in thequality of your reputation and relationships and skills, before embarking. On the other hand, conducting
this kind of work, with as muchpresence of mind as you can muster,is as good a way as any to beginbuilding equity. Your strategy depends on the quality of the organization, and the quality of your own
persona and the team you are working with. It’s not something totackle lightly. And yet it should betackled lightheartedly. Once you get
started in something larger thanyourself or your own career, yourfear will be tempered by fascination.
Probably the best way to begin is
to convene an informal team ofcompatriots who feel the same way
you do – a shadow Core Group for

30 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

the organization. I use the word
“shadow” here not in the Jungian
sense – to imply the repressed, subterranean impulses that are painful
or discomfiting – but in the sense ofan alternative group without real
power, going everywhere that thereal Core Group goes, one stepbehind. The name comes from politics, where people talk about

It involves a
campaign on theorganizational level,
intensive mutual
exploration on theteam level, andcourageous internal
efforts to reacha level of maturity
within yourself.
“shadow governments”: the apparatus set up by the party voted outof power in an election, in which
they appoint people to “shadow”
each of the key posts in the otherparty’s government, and to be prepared with their own opinions andproposals. This keeps them, moreor less, in practice as governing
entities for the next time they areelected, and a shadow Core Group
does the same thing for you and its
other members. It helps prepare
you all for the time when your ideas
become more formally adopted (ifthey ever do), for the time when
you enter the Core Group on a fullfledged basis, or for the dealings
that you may ultimately have withthe organization in a more authoritative role.

The members of this shadow
Core Group may not even workwithin the company: you may be asmall group of outsiders, trying toget (for example) an oil company toact with more environmental consideration. On the other hand, you
may include some Core Group
members with a vision for the organization that the rest of the CoreGroup doesn’t see. Whoever you
are, your success depends on yourability to maintain an authenticcare and enthusiasm – an “ownership,” if you will – for the unfolding potential of the organization,even though you may never benefit
directly as individuals.
The purpose of your shadow
Core Group is to raise consciousness – to build a new awareness ofthe purpose and potential of theorganization among Core Group
members, decision-makers throughout the organization, and (mostimportantly of all) yourselves.
Because the purpose of the organization is intimately linked with theimage that people have of the CoreGroup and its priorities, that image
will have to change as well. Even if
the membership of the Core Groupremains the same group of people,
the way they are perceived by theorganization will have to change.
That’s a tall order, and it can’t bedone by command or fiat, not evenby the command or fiat of the CoreGroup. It has to be approachedfrom the inside out, with each individual who joins the cause choosing
to see things in the new way, and to
make decisions accordingly, until
the whole organization “tips” over
to a new way of doing things.
Since legitimacy is granted by
the organization as a whole, at firstyour “shadow Core Group” willreflections.solonline.org

only possess the legitimacy that otherpeople grant them as individuals. If
you and your fellow shadow CoreGroup members are not in the realCore Group, you may have very
little legitimacy to start with in theeyes of the organization. You buildthat legitimacy by developing a consistent, credible story about theunfolding potential of the organization and what it is being called to
do in the world at large; and thenembodying the sorts of changes andawareness that would be needed by
the organization as a whole.
I’ve seen shadow Core Groups
as small as three people and as large
as 100. People in the shadow CoreGroup meet, often informally, totalk about the measures they would
take if they were leaders of the organization, and the ways in which
they might intervene without provoking a backlash. They think about
the issues of the moment, not interms of their own bailiwick or partof the operation, but with an organizational leader’s perspective of thewhole system as important. They
provide each other with the company, counterpoint, support, andencouragement that individuals cannot provide for themselves; indeed,
the work of changing organizations
should not be done by an individual, because it is too easy to lose
perspective and to become vulnerable. Finally, the shadow Core Group
brings its own sense of priorities
and greatness – an awareness thatthe actual Core Group probably
does not have. As individuals, you
do not have to be in the CoreGroup yourselves, but you have to
be willing to develop the same levelof care and commitment for theorganization as if you were in theCore Group.

reflections.solonline.org

If you start or join this kind of
shadow Core Group, you will find(to your surprise, and possibly toyour chagrin) that it takes on manyof the characteristics of the organization’s real Core Group. Your
shadow Core Group is naturally
empathetic because you, as its members, are paying attention to both
the Core Group and the organization. If the real Core Group feuds,
your shadow Core Group will finditself almost irresistibly tending
toward fractiousness. If the realCore Group is lethargic and bureaucratic, then your shadow CoreGroup will seem like it can hardly
get anything done. You can even“take the temperature” of the moodof the real organization by observing changes in your shadow CoreGroup – if there’s a shift in openness or frustration, you can expect
the same thing to happen accordingly in the larger world. This“microcosm effect” also works inthe opposite direction. If you canheal some kind of breach or fracture in your shadow Core Group –for instance, a labor-management
clash or an argument among regions– then, remarkably enough, you may
observe that fracture healing a little
bit in the organization at large.
At risk of oversimplifying theineffably complex task of intervention, here are some ideas for what
the shadow Core Group can do:• Move deliberately to widen
the shadow Core Group to embrace and include real Core Group
members. “Conversations that don’t
include the Core Group are aboutchange,” says Peter Garrett of
Dialogos. “Conversations that include the Core Group are change.”
If you don’t have Core Group
members in your shadow CoreGroup, in other words, sooner orlater you will need them – either ascompatriots with you, or as supporters. Like everyone else, they can
only join your cause throughchoice. If they see what you havediscovered, in a form that they canrecognize, then you won’t have torecruit them; they will choose you.
Everything depends on the conversational stance you take: yourwillingness to maintain an open
respect for all points of view and to
consider the most fractious, difficult issues with patience and intenseinterest in the outcomes. Practicethis kind of conversational stanceenough (Isaacs and Garrett call it
the practice of dialogue), and you
don’t need to convince or sway theCore Group, or anyone else. You
merely draw them in, learn what
they are looking for, and discover
how their priorities intersect with thechanges you perceive as worthwhile.
This gives you a lot more influenceand power over the situation than if
you seek to argue them into submission. It turns out to be much easierto accomplish long-lasting change
through trust (and being trustworthy) than through other types ofintervention.
But it does take time. The mostsuccessful people I know who havechanged organizations from withinhave been willing to devote their
entire careers to the challenge. That
doesn’t mean you need to wait
years for results. But it means thatyou follow the rhythm of equity,
gradually building momentum until
you cross first a threshold into confidence and then another thresholdinto sustained success.
• Understand how the CoreGroup defines success and frame
your project as a method or mile-Book Excerpt ■ Kleiner 31

stone for accomplishing their success. You might approach a CoreGroup member in a one-on-one intensive meeting. Give them a short
introduction, tailored to their interests, of your idea and the value you
think it would have – and then say,“We’re trying this on a small scale.
Before we begin, in your view, what
would constitute success?”
And then listen. If you engage
them well, three things will happen.
First, you will learn some thingsfrom what they say. Second, they
will have a chance to become intrigued, which means they’ll talkabout it to others, which amplifies
your ideas, which means you may
end up with allies you don’t expect
right now. And third, when the timecomes to move another step, you
won’t be introducing it to them cold.
They will already have thought
about your success. It will, in part,
belong to them. And because they
are in the Core Group, that means
it will belong to everyone.
• Wait for the right moment
before you ask for formal certification. There is a time at which youneed a budget approved, a check
written, a contract signed or anagreement made in writing. Don’t
rush that moment. Do as much as
you can before that moment, primarily to demonstrate your own
capability.
For example, before asking for abudget, demonstrate what you canaccomplish without one. You may
be able to hold the same kind of
initial program, for instance, in aself-supporting way. You will learn
a lot more this way. Then when you
get the budget, apply the same
resourcefulness.
• Learn how to hold high-quality conversations. The practice of

32 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

dialogue, for example, involves
careful attention to the “space” inwhich the conversation takes place:the amount of time, the rhythm ofinteraction, the quality of acoustics
and atmosphere, the thoughtfulnessof the invitation, the presence you
bring to it, the context you have set.
Conversations that touch on CoreGroup issues need the kind of

In moving down
this path, you’ll becreating your own
unprecedented story.
If you truly want tomake a better world,
it may be the mosthighly effective
way to proceed.
“space” that reduces tension andaccentuates aspiration. People needto feel relaxed enough to recognize
how much they trust others, and to
become more trustworthy themselves. Most of all, they need to meetin the kind of space that makes
them more aware of their visibility(the ways in which others perceivethem), the stands they want to take,and the ends to which they want tomake a commitment.
• Get the whole system in theroom. The Core Group is probably
larger than you think it is. And even
if it isn’t, have you consulted withthe other key constituents? The
Core Groups of critical subsystems?
The symbolic people? All of thesepeople have something to tell youthat will be critically important –and if you overlook it, you will end

up clashing with their worldviews
later. Of course, before you getthem all in one room, you’ll probably need to approach each groupseparately – maybe more than once,
until they’re ready to meet together.
• “Amplify positive deviance.”
Some people like to “speak truth topower” by telling the Core Group
what they’ve done wrong; andthey’re startled when the CoreGroup doesn’t want to hear it. “Don’t
they want to learn?” Barbara Waugh,in her book Soul of the Computer,describes a much more effective
maneuver, which she calls “amplifying positive deviance.” You findthe people in the Core Group who“deviate from the norm” by doing
the kinds of things you think aresignificant moves in the right direction. Then “shine the light on them,
get articles about them published in
the company newsletter, talk themup to everyone you meet, get them
together for a conference, give them
resources.” And, oh yes, find something to appreciate in the individuals who are blocking you, and draw
attention to that.
• Craft symbolic gestures ofCore Group transition. When Mary
Scheetz was the principal of Orange
Grove Middle School in Tucson,
Arizona, she started deliberately
breaking down the barriers of exclusiveness. “One very talented
teacher had a problem getting toschool on time. But he was very
talented. So I asked him to lead a
discussion on a part of the curriculum. It was a great discussion, but
the ‘Chosen Ones’ – the conventional Core Group members on thefaculty – were furious. ‘How dare
she put him in front of us? Hedoesn’t even get to school on time.’”
Nevertheless a year later, this indi-reflections.solonline.org

vidual was himself a member of theCore Group, which was no longer
dominated by the “Chosen Ones.”• Articulate misperceptions: Show
people the difference between what
the Core Group truly wants andneeds and what they think it wants
and needs. Or help Core Group
members articulate this better.
• Practice: Learning to do all
this takes time and skill. Don’t expect to master it at once. Set up

places where you can try to intervene without tremendous risk, either
to your career or to the organization. After every new intervention,reflect – What worked? What didn’t?
What problems did I bring with
me? And how might I do it differently next time?
While there is more to read on
the subject – much more – the writers on this subject have only
scratched the surface of what there

is to write. In moving down thispath, you’ll be creating your own
unprecedented story. It’s not foreveryone. But if you truly want tomake a better world, it may be themost highly effective way to proceed. If you make a better CoreGroup, you may engender a betterorganization: and that, in the end,
may be the only way, these days, tomake a better world.

ABOUT THE AUTHORArt Kleiner is the editor in chief of strategy+business, the quarterly
management magazine published by Booz Allen Hamilton. Educator,
consultant, and long-time member of SoL, he is also the author of The
Age of Heretics (1996, Doubleday), and coauthor of both the learning
history library series published by Oxford University Press, and of thebest-selling Fifth Discipline Fieldbook series. Who Really Matters: The
Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege and Success was published by
Doubleday in 2003.
art@well.com

Reprinted with permission of the author.

reflections.solonline.org

Book Excerpt ■ Kleiner 33

-RECOMMENDED READING

Recent and Relevant Work
Several books with important con-Six Degrees: The Science

nections to our feature article recentlyof a Connected Agecrossed my desk. Two were recom-

By Duncan J. Watts

mended by SoL members, and two

W. W. Norton & Company, 2004
Recommended by SoL member Marv
Adams of Ford Motor Company

are new books, one of which was
authored by a SoL member. In addition, two SoL research members
have had articles published recently
that are relevant and easily accessible to Reflections readers. I hope
you will find my brief notes useful,and I encourage you to share yourown recommendations and summaries with us.
— C. Sherry Immediato
Six Degrees: The Scienceof a Connected Age
Duncan J. Watts
Who Shall Survive?: Foundationsof Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy, and Sociodrama
J. L. Moreno
Field Notes on the Compassionate
Life: A Search for the Soul ofKindness
Marc Ian Barasch
The World Café: Shaping Our
Futures Through Conversations
That Matter
Juanita Brown, with David Isaacs
and the World Café Community“Seven Transformationsof Leadership”
David Rooke and William R. Torbert“The Roots of Sustainability”
John R. Ehrenfeld

34 Reflections ■ Volume 6, Number 2/3

area. Annotated references, ranked
by “degree of difficulty,” direct thereader to related material and further
exploration.
Who Shall Survive?: Foundationsof Sociometry, Group Psycho-

Duncan Watts has produced a practical textbook for understanding the
logic, functioning, and mystery of
networks. The title is derived fromthe popular observation that everyone on the planet can be linked
through six personal connections or
fewer, and easily communicates therichness of that idea.
At a recent meeting with a numberof SoL’s corporate sponsors, participants began to explore the challengeof managing self-organizing systems.
We all agreed that either too little or
too much structure deadens the natural energy and initiative embedded insocial systems. Learning to see thereal patterns of connection that areoperating in our organizations – fromlarge multi-nationals to voluntary
aggregations such as SoL – can help
us develop structures that serve,rather than hinder, our purpose.
Students of systems thinking will
not be surprised by some of the conclusions Watts draws, such as thatcause and effect are often linked instrange, unexpected, and therefore
unappreciated ways. But Watts makesa compelling case that we are in the
midst of discovering a new science,
and are well advised to learn more
about the properties of different typesof networks so that we can effectively
participate and intervene in them.
Anyone interested in complex systems
and networked organizations will
want to study Watts’ carefully formulated, well-documented inquiry andfollow the developing research in thistherapy, and Sociodrama
By J. L. Moreno
Beacon House, 1978
Recommended by SoL researchmember Dennis Sandow

In this basic text on social analysis,
networks are described as nodes connected by arcs. In social networks,“nodes” are people. The people are
not connected by arcs, but through anever-changing pattern of relationships. Social networks should not beanalyzed, but mapped by a compassionate practitioner of reflection insocial systems. Anyone interested insocial networks should begin at the
beginning and read Moreno.
Field Notes on the Compassionate
Life: A Search for the Soul ofKindness
By Marc Ian Barasch
Rodale Books, 2005

Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana– mentioned in our feature article –suggests that the most powerfulhuman relationships are those basedon love, which he defines as recognizing and accepting others as “legitimate” participants in the social system we share. Well aware of the many
ways we can be dismissive of others, I
gravitated to Marc Barasch’s intriguing “journal” when it showed up on
my desk. It is meant to be used torecord how we open our hearts andminds to those we don’t know at all,reflections.solonline.org

or have reason to actively exclude.
Barasch set out to discover the science and facts of compassion. The
record of his journey is both informative and transformative. He visitswith live organ donors, perpetratorsof crime and their victims, and survivors of terrorism and civil war – all ofwhom have experienced great gifts ofgenerosity and forgiveness. In sharing
his journey, I learned something about
the physiology, psychology, and sociology of compassion that was intellectually interesting, restorative of myfaith in others and myself, and surprisingly practical. It’s a perfect bookto read slowly, pausing between chapters to note thoughts and questions.
A special note to those who favor
experiencing loving kindness in quiet
contemplation in meditation halls
and mountain tops: I found Barasch’s
story of participating in a Zeninspired “street retreat” – living with
only the clothes on his back for aweek in downtown Denver – a challenge to all of us to make a stronger
connection between spiritual practiceand compassionate action.

employed by our largest organizations.
The World Café makes one criticalassumption that magically unleashes
collective intelligence on a massive
scale in as little as an hour and a half:each person in a group brings something uniquely valuable to the party.
Like a puzzle, everyone’s “piece” isnecessary to form a complete picture.
The World Café is a remarkable, efficient, and natural way for “the system to see (and hear) itself” – acritical capacity in our complex world.
It has been an enormously helpful
way for those in the SoL community
to take advantage of our rare opportunities to meet face to face, work on
important current issues, and build relationships that last for years. The World
Café process is an important resource
for initiating and reinforcing a varietyof critical network connections.
SoL members Juanita Brown andDavid Isaacs have created a wonderful story and a great reference. The
Foreword and Afterword by Margaret
Wheatley and Peter Senge, respectively, articulate the World Café’s
unique contribution to the shaping of
our future.

mentors to better support the development of the next generation ofleaders. In addition, Torbert’s model
gives individuals another way to assess
their patterns of perception andresponse to threats to their safety or
power. This awareness can allow
them to interrupt habitual responses,
develop new capacities, and dramatically increase the repertoires of the organizations of which they are a part.
“The Roots of Sustainability”
By John R. Ehrenfeld
Sloan Management Review, Reprint
46207, Winter 2005, Vol. 46, No. 2,
pp. 23–25

We are delighted that SoL member
John Ehrenfeld has published anabbreviated version of the case headvanced in “Searching for Sustainability: No Quick Fix” (Reflections,Vol. 5, No. 8). John continues todevelop his perspective on the differences between reducing unsustainability (a quick fix) and increasingsustainability by addressing the rootof the situation.

The World Café: Shaping Our
Futures Through Conversations“Seven Transformations

That Matterof Leadership”

By Juanita Brown, with David Isaacs

By David Rooke andand the World Café Community

William R. Torbert

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005

Harvard Business Review,
Reprint R0504D, April 2005

We’ve all been with groups of people
whose knowledge, experience, and enthusiasm are astounding when looked
at as a whole. Yet often the people inthese groups are left to fend for themselves, making connections and forming smaller groups completely randomly,
not unlike the guests mingling at a
typical wedding reception – or thosereflections.solonline.org

Drawing from many years of research,
SoL member Bill Torbert has published a compelling summary of theconnection between personal maturity and effective leadership. Whilethe conclusion may not be surprising,
the clear distinctions drawn between
seven stages of “action logic” allow

Book Excerpt ■Reading
Kleiner 35
RecommendedReflections
The SoL Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 6, Number 2/3

Editorial Team
Editors-in-Chief
Karen Ayas and Peter Senge
Senior Editor
Paul M. Cohen
Managing Editor
Nina Kruschwitz
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato

Subscription Options
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
To order online and for a full description of subscription options, visit our website: reflections.solonline.org.
For institutional subscriptions,contact David Mahaffey (see below).

ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2005 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 10 times
per year in electronic format and once per year as a
hard copy compilation by the Society for Organizational Learning. Inquiries regarding subscriptions,address changes, back issues, reprints, and permission requests should be directed to:David Mahaffey
Publications AssistantReflections: 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