Reflections

Volume 14, Number 2

The SoL North America Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

Being of Service:
A Capacity-Building Approachto Organizational Change
Robert Hanig with
Deborah Wallace

Commentary
Srini Pillay

Reflection on PracticeThrough Model Building:
One Person’s Experience
Grady McGonagill

Commentary
Richard Karash

Polarity Thinking:
The Power of “And”
Barry Johnson andMargaret Seidler

Overfished Ocean Strategy:
Five Principles That
Make It Work
Nadya Zhexembayeva© iStockphoto/SandroBassi

Published by The Society for Organizational Learning North America
www.solonline.org
ISSN 1524-1734

ii

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

p u blish e r ’ s N ot e 1 4 . 2Statistician George E. P.
Box famously said, “Allmodels are wrong, butsome are useful.” Whether
we know it or not, we all holdmodels—abstract representations—of the world and how
it works. These frameworks,
Frank Schneider
in turn, profoundly influence
how we work in and relate to the world. Building on
our last issue, in which we started the topic of models
and model building, in this issue, several practitioners
reflect on the models that govern their worldviews
and on how these influence their approaches toorganizational change.
In the first two articles, consultants Robert Hanig andGrady McGonagill reflect in depth on the assumptions
that underlie their practice and evolving understandingof how to provide the greatest impact to their clients.
The second two articles outline specific models andhow they can guide leaders in managing dilemmas,
developing strategies, and fostering innovation. All of
the articles in the issue show that by being explicit—
with ourselves and others—about the basis from which
we are operating, we can better gauge the effectiveness of our efforts and change course as needed.
In “Being of Service: A Capacity-Building Approachto Organizational Change,” Robert Hanig explains how
accessing and combining multiple theories has lead
him to be more conscious of his own tacit hypotheses.
He explains how this increased awareness has helped
him make explicit his internal mechanisms for interpreting situations and effectively integrate newknowledge and insights.
In “Reflections on Practice Through Model Building: One
Person’s Experience,” Grady McGonagill describes how
model building—his preferred form of reflection—has

influenced his personal and professional development.
For him, the inconsistencies in his practice and the“model clashes” he has inevitably encountered withothers have provided the opportunity for increased
awareness and growth.
In “Polarity Thinking: The Power of ‘And,’” Barry
Johnson and Margaret Seidler make a compellingcase for adopting a both/and rather than an either/or
approach to managing organizational dilemmas.
Because polarities—also known as paradoxes ordilemmas—are everywhere, the more we understandthem, the more effective we can be at leveraging
their natural power. Through case studies, the authors
show how insight into this dynamic can support us
in pursuing our most expansive dreams and in
addressing our most chronic issues.
We conclude this issue with an excerpt from Overfished
Ocean Strategy: Five Principles That Make It Work, inwhich Nadya Zhexembayeva explains why linear business models are no longer effective. She presents a newmodel that includes five essential principles for innovating in a context of resource scarcity. We learn that themost successful companies today consider the wastefrom one process as the food for another. By using acyclical rather than linear model for designing a global
value chain, companies can create a new strategic
direction and secure a sustainable source of value.
David Kantor, who we featured in the last issue, hassaid that the journey of building your own model is not
for the faint-hearted. It requires courage, perseverance,
self-discipline, and above all, honesty. We think thestories of discovery, reflection, and practice describedin this issue are testament to that process. n		Frank Schneider, PublisherE x e c u tiv e D ig e ste x e c u tiv e dig e st 1 4 . 2

Being of Service: A Capacity-Building
Approach to Organizational Change
Robert Hanig with Deborah Wallace
More often than not, consulting is regarded as aproblem-fixing process. When an organization is challenged by a problem that inhibits its ability to produce
the desired results, leaders often call on a consultant
to fix the problem, often within a rigidly defined timeframe. Most of the time, the immediate challenge issolved, but the chronic organizational issues remain.
In this interview, consultant and founding SoL member
Robert Hanig discusses the key elements of his approachto organizational change. He believes that the abilities
to hold multiple theories, to hone one’s powers ofobservation, to be transparent with clients, and tounderstand how to enter an organization’s culture
respectfully are fundamental for any consultant
whose purpose is sustainable organizational change.

Reflection on Practice Through Model
Building: One Person’s Experience
Grady McGonagill
All consultants have models that shape and guidetheir work. Most of the time, these frameworks remaintacit—and thus unexplored. But by delving into theassumptions underlying their practice and documenting the methods they have come to adopt, practitioners
can test and improve their models. They can also prepare for potential “model clashes” that can occur when
encountering someone whose practice and behavior
is driven by different assumptions. In this article, Grady
McGonagill describes how he used model building
to rejuvenate his own consulting and coaching practiceand to renew his sense of living a meaningful life. In
the process, he illustrates the benefits of self-reflection
for any consultant’s professional and personal
development.

Polarity Thinking: The Power of “And”
Barry Johnson and Margaret Seidler
A challenge in managing organizations is that many
dilemmas don’t have one right answer. Instead, potential
solutions often pull in opposite directions, compellingleaders to choose one response at the expense of theother. Polarity Thinking shows that by adopting a both/and rather than an either/or approach, organizations
can harness the upside—and minimize the downside—of each side of a polarity. Tools like Polarity Maps canhelp in developing a full picture of both sides of a polarity and in anticipating the natural flow of energy fromone side to the other. By learning how to manage
seemingly irreconcilable tradeoffs in this way, leaders
can increase the likelihood of arriving at solutions that
support both short-term and long-term organizational
success.

Overfished Ocean Strategy:
Five Principles That Make It Work
Nadya Zhexembayeva
Resources are being depleted at an alarming rate, 		
and the cost of raw materials is rising dramatically. 		
The linear, throwaway economy—in which we extract
resources at one end and throw them away at theother—is rapidly coming to an end. Nadya Zhexembayeva argues that, as a result, businesses need tomake resource scarcity their primary strategic consideration, not just a concern for their “green” divisions.
In this chapter from Overfished Ocean Strategy, sheoffers five essential principles for innovating in thisnew reality. Through examples from real companies,
she shows how businesses can find new opportunities
by taking the old, linear model and turning it intoa circular one.

iii

f e at u r e | H anig and wallac e

f e at u r e 1 4 . 2

Being of Service

A Capacity-Building Approachto Organizational Change
R ob e rt H anig with D e borah Wallac e
More often than not, consulting is regarded as a problem-fixing process. When an organization is challenged
by a problem that inhibits its ability to produce the desired results, leaders often call on a consultant to fix
the problem, often within a rigidly defined timeframe. Most of the time, the immediate challenge is solved,
but the chronic organizational issues remain. In this interview, consultant and founding SoL member Robert
Hanig discusses the key elements of his approach to organizational change. He believes that the abilities tohold multiple theories, to hone one’s powers of observation, to be transparent with clients, and to understandhow to enter an organization’s culture respectfully are fundamental for any consultant whose purpose
is sustainable organizational change.

Deborah Wallace: Your approach to leadership andchange is firmly grounded in theory, but your engagementwith clients is anything but theoretical. How do you maintain a strong theoretical base but keep it almost invisible
in your client work?
Robert Hanig: I really enjoy exploring and applying
various theories because they help me make sense ofRobert Hanig
Deborah Wallace
what I am seeing andsensing and what the implications may be for the larger system.
If you have one or two theories
Theory helps me be more conscious about the hypotheses and conclusions that I have already made but that are often tacit. It forces methat you’ve staked yourto examine how I make meaning. It helps me to discern and make exreputation on, you can try toplicit my own habitual interpretation mechanisms so that I can change,
force fit every problem into
adjust, or suspend them when I need to. It also helps me capture andintegrate new knowledge and insights in an effective way.
those prevailing theories.
It’s important to be able to access multiple theories or explanations
that can describe the same occurrence. The potential danger is playing out the To-a-Hammer-Everything-Looks-Like-a-Nail syndrome. If you have one or two theories that you’ve staked your reputation
on, you can become theory-blind and try to force fit every problem into those prevailing theories. You
can even displace or delete data that is counter to or inconsistent with these deeply ingrained theories
and beliefs. Having your thinking enriched by the awareness of different theories helps defend againstthat shortcoming.

1

2

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

In my practice, I also put a lot of emphasis on
observation. For me, there’s a recurring cycle ofobservation and evolution of theory. A consultant
needs to develop a deep appreciation of andcapacity for observation, because observation
comes before anything else. Once you start tosee what’s actually happening and distinguishbetween observation and assessment, you begin
to formulate hypotheses that can explain theoccurrence you’re observing. When you dothat, your behavior and actions become more
coherent, organic, and flexible.

Building capacity is helping clientsdevelop the ability to conceive ofand create the results they desire.
For example, suppose you’re watching a teamthat is arguing, and you can see they’re stuck on
an issue. If you observe this argument carefully,
you may realize that people are speaking different
languages of a sort, that their thinking contains
different intentions, data, and reasoning. Whenyou recognize these things and understand thateveryone’s perspective is equally valid yet incomplete, you become aware that for the team tobecome unstuck, you need to create a larger framework that incorporates appropriate elements ofeveryone’s perspective. Developing that new,more inclusive framework helps me design anintervention that accounts for the different views
and languages and makes the conversation more
inclusive, coherent, and productive. This is why
observation is so critical to developing new theory
and why I continue to work on trying to see things
as they actually are. Part of the ongoing challenge,of course, is to discern your own filters and biases
and do your best to suspend them for a bit.
There’s a famous quote attributed to Dwight D.
Eisenhower, “Don’t just do something, stand there.”That quote has two important messages thattranslate to my work. One is that you have tobe able to set appropriate expectations with theclient. You can’t just go rushing in, start changing
things, and expect an immediate transformation.
The other goes back to the importance of observation. You need to have a sufficient amount ofdata so that you can explain the dynamics of thecondition to the clients and what gave rise tothem. I want clients to understand what I’m seeing
and what I’m doing and why. I want to impart tothem this process of observation, reflection, andexplanation so that when they leave, they not only
know what we did, but why it worked or why it
didn’t. I want to help educate and to develop theircapacity. That’s an important part of the work that
I do and is one of the core values and intents oforganizational learning in general.

Building Capacity
Wallace: Can you say more about what building
capacity entails and why it is important?
Hanig: Building capacity is helping clientsdevelop the ability to conceive of and create theresults they desire, and to do so on their own toan appropriate degree. It’s more than just helping
them navigate around or solve a problem.
I remember working with British Petroleum (BP)and trying to understand what they really wanted
to do and how they would ultimately judge success.
After interviewing a number of executives andmanagers, three desires consistently arose: results,
capacity, and sustainability. In this particular case,the result they wanted to achieve was to improve
performance based on industry-specific indicators.
They wanted not just to produce those results, butalso to have the ability to produce similar resultsby themselves in the future. And they wanted
sustainability, meaning they wanted to be able
to continue to achieve those same results over the
longer term. Sustainability requires a capacity tolearn and adapt, because what you’re going tohave to do in three years to sustain those results
may be different from what you’re doing today.
But building capacity and sustainability takes a
lot more time than achieving results alone. If aclient says they don’t have the time to engage thisf e at u r e | H anig and wallac e

Designing a Successful Engagement
Wallace: How do you determine whether or
not you work with a particular client?
Hanig: As I just mentioned, they have to be open
to learning. Many clients think they already knowwhat the problem is—and they may—but theyoften don’t have an understanding of what createdit, how to fix it, and, however unintentional, what
their own contribution to generating or sustaining
the current condition may be. They don’t know
how to coordinate efforts and account for multiple
and often conflicting dynamics and points of view.
They don’t see or know how to account for how
they are perceived by others in the system—
something that may diminish their ability to
express or realize a positive intention. As a consultant, you have to understand a bit about theorganization’s disposition toward the current condition. You have to understand to what degree
people in it are willing to look at how their own
thoughts, actions, contradictory initiatives, andincentives may be contributing to the very thing
they are trying to change. Once you have a senseof that, you can decide whether or not you canmake any kind of beneficial contribution.
This kind of conscious assessment of the client at
the outset is essential. You want to build a context,© iStockphoto/kevin mayer

dimension, then that’s a client I really have little
interest in working with. For a client who justwants a result in a short period of time and isn’t
willing to explore, understand, and account for
the underlying conditions that gave rise to the
problem, there’s a very low probability of success—and a high probability of generating unintended
consequences through taking short-term action
alone. There are some clients who don’t yet fully
understand the need for building capacity andsustainability but who are open to learning about
it. These clients know that they have to put thefire out right away, but also know that they reallyneed to understand why these fires keep occurring. At that point, you can begin to tell whether
the potential partnership is right and the expectations are appropriate.

3

For a client who just wants a resultin a short period of time, there’s avery low probability of success.
a relationship, and the expectation that whatever
the outcome, it will have been a shared effort.
You have to trust that you’re both going to doyour best and that you will challenge each otherin respectful ways. Either party should be able
to say, “Hold on a minute. Are we doing what we
said we wanted to do?” or “How is this related tocreating our shared aspiration?” Ongoing mutual
assessment not only enhances intelligence andallows for mid-course correction, it can preventthe project from going up in smoke.
Many years ago, I met the top salesman at IBM andasked him how he became such a success. “What
I do fundamentally,” he said, “is tell my clients thetruth. I go in and look at what their challenges andproblems are. If I think I have a solution or part of asolution that IBM can provide, I tell them. If I think
I don’t or that they need someone else, either instead of or additionally, I tell them that too. What’s
really interesting is that even if we don’t work
together, they’ll often call me a couple of years
later for help with something else.” I remember

4

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

thinking, wow, you mean you can actually be
successful and tell the truth? That was a very important moment for me, because I realized that
consulting is not about getting the sale at any
cost, it’s about really understanding people’s

Consulting is not about getting
the sale at any cost, it’s aboutanswering questions like, Whatdo you want to create? and How
do I need to change and grow?
problems or aspirations and determining if you
can truly be of service. It includes answering questions like, What do you want to create? What is theissue here? What are the challenges? Who’s theclient? Who are you? What’s necessary? and How
do I need to change and grow? I learned I could
have an interesting and successful career withoutcompromising my values or manipulating otherpeople. It is hard to convey how freeing this wasfor me at the time.

Putting Teams Together
Wallace: You’ve mentioned several key elementsthat have been important in your work—having
multiple theories, practicing keen observation,and fostering the client’s willingness to understand the root causes of chronic problems. Are
there others that you would add?
Hanig: Another important one is learning how
to put together teams. On any potential project,particularly a high-visibility one, there are always
lots of consultants interested in being on the team.
But until I’ve had an initial planning meeting withthe client, I don’t know what skills, personalities,
or levels of experience will be needed. The risks
and consequences of not putting together theright team are considerable and could lead to real
trouble down the road. Believe me, I have had
trouble down the road. I have my own scars fromthe process of learning how to put together anddevelop the right team. But I’ve been in the fielda long time now and have an extensive network ofcolleagues that I can draw upon, so I’m not forced
to have someone on a team who I know isn’t agood fit, and I have a sense of what role I can andshould play myself.
You’ve also got to take care of the people you’re
calling on to help. You have to take into accounttheir needs and aspirations and how being on
this team will benefit their development. Additionally, many project and intervention teams
either include or should include members of
the client system. This creates a particular setof challenges that need to be accounted for as
well, including fit, capacity, attitude, and politics.
Although having clients on the intervention
team can be difficult to manage, the benefits
far outweigh the effort required.

© iStockphoto/Palto

A project can be derailed because the team isn’t
working as well as it should. Sometimes at a certain point in the process, I’ll notice that we needmore of something or we need a different capability. The team is no longer working as well as itshould, and we need to up the ante. Sometimes
it’s chemistry. Sometimes it’s capacity or attitude.

f e at u r e | H anig and wallac e

Things happen, and you need to be able tounderstand and assess the new condition anddetermine what may be required before you startchanging things up and making adjustments
to the team. There have been times when I have
either ignored or didn’t address the team issue
and paid for it later. But now I understand thatwhen a team’s effectiveness slows or stalls, weneed to address and improve the dynamics or
we need a different set of capabilities. That’s notalways easy, especially when you’ve had somebody working on a project full time and haveto replace them or cut back their role.

Defining Success				

Simplified Consulting Model• Clarify aspirations beyond relief of pain and suffering• Pair observation with theory to create shared causal
explanations of the current condition• Determine leverage points for change• Assess client’s willingness to experiment and learn• Develop a coherent process and plan
• Keep clients/partners engaged and informed at multiple
levels• Tell and listen to the truth to the best of your ability• Be willing to make adjustments to team composition
and resources as the intervention evolves

Wallace: How do you define success asa consultant?
Hanig: Being successful is not just about working
with the client to produce results and understanding the client’s culture. It’s also about understanding
who you are and how well you know the people
you’ve brought together on a team. That’s justas important as the client aspect. I’ve discoveredthat there are really only a few qualities at the coreof my work (see “Simplified Consulting Model”).
It needs to be ethical. It needs to actually serve
people and the world. It has to account for humanbeings and the possible impact it will have on
them. It has to have compassion. And it has tobe able to actually get things done.
Wallace: What would you say to a consultant
whose consulting model hasn’t matured or who
doesn’t even have a model? How do they develop
this capacity and deep understanding?
Hanig: I would say what Robert Fritz said to me
years ago: You find somebody who knows how
to do what you want to do really, really well andyou learn from them. It sounds very simple andit actually is—it’s just not easy. So that’s what I’ve
tried to do. I’ve learned from a number of remarkable and dedicated people in the field, and I’ve
created opportunities to partner with people
who could do things that I couldn’t do and teachme things I needed to learn.

When a team’s effectiveness slows
or stalls, we need to address andimprove the dynamics or we needa different set of capabilities.
It’s also important to learn from projects thathaven’t turned out the way you wanted and tounderstand where and how they got bogged
down or derailed. You need to be aware of how
you deal with breakdowns, whether they arethings that didn’t work or things that someone
didn’t like. You have to expect breakdowns andfailures, and you have to be able to work withthem in a productive way, on both the personal
and the professional dimensions.

Evolving a Collective Leadership Model
Wallace: How has your view of leadership
evolved over the years?
Hanig: I’ve come to understand that leadershipis not an individual process but a collective one.
Leadership is not just a person becoming a leader.
Yes, people can become better at it, but how doesa system continually sustain a capability for leadership among the entire population? If you wantto have collective intelligence in an organization,

5

6

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

the people who actually do the work and theformal and informal influencers, not just theformal leaders, need to be appropriately andrespectfully included as well. That piece is often
completely missed. This is as true for how we as
consultants operate as it is for the organizations
and institutions we serve (see “Barriers toCollective Intelligence”).

I’ve come to understand thatleadership is not an individual
process but a collective one.
For a couple of projects—for example, at SABIC(Saudi Basic Industries Corporation) and at BP—
we brought together a number of consultants,
vendors, and suppliers to collaborate on a large
initiative. Most organizations and institutions
don’t understand the benefit of having their suppliers and vendors collaborate. In a field like consulting, where having a competitive edge is thething, it can be difficult to create a collaborative
context between different providers and vendors.
That type of competition can directly diminish the				quality of collective intelligence and understanding needed to influence complex conditions andthus the ability to create effective and sustainable
solutions. This challenge is just as prevalent insideorganizations, where knowledge can be power andsharing information can be seen as self-limiting.
Organizations should be willing to see and engage
these types of core dilemmas in a way that willserve their ability to continue to grow and deliveron their mission. They are not going to succeedby supporting and promoting people who areunwilling to enter the risky yet rewarding groundof genuine collaboration.
My basic leadership model hasn’t changed 		
substantially over the course of my career (see“Aristotelian Leadership Principles,” p. 8). In a way,it’s become simpler and richer. But my understanding of it and how to apply it has deepened.
I have to communicate to people, “Here’s what
we’re actually doing. This is not just a set of competencies based on the latest trends. Let’s look
really deeply. What are the implications of thismodel for individual and collective mindsets andbehaviors in the specific context of this institution? If we were to take this approach, how would
we know that we are creating the future we want
and accounting for any unintended consequencesand emergent insights and opportunities?”

Barriers to Collective Leadership• Lack of shared purpose• Inability to name and integrate different mental models
and worldviews• Inability to name and account for structural dilemmas
and tradeoffs• Non-systemic understanding of the organization and/or
the operation• Inability to account for reward systems that value selfinterest above collective interest and short-term symptomatic improvements over long-term fundamental solutions• Lack of quality reflection that acknowledges and addresses
the perpetual gap between what is espoused and what ispracticed in both the individual and the collective context• Lack of understanding of the distinction between mistakes
and negligence

Entering a New Culture
Wallace: You’ve worked in many different
countries. How do you adjust to the culture
you’re working in?
Hanig: Underneath everything, human beings
are human beings. People have aspirations. People
have fears. People have goals. People have strengths
and weaknesses. People are people, so I find thefundamental capabilities and approaches I use
are pretty consistent from country to country.
However, you need to “speak” the client’s language.
There’s a verbal language and there’s a cultural
language, and it’s learning the cultural language
that’s so important. I need to understand how thisf e at u r e | H anig and wallac e© iStockphoto/Simon Alvinge

culture works, so that we can get to the real conversation and not be distracted by inadvertentcultural clashes and breakdowns. For instance, if
you walk into some organizations wearing a finely
tailored suit, whether they agree with you or not,they’ll listen to you. If you walk into that sameorganization and you’re wearing casual attire,that will be a distraction, and there won’t be muchlistening going on. So that’s number one: What’s
the code here? You can think, well, they shouldn’t
be judging me on my clothes. That may be true,
but right now you need to gain credibility quickly
so that breaking the code isn’t a distraction fromthe real conversation. The notable exception iswhen you want to quickly and dramatically framea conversation about the code itself. And then,when you’re inside the organization, you canbegin to identify and change that ingrained
mindset if you and they wish to.
I don’t worship cultures. Cultures are engrainedcollective habit patterns that mostly operate
underneath the normal level of awareness. They

have come into being at certain times for legitimate
reasons. When the conditions change, behavioral
patterns need to change, because they are nolonger coherent with the new reality. They may
no longer help the group survive and thrive.
In order to crack the code and learn the cultural
language, I have to begin with curiosity, respect,humility, and flexibility. I go in with curiosity
because I am genuinely curious. I find people
fascinating and always want to learn how things
can be looked at differently. Then, whether you
agree or disagree with the condition you encounter,like it or not, you have to accept it. Once you understand it, you can speak intelligently and respectfully about it and try to shift it if you choose to.
You also have to be humble. Especially in a new
culture, I often ask people to be my coach. I’m trying to learn how not to offend anyone while simultaneously being of help, so I’ll say, “Please give me
pointers if I’m doing something I shouldn’t. For
example, feel free to say, ‘Robert, you have to let

7

8

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

				Aristotelian Leadership
Principles• Ethos: Moral character/purpose,the source of ability to persuade• Pathos: Capacity to touch feelings,
to move people emotionally• Logos: Ability to give solid reasonsfor action, to move and connect
people intellectually

Other Leadership Frameworks• Heifetz: Direction/Protection/Order• Senge: Aspiration/Conversation/
Interdependence• Kantor: Meaning/Affect/Power• Confucius: Virtue/Compassion/Action

There’s a verbal language andthere’s a cultural language, and it’slearning the cultural language
that’s so important.
Enrique, the most senior executive, speak firstin management team meetings.’” Because of thepower of first impressions, if you inadvertently
do the wrong thing, it can be hard to dig yourself
back out.
Finally, you need to be flexible and be able to
make shifts in your behavior. For example, in some
cultures, engaging in personal exchanges before
the business of the meeting is essential, while inothers it is seen as a distraction, a waste of time,or even harassment.
Let me give you a couple of examples. I worked
with a Native Alaskan healthcare system, and they
had a strong culture that was in a state of transition.
Traditionally, they made their living by hunting

and fishing, with periods of intense activity andperiods of rest and reflection. With the recent introduction of western culture and organizations
designed around fixed and consistent timeframes,
i.e., 9-to-5 jobs, traditional roles and more natural
rhythms began to disappear in their day-to-day
lives. The rules of survival and success changed
rapidly and irrevocably. In that space of understandable shock, sadness, and uncertainty, andwith few tools available to cope with such profoundchange, issues such as substance abuse and domestic violence began to grow in the community.
Although this massive change in circumstances
was sad and unfair, the old conditions continued
to disappear. The elements of culture and patternsof behavior that formed over millennia needed
to be examined and redefined or released. New
forms needed to be developed, allowing people
to cope and thrive in the new conditions, ideallyin a way that honored and incorporated the
deep wisdom for what and who had gone before.
In fact, I was shown a number of Native-based
approaches that began to accomplish this inremarkable ways.
In discussing the nature and challenge of culturechange with a group of government leaders in
New Zealand, which included some Maori members
and some non-indigenous participants, I used
this example. I found myself saying, “There are
elements of your traditional culture that are
coherent to the times, and other elements of yourculturally based behavior that may no longer becoherent and beneficial.” This caused some tension,and I was strongly and publicly criticized by aperson of western European heritage for being
disrespectful. But one Maori member steppedin and said, “Just a minute—he’s making a good
point. We’re no longer living in the world of 200
years ago. Our culture—and the way we lived andbehaved—was beautiful. But we are in a different
world now with many new challenges, including
working with new partners and politics, working
with new environmental challenges, working with
substances and foods that can help and hurt us,
and working with a number of emotional andsocial challenges we hadn’t come across before.”f e at u r e | H anig and wallac e

Here’s another example. When I was working
in the Middle East, I realized that one is notsupposed to publicly disagree with or challenge
the boss. It’s a pervasive cultural norm, but it’s
one that, habitually enacted, reduces an organization’s capacity for collective intelligence andability to perform because legitimate alternative
views are not expressed and explored. To be
successful, organizations need to create conditions in which disagreement—especially withpeople in formal positions of power—is not seen
as disrespectful but as an expression of loyalty
to the overall success of the endeavor or enterprise. This became obvious to me as I watched theteam superficially agree with the boss, although I
knew there were deep unexpressed reservations
about his view and directive. The result was
the lack of a shared, committed, and intelligent
approach. Team members would go out and do
significantly different and uncoordinated things,
and the superficially agreed-to processes would
fail completely.
It took me a year and a half to get the senior teamto understand this condition and its implications,and to start to experiment with respectful disagreement in the service of improved collective performance. They would make an agreement but only
after there was an opportunity to dissent andsay, “Wait a minute, you’re asking me to do what?
Do you realize that there will be undesirable
consequences unless we consider and accountfor these additional factors?” So, they learned todisagree with each other during meetings, with
the CEO suspending his tendency to jump in andsay, “You do this, you do that.” Although the meetings took a bit longer up front than before, theamount of time and unnecessary expense thatwas saved by establishing alignment and collective
intelligence was tremendous.

The Kubler-Ross Change Curve
7 - Integration
Morale and Competence

I see a lot of cultures like that in organizations,too. The conditions have changed, and what once
worked doesn’t work anymore. When people
accept that, they can change things themselves(see “The Kubler-Ross Change Curve”).

1 - Shock2 - Denial
3 - Frustration

6 - Decisions

5 - Experiments
4 - Depression
Time

The change, or transition, curve helps in understanding the emotions thatpeople may go through during change and is used to explain the typicalorder of people’s reactions to change. Although there are numerous versions,
including Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s Five Stages of Grief model, all confirm
that people follow predictable patterns of psychological reactions tochange over time.
Source: Edited excerpt from “The Change Curve—Predictable Pattern of Change of EmotionReaction While in Change Transition: Modeling Change Behavior,” Bizshifts-Trends, August 14, 2013.

Organizations need to create
conditions in which disagreement
is not seen as disrespectful but as
an expression of loyalty to theoverall success of the endeavor.
So that’s an example of where an engrained
cultural behavior was inconsistent with learning,inconsistent with being collectively intelligent. It’s
not right, it’s not wrong; it just doesn’t work. That,
for me, is the essence of culture change. Let me
also say that it required tremendous courageand commitment from the CEO and his team toengage in this process and stay with it. It requires
a willingness to take personal and professionalrisk in the service of what matters.
I have come to learn that you can’t silence thecritics in an organization, nor should you. You haveto listen to and engage them, and productively
utilize the information they provide. That takes
a certain amount of maturity and capacity. If you
don’t listen and engage them in creating solutions,9

10

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

You can’t silence the critics inan organization. You have to listen
to and engage them.

the criticism is going to go underground andeventually cause an unexpected breakdown ordiminish the spirit of the organization and its
members in some way.

Supporting Next-Generation Leaders
Wallace: Where will your work go from here?
Hanig: Right now, I’m working with Peter Senge
and a number of amazing people on an initiative
called the Academy for Systemic Change. One ofits major projects is something we’re calling Next
Generation Leaders. We are working with midcareer people who are already very successful,and supporting them in making significant
change in the world in a number of different
domains, including education, the environment,poverty alleviation, culture change, business,and supply chains. Some of us who have beenin the field for a long time are trying to givethem whatever small benefit our experiencecan provide as well as connect them with one
another and help to build a larger networkof relationships and capacity.
I think the next phase of my career is to use
whatever I have learned—and continue to learn—
to assist the next generation of leaders and change
agents to deal with the critical, collectively selfgenerated issues and challenges our world isfacing, on both the individual and the systemiclevels. I am also excited about the possibilityof being enriched by their spirit, wisdom, andknowledge. n© iStockphoto/Jupiterimages

abo u t th e a u thor
Robert Hanig is founder of RLH Consulting, a founding member of the Society for Organizational
Learning, and a founding member of the Academy for Systemic Change. He currently designs,
directs, and delivers management and leadership interventions and programs for clients including
the World Bank Group, the International Monetary Fund, and the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers. Robert@rlhconsulting.com

comm e ntary | P illay

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

Commentary
S rini P illayHumility should be admired, not because it is a step down from ultimate authority,
but because it is a step up into the realm of “not knowing.” Not knowing is one 		of the most powerful drivers of learning, because it drives the discovery process.
This discovery process, I believe, is a core theme in Robert Hanig’s approach to change.

Brain-Based Learning
In his approach to leadership development, Robert is highly skilled at designing knowledge-based solutions that are sensitive to time, culture, and the collective. At the sametime, he is aware that such solutions are viable only insofar as his clients are open to
Srini Pillay
discovery and learning. In my work as a guest speaker at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I have seen how he integrates multiple perspectives that generate both questions
and answers. These questions and answers in turn inspire action through their dance with each other, and notfrom either one in isolation.

Not knowing is one of the
From a brain-based perspective, the value of not knowing is
becoming increasingly apparent. Recent research, for example,
most powerful drivers ofshows that goals by themselves do not drive behaviors. Instead,learning, because it drives
the multiple representations of self that we hold in our brains’
the discovery process.
memory circuits are what drive us to do the things we do.1
These representations of self are less about knowing and more
about becoming. They are often compromised by prior failuresand disappointments, and only the deepest self-examination allows us to come to terms with them. Robert and 		I recently did an exercise with a client that involved curating memories in the “museums of their brains.” After firstreflecting on the existing pictures of themselves that were stored in their memories, participants had an opportunity to “switch” these out for new pictures that represented their leadership capacities more powerfully andfacilitated the accomplishment of the outcomes they desired.
The Act of Becoming a Leader
One of the most compelling definitions of leadership was offered by Warren Bennis, who said, “Becoming aleader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is precisely that simple and it is also that difficult.”2 Becoming,
although often anchored in goals and benchmarks, is at its core a process without a goal. Because there are nogoals, becoming assumes that development will never stop. That is why the Eisenhower quote that Robert cites,“Don’t just do something, stand there,” is so profound. Robert’s ability to inspire “doing” while leaders are “juststanding there” is the result of his own capacity to observe and stay with the tensions as people bat aroundthe possibility of self-transformation.

11

12

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

At a recent program, where I was again a guest
speaker and helped co-facilitate, participants told usthat although prior programs were very enriching, theyleft them with no overt skills or perspectives that truly
changed anything. Robert and I took a non-defensive
stance and explored how the current program could
be adapted to ensure that this outcome would be different. In the process of changing the program, we discovered that the participants actually had no inclination
to change anything about themselves. When asked,“What one thing might you want to change about yourself?” they struggled to articulate what this would be.
This struggle, when met with respect and empathy,
facilitated a deeper self-examination than would havetaken place had we taken a defensive stance.

“Becoming a leader is synonymouswith becoming yourself. It isprecisely that simple and it is alsothat difficult.” — Warren Bennis
The principles of keen observation, the use of multiple
perspectives, and awareness of collective intelligenceand cultural sensitivity can help move leaders from thefalse framework of goals as drivers to the true framework of internal motivation as the real driver in any
strategic process. That is why Robert’s approach to aleader’s self-discovery is able to support the successful
management of any challenge, whether it is managing
risk, change, or innovation. Perhaps the single mostimportant leadership challenge has been the unpredictability of economic shifts. No more can leaders simply examine the variables that impact a given situation,
estimate the probability of success, and then executea plan. Instead, they are charged with the seemingly
impossible task of dealing with change of unprecedented scale and complexity filled with risk anduncertainty. In his approach to leadership development, Robert relies on multiple perspectives to makemeaning. In so doing, he is modeling for others how
to make their own meaning from the complexity.

From a brain-based perspective, a recent meta-analysisof 48 studies showed that cognitive reappraisal—the
act of recognizing and then changing a thought pattern—activates the thought control regions in the brain
and deactivates the anxiety center—the amygdala.3 Inother words, by understanding how they make meaning, leaders are actually building a more adaptive andresilient brain. These shifts in perspective are not a
one-time thing—the capacity to shift and adapt must
be developed over a longer time.

Authentic Connection
One of the reasons I enjoy working with Robert is that
he is excruciatingly aware that all knowledge, evenbrain-based knowledge, is really only scaffolding fora longer journey. As consultants, we cannot make thejourney on behalf of leaders, but we can provide tools
to assist them in dropping the facades that block theirgreatest sources of intelligence. Removing masks is
not easy for any of us, but Robert is able to create 		a welcoming environment that encourages leaders 		
to take that critical step.
It is no wonder, then, that Robert is interested in “helping the clients develop the ability to conceive of andcreate the results they desire.” This desire has profound,far-reaching implications. Rather than relying on what
is likely or probable, Robert’s approach emphasizes
connecting with what is possible and acting upon thisdeepest vision with a sense of courage, self-connection,
and alignment of purpose and action, all of which fuelthe motivation to succeed. An “exception,” by definition,
is a low-probability event. Hence, exceptional leaders
must learn how to lead—without prior knowledge or
likelihood of success—into what is possible for themselves and their teams. Indeed, a recent review of how
the brain works emphasizes that the value of a goal toa business is not enough to motivate a leader’s brain.
Instead, leaders must be aligned in purpose and action,and must feel as though they can actually control what
they need from themselves in order to get to theirgoals.4

comm e ntary | P illay

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

Such alignment and sense of control cannot comefrom mere cheerleading or what I call “workshop mania,”
but needs to be deeply rooted in a program of authentic
connection to self. In this kind of program, one learns
to surf the waves of uncertainty without needing toWhen we make mistakes, the brain
is wired to rapidly adapt, correct,
and update information.
control the ocean of possibilities. Once again, this is notjust a technical understanding but an actual experiencethat can only come from mindfulness and a deep senseof connection with one’s inner needs. This experience
does not have to be common to all. In fact, in his programs,
Robert always includes skeptics and their alternative
views. As he points out, whether our consulting frameworks are held as useful or useless, they have done
their work if they have provoked thought and a deeper
sense of self-connection.

Error-Based Learning
At the core of Robert’s exploratory approach to leadership is error-based learning. When we make mistakes,
the brain is wired to rapidly adapt, correct, and update
information.5 Much of Robert’s approach relies on thiserror-based theory and on developing new competencies that fit the context in which leaders are charged
to make decisions.
Instead of obsessional stepwise, error-free thinking,Robert helps leaders develop the capacity for errorbased learning, rapid updating, and quick correction.
Rooted as he is in delivering sustainable results, he alsoasks leaders to suspend knowing and instead deeply
examine themselves in context so that they may exist
in rhythm with the changing universe and express theintelligence of this universe as it passes through them.
If every individual in an organization took responsibility
for leading himself or herself at the highest level ofself-awareness, most organizations would achieve 		the results they are looking for. This is what Robert isadvocating in the interview. And I know from working
with him that he practices what he advocates. n

ENDNOTES
1 Huebner B., & Rupert R.D. (2014). “Massively representational minds are not always driven by goals, conscious or otherwise.”
Behav Brain Sci. 37(2):145-146.
2 Bennis W. (2009). On Becoming a Leader. Basic Books.
3 Buhle J.T., Silvers J.A., Wager T.D., Lopez R., Onyemekwu C., Kober H., Weber J., & Ochsner K.N. (2014). “Cognitive reappraisal 		of emotion: a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies.” Cereb Cortex. 24(11):2981-2990.
4 Eitam B., & Higgins E.T. (2014). “What’s in a goal? The role of motivational relevance in cognition and action.” Behav Brain Sci.
37(2):141-142.
5 Silvetti M., Nunez Castellar E., Roger C., & Verguts T. (2014). “Reward expectation and prediction error in human medial
frontal cortex: an EEG study.” Neuroimage. 84:376-382.
abo u t th e a u thor
Dr. Srini Pillay is CEO of NeuroBusiness Group based in Cambridge, Mass. He is assistant professor (part-time)at Harvard Medical School and teaches executive education at Harvard Business School. He is also the awardwinning author of Life Unlocked: 7 Revolutionary Lessons to Overcome Fear. Srini consults to international multilaterals and Fortune-500 companies as well as to schools and prison systems. srini@neurobusinessgroup.com

13

14

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

f e at u r e 1 4 . 2

Reflection on Practice ThroughModel Building
One Person’s Experience
G rady M c G onagill
All consultants have models that shape and guide their work. Most of the time, these frameworks remaintacit—and thus unexplored. But by delving into the assumptions underlying their practice and documenting
the methods they have come to adopt, practitioners can test and improve their models. They can also prepare forpotential “model clashes” that can occur when encountering someone whose practice and behavior is driven
by different assumptions. In this article, Grady McGonagill describes how he used model building to rejuvenate
his own consulting and coaching practice and to renew his sense of living a meaningful life. In the process,he illustrates the benefits of self-reflection for any consultant’s professional and personal development.

Grady McGonagill“The unexamined life is not worth living.” So said Socrates, we are told. Over
my 31 years of practice as a consultant, I’ve typically made time for some form of
self-reflection, to assess my current level of effectiveness and to strive for masteryin my practice. While I have had many teachers, David Kantor—a family therapist
turned consultant—has been my primary coach and mentor. In this article, I
describe an approach to reflection that Kantor calls “model building” and illustrate
its benefits for my practice and personal development. My hope is that the storyof one person’s personal journey will make vivid to others the virtues of a modelbuilding approach and inspire them to engage in a similar discipline.

In what follows, I make a case for the benefits of model building, using my own developmental journey
as an illustration. I also aim to demonstrate the inherently personal nature of a consultant’s professional
practice. In pursuing these goals, I engage in a degree of self-revelation that is unusual for a professional
publication. I do so with the conviction that this will serve others’ learning
better than a more standard, distanced exposition would.

My hope is that the story of
one person’s personal journey
will make vivid to others thevirtues of a model-building
approach.

Introduction to Model Building

My first forays into reflection were inspired by my teacher Chris Argyris,
whose writings with Donald Schön motivated me to become a consultant.
Diana Smith—a protégé of Chris Argyris who was my teaching assistantin a graduate course I took with him—became my first coach. In the late1980s, Diana introduced me to David Kantor. Since then, I have accessedDavid’s counsel much as I had consulted with Diana, talking through dilemmas in particular client situations, sometimes using the two-column case format that Argyris and Schön introduced and Peter Senge
made famous. Periodically, however, Kantor encouraged me to do something more systematic, which hef e at u r e | M c G onagill

called “model building.” His belief is that all practitioners have a model, usually tacit, that guides
their practice. Mastery, in his view, involves making that model explicit so that it can be tested andimproved. Such a practice also prepares a practitioner for the potential “model clash” that can occur when encountering someone whose practiceand behavior is driven by different assumptions.
For a number of years, I resisted Kantor’s encouragement to undertake more comprehensive
and systematic model building. However, in 2000,
I took the leap and spent about half of my timethat year delving into the assumptions underlying
various areas of my practice and documenting
the methods that I had come to adopt. Kantor’s“model of model building” contains three principal
elements: a Theory of the Thing (i.e., the focus of
one’s practice), a Theory of Change, and a Theoryof Practice (Reading the Room, John Wiley & Sons,
2012). I found this framework helpful. Still, I felt acharacteristic need to tinker with it, and came up
with a revised and expanded tool to articulate myown model (see “Framework for Model Building).
I also articulated the following definitions, which
are closely based on Kantor’s work:• Model: A representation of the distinguishingfeatures of one’s professional practice, as
shaped by one’s personal profile.
• Model Building: Systematic reflection on one’s
model, to make explicit its distinguishing features, increase the robustness of those features,and enhance their alignment.
To be sure, I found the model on which I had
based my practice to be as full of inconsistencies
as I feared. But the opportunity to take stock of it
and make it more robust proved both comfortingand exhilarating.

15

I found the model on which I had
based my practice to be as full ofinconsistencies as I feared.
typically results in fuller appreciation of synergies
among underlying beliefs; more conscious
management of tensions among underlying
beliefs; heightened awareness of inconsistencies
between espoused beliefs and routine practices;and deeper knowledge of the influences of
one’s personal profile.
• Deepening/broadening of the foundationsof one’s practice. Such reflection also is likely
to generate a deeper understanding of existing
beliefs and assumptions and the discovery of
new perspectives.
• Renewal of one’s practice. And such reflection
contributes to a clarification of core interests;
renewed confidence in the ability to learn
and articulate; and a reawakening of curiosity
regarding unresolved gaps, puzzles, andareas of confusion.
f ig u r e 1

Framework for Model Building
VisionPersonal
ProfileBeliefs,
Assumptions

Learning
StanceCore
Practices

Reaping the Benefits
My own experience, and that of those I’ve worked
with, suggests that there are multiple benefits tointensive reflection on practice:• Greater alignment among one’s beliefs, practices, and personal profile. Intensive reflection

This framework1 suggests that a model is comprised of five elements, eachof which merits attention in the model-building process. The first element
is a practitioner’s core practices. Next come the beliefs and assumptions on
which they are based. These two elements serve a vision that benefits frombeing made explicit. All three are shaped by an individual’s personal profile.
And they will continue to be shaped (or not) by his learning stance.

16

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2© iStockphoto/JuanCi

By recognizing the key
assumptions and practices at theheart of my success, I felt better
able to create compatible
opportunities.

I gained a number of personal benefits as well:
the satisfaction of leading an “examined life”;
development of a multi-dimensional set of practices for personal development; and stimulusof spiritual inquiry.
One element of this inquiry that stands out as
being particularly illuminating was a review andsynthesis of the various theoretical influences on
my practice. I identified eight principal influences,2
which I synthesized in the form of a set of four
propositions:
1. Individual ways of making sense shape our“reality” and behavior.

2. Our sense making—and thus our feelings andactions—tends to be automatic and limited,
especially under conditions of threat or stress.
3. Awareness of how we make sense can loosen
the grip of reflexive thought and action, andfoster development of the quality of our consciousness as well as more effective action.
4.	Enhanced consciousness and more effective
action create conditions that further foster learning and development, forming a virtuous loop.
The propositions and the map were not directly
useful in my client work. Rather, they served as
scaffolding for my own development. By recognizing the key assumptions and practices at the heartof my success, I felt better able to create compatible opportunities. And by recognizing patterns
associated with work that was less successful, I
gained insight into my limits and vulnerabilities
and how to work with them.
I also created a graphic “map” of the sense-making
process that I identified as being central to mypractice.

f e at u r e | M c G onagill

This intensive reflection directly resulted in significant shifts in my core practices. I built on the experience to design a leadership development workshop that became the center of my work for someyears, along with a practice of supporting othersin their model-building practice. However, theprimary value of my analysis was that I came torealize that my model had limits of which I had
been unaware. Such recognition is an integral
feature of Kantor’s view of model building andone of the reasons that he passionately believes
it to be central to any consulting practice that has
integrity. By identifying theories and practices
that contradict her model, a consultant is forced
to develop and refine her approach. And she
improves her ability to manage differences in approaches with other consultants and with clients.
I took particular satisfaction in identifying andresolving some ambiguities and contradictions
in my practice. For example, I realized that I had
embraced Chris Argyris’s modeling of Action Science,
which had me be direct to the point of bluntness
with coachees when I perceived gaps between
their espoused values and their actual behavior.
At the same time, I tacitly subscribed to the constructive-developmental perspective described byRobert Kegan, among others, which encouraged
me instead to withhold such perceptions in cases
where the coachees’ actions could be seen as a
growth step within an early developmental stage.
I concluded that by invariably “telling the truth,”
I had sometimes not served my clients well. I resolved that, going forward, I would pause to consider the constructive-developmental perspective
before offering feedback. This experience madeclear to me the ethical benefits of model building.
I came to believe that if I didn’t subject my practice
to intense scrutiny, I risked violating the Hippocratic injunction of “Do no harm.”

Revising My Model
In its later stages, my “Model of Everything” came
to include a “model of a good life.” Here I identified
several aspiration gaps. In particular, I was concerned about the degree of alignment between
my work/lifestyle and my commitment to social

I came to believe that if I didn’t
subject my practice to intense
scrutiny, I risked violating
the Hippocratic injunctionof “Do no harm.”change. I realized I was not delivering as fully
as I would like on my wish to make the world abetter place (see "Illuminating One’s Shadow”).
The tool that crystallized this insight was the “Immunity to Change” exercise created by my graduateschool teacher Robert Kegan and his partner Lisa
Lahey (Immunity to Change, Harvard Business
School Publishing Corporation, 2009). In this exercise, an individual identifies a commitment he has				Illuminating One’s “Shadow”
As an unanticipated dimension of my model building, I became more aware of my “shadow.” Kantor uses this term to referto the patterns of thought and feeling that constitute internal
structures that evolve as a result of a person’s childhood experiences of love. I use “shadow” more broadly, to refer to any
pattern of thinking and feeling that gets in the way of whata person consciously intends to do, either because of lack ofawareness of that pattern or an inability to fully manage it.
This view blurs the boundary between model building andtherapy. Although I had already invested in a good deal oftherapy and personal growth exploration before my work with
Kantor, I emerged from my model building with a significantly
heightened degree of awareness regarding these unconscious
patterns. I came to the view that the core mindsets that comprise one’s patterns are in principle changeable, but can bevery hard to change and are likely to continue to operate tosome degree. This awareness strengthened my commitment
to the ongoing journey of loosening the grip of such forces
to the extent possible and helped me realize that supporting
others on a similar journey was one of my deepest professionalpassions.

17

18

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

made to change a certain behavior, then reviews
how he has fallen short of this goal. The next stepis to uncover the “competing commitments” heholds that lead to the discrepant behavior. The
person examines these competing commitments
to discover the underlying “Big Assumptions”
that stand in the way of his ability to change.

My reflective practice had focused
only on retrospective reflection,
attending to the influence ofexisting mindsets on past behavior.
The transformational insight that I gained fromthis exercise was that despite my commitment tomaking a difference in the world, I had avoided
taking on large commitments (e.g., “eliminate
world hunger”). Why? Because of several competing commitments: my desire to be seen ascompetent, to avoid failure, to avoid open-ended
aspirations lacking a clear measure of success.
These “Big Assumptions” bore similarity to someof the core mindsets that I had identified in mymodel-building process.
Soon after, a chance encounter with Otto Scharmer
introduced me to a startlingly novel paradigm:
that one could learn not only from the past, butalso from the future. Scharmer, Senge, Jaworski,
and Flowers later made this perspective explicitin the book Presence.3 I realized that my reflective
practice had focused only on retrospective reflection,
attending to the influence of existing mindsets
on past behavior. I was intrigued by Otto’s casefor prospective learning. I resolved to mull overthis new paradigm, which had come to be called
the U-Process,4 mentally trying it on for size.
Connections that opened up through Otto led
to an invitation to work with a team of consultants
whose practice was based on the U-Process andwho aspired to address stuck problems of global
significance. Their work was driven by an assumption that I found both radical and exhilarating:“The effectiveness of an intervention depends
on the interior condition of the intervener.”5 I
accepted the invitation, seeing it as an opportunity not only to close my aspirations gap but also
to try out a revised core mindset. It was a chance
to suspend an existing belief—“If I am not successful, I will have no identity”—and experimentwith one that promised to be more liberating—“I can define success in terms of aligning my
behavior with my values rather than in termsof my achievements.”
In some areas, the transition to this new work was
seamless. I learned the practice of “deep-structureinterviews”—two or even three hours long—designed to enable a strong personal connection
with interviewees and elicit their deepest aspirations for the system of which they were a part.
Other familiar practices were the use of meditation
and Qi Gong as tools for personal development
and for cultivation of the capacity to be fully present. Still other practices were a natural extensionof tested tools: Focusing (Gendlin, Focusing,Bantam, 1978), for example, was a close cousin
to meditation. At the same time, I was exposed toa whole range of unfamiliar paradigms and practices, many of them centered around wilderness
retreats and featuring collective intelligence.6
My most concrete contribution to the work of
my new colleagues was to produce an annotatedbibliography of the U-Process. This task was almost
too good to be true. I was being paid to explore
the novel ideas that challenged my model. Suspending my doubts, I delved into the theories
of people whose ideas I had overlooked andmight have previously dismissed.
The scholar in me also felt compelled to notethe limits I saw in the works I was exploring. In sodoing, I embraced the stance taken by Ken Wilber(A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, 2000). In
his view, every theory offers some truth; however,
it is invariably a partial truth. Typically, the creatorsof theories are blind to the limits of their own creations. Wilber’s perspective was a strong influence
on my openness to challenging the boundaries off e at u r e | M c G onagill© iStockphoto/ liravega

prior assumptions. I realized that, however invaluable my year of intensive model building had been,
my model was quickly becoming obsolete throughthis subsequent experience. It sunk in that this,
too, was an essential feature of model building:
It is a journey without end.

Encountering Puzzles and Personal Limits
These novel experiences introduced an uncomfortable tension into my model building. On the
one hand, I found my horizons expanding as I
immersed myself in learning about theories andpractices I had not considered. At the same time, I
was not able to overlook what I perceived as limits
in these new paradigms. I resolved to act as if myskeptical stance were valid, while striving to holdthat conviction lightly, remaining open to disconfirmation and to opportunities to revise andrefine my assumptions.
In any case, it was becoming clear to me that mypersonal profile limited me in ways that were unlikely to change. I recognized a deep need to think
things through carefully, using only approaches
that I was confident would work. This need mademe ill suited to the core features of work on largescale, hugely ambitious change projects, suchas one project that aimed to reduce childhood
malnutrition in India by 50 percent in five years.
I was able to carve out a niche in support of thecolleagues leading such engagements, but I realized I could not work effectively as a client-facing
consultant and facilitator under such conditions.
This realization was very disappointing, yet it
felt good to get clear on my limits. And the disappointment was cushioned by the obvious connection between those limits and my core strengths.
I saw that I was more craftsman than improviser,
more synthesizer than creator.

19

Models are inherently personaland inevitably come into conflictfrom time to time with models
held by others.

Learning from a “Model Clash”

with full awareness that such material is rare in theprofessional literature. Consultants talk about tensions within client systems but disclose far lessabout difficulties among themselves. From myview, shaped by Kantor’s, this is a striking and disturbing omission. A consultant’s model includes
that person’s embodiment of espoused beliefs
and practices in a unique personality. Thus, models are inherently personal and inevitably comeinto conflict from time to time with models heldby others. In this fledgling effort to break thetaboo around making an example of such conflictpublic, I doubt that I will fully succeed in my wish
to be balanced and impartial. However, my hopeis that even a flawed effort will illustrate thevalue of making such challenges the subjectof documentation and analysis.

Another stimulus for reflection was tension in myrelationship with a senior colleague for whom I
had great admiration; I’ll refer to him as “Gregory.”
The experience of managing those difficulties
tested and clarified the boundaries of my model.
I include an account of this part of my journey

The first sign of discord emerged in response to
my draft of annotations for the U-Process bibliography. Gregory feared that acknowledgment oflimits in the books I reviewed would weaken theeffectiveness of the bibliography in validating the

20

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2© iStockphoto/Bram Janssens

Scrutiny

U-Process. I was troubled by this view, which felt
like censoring expression of the whole truth. Whatbegan to become apparent was a fundamental
difference in models. I noted that, unlike other colleagues, Gregory tended to present the U-Process
as a religious journey, and that he insisted that it
be the principal tool in all of our work.

We fell into a self-reinforcing
vortex, each inclined to fault theother and each inclined to takea moral stance in making those
judgments.
Mindful of Kantor’s teachings, I struggled to resist
the temptation to be judgmental of Gregory’s behavior. I strove to practice Kantor’s view that “Being able to translate moral stories into structuralones, your own first of all and then those of others,
is an essential skill.” With the help of this framework, I saw our conflict as rooted at least in partin our differing personal profiles. I had long been

fond of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and therelated lens of “Temperament,“ as articulated byDavid Keirsey (Please Understand Me II, Prometheus
Nemesis Book Company, 1998) and Linda Berens(Understanding Yourself and Others, Telos Publications, 2010). Gregory struck me as being welldescribed by the “NF” Temperament (Intuitive/
Feeling, or “Catalyst” in Berens’s language). Consistent with others of this Temperament, he wasgiven to faith and optimism. People with thisorientation are prone to overlooking data inconsistent with their vision. At times, they literally
do not see what someone like myself, of a morecautious “NT” Temperament (Intuitive/Thinking,or “Theorist”), would see. This selective perception gives such a person great power to persuade,inspire, and persist when the path is uncertain
and the going gets tough. It may also blind themto realities inconsistent with their vision.
As I began to notice differences in our models,I found myself submitting Gregory’s behavior tointense critical scrutiny. My model made it hardfor me to tolerate the reflexive disposition towardfaith, belief, and transcendence that appeared to
be fundamental to his model. I found it increasingly difficult to cleanse my criticisms of a moral
tone. Paradoxically, I was morally judgmental of
Gregory’s tendency to be morally judgmental!
I found myself unable to apply Kantor’s injunction
to release ethical judgments through appreciationof personal type structures.
I was aware that my own MBTI type and Temperament (INTP/NT) disposed me to be critical. At thetime, I did not fully appreciate how much this critical tendency was exacerbated by an achievement
orientation that stemmed from my personal history.
This orientation had evolved as my solution to the
problem of what Kantor would call my “story ofimperfect love.” I had tacitly come to use achievement as a means of seeking the love missing in
my childhood. As a self-protective mechanism,
I had unconsciously trained myself to be on thealert for imperfection in myself. That tendency
carried over into my judgment others.

f e at u r e | M c G onagill

Once expressed, my criticisms of Gregory triggereda tendency on his part (like anyone of strong NF
Temperament) to stiffen in the face of what heregarded as a violation of integrity: I was being
disloyal to him. Thus we fell into a self-reinforcing
vortex, each inclined to fault the other and each
inclined to take a moral stance in making those
judgments. Of course, from Kantor’s perspective,
we were both “right”; we simply had differingmodels. But we did not engage in the cross-model
conversation recommended by Kantor as themeans of handling such differences. Thus, wewere unable to halt the downward spiral.
With the help of a facilitator, Gregory and I were
ultimately able to recognize and own up to ourrespective contributions to what Kantor would calla “model clash.” I was humbled by the recognition
that I was the more culpable contributor. After all,I was familiar with theories that predicted how
model differences could become model clashes,and I was aware of the virtues of cross-model conversation as a tool for exploring how differences
can be synergistic rather than problematic. I realized that the strength of my moral judgments
about Gregory’s model had made it hard for me tobroach and discuss our differences in a truly open
way. I also realized that I had made it difficult for
Gregory to live up to my expectations by projecting onto him positive qualities that I was unable tosee in myself. This contributed to my going fromadulation to rejection without being able to calibrate my disappointment in a more nuanced way.

Coming Home
Wiser, sadder, yet with enormous relief, I came“home” to my former independent practice. Yet
I was not the same. Pursuing my growth edge,
I had bumped up against the limits of my ability
to expand the conditions under which I was able
to effectively work. While aspiring to make a difference in the world, I recognized that I needed tooperate within a set of cognitive and behavioral
comfort zones defined by my personal profile.
Yet I also identified my growth edge: healing theparts of myself that disposed me to be criticaland skeptical as a means of self-protection—or,in Kantor’s language—as a response to my storyof imperfect love.

I had bumped up against thelimits of my ability to expand theconditions under which I wasable to effectively work.

© iStockphoto/Swillklitch

Despite these many insights—which deepened
my understanding of the personal profile thatshaped my model—I was not able to overcome
a sense of fundamental incompatibility between
the orientation toward belief to which Gregory’s
model inclined him and the predilection towardagnosticism dictated by my own. With as much
humility about the limits of my own model asconcern about the limits of Gregory’s, I choseto accept rather than try to bridge these deeper
commitments to differing “truths.” Gregory andI cordially parted ways.

21

22

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

Model building encourages
generating active hypotheses
about the nature of the world,
making sense of it skillfully,
and acting in it wisely.
At the same time, I had become clearer on my
distinctive strengths. Moreover, I had come awaywith greater intention, courage, and skill to workwith clients regarding the level of consciousness
they brought to their challenges. All in all, I had noregrets. My professional and personal models had
stretched and grown; my practice felt rejuvenated;
my world felt larger.
In summary, I have found model building to be
an extremely potent form of reflection on practice. For me, it has had highly practical benefits:a sharpened sense of my strengths and limits;a deepening and broadening of the knowledge
base of my toolkit; and an enhanced sense of confidence and professional mastery, owing to thegreater alignment among my beliefs, practices,and personal profile. In addition, model building
renewed my sense of leading a meaningful life.
Like any form of reflection, model building does
not lead to an enduring edifice. Rather, it encourages a stance of curiosity: an ongoing commitment to generating active hypotheses about thenature of the world, making sense of it skillfully,
and acting in it wisely. Not surprisingly, modelbuilding has costs. Intense self-examination demands significant investment of time and energy,
and it requires a high degree of self-compassion
and tolerance for ambiguity. Of course, the needto develop these qualities is in itself a growth
opportunity! All in all, I have no doubt that, in mycase, the investment was well worth the price. n

ENDNOTES
1 For a fuller explanation of this framework, see Framework for Model Building.
2 The eight influences were: action inquiry (Argyris & Schön, Argyris, Putnam & Smith, Torbert et al.); brain science(LeDoux, Demasio); constructive developmental theory (Kegan, Torbert et al.); cognitive therapy (Beck, Ellis);
systems thinking (Senge, Oshry); theories of mindfulness (Buddhism); theories of organizational culture (Harrison,
Schein); and type theory (Jung, Briggs-Myers, Keirsey, Berens). For a “map” with further detail see Sample ModelBuilding Products.
3 And more recently by Scharmer in Theory U (Society for Organizational Learning, 2007) and Leading from theEmerging Future (Berrett-Koehler, 2013).
4 It is also known as the “U Theory” and “Theory U” (Scharmer, 2007).
5 Otto Scharmer attributes this quote to Bill O’Brien, former CEO of Hanover Mutual.
6 For a review of these theories and practices, see the Annotated Bibliography of the U-Process.

abo u t th e a u thor
Grady McGonagill is an independent consultant with expertise in leadership development andcoaching. After 30 years of independent practice, with clients on several continents and in all threesectors, Grady is now devoting himself to supporting organizations and activities that address
climate change. He holds an Ed.D. from Harvard University and an M.A. from Stanford.
grady@mcgonagill-consulting.com

comm e ntary | karash

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

Commentary
R ichard K arash

I’ve always been a model builder, that is, I’ve always been intensely interested
in how things work. Delving into how complex things work is the essence of modelbuilding.

The Scientific Method
I studied physics and learned well the scientific method: Make a theory that explains
phenomena of interest, then figure out how to test the theory. Theories of complex things
are never complete—they are always simplified pictures of what’s happening—so goodscientists continue to examine and refine their models indefinitely. A key point in the
Richard Karash
philosophy of science is that we can’t really know the thing, but we can get close, closeenough to do practical work.
My first professional work was creating management science
Theories of complex things
models of markets and consumer behavior to test the effecare never complete—they are
tiveness of marketing strategies. We used data extensively, andalways simplified pictures
we worked to provide our customers with actionable answers
to their specific questions. Jay Forrester, John D. C. Little, andof what’s happening.
Glen L. Urban, all of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, wereamong my most important influences in this work. At this earlystage in my career, the models we were paid to build were all about the outside world, not about me, and in
my model,* that made it easier. We did, however, discuss our methods, and what constituted good work and why—
conversations more like the model building addressed in Grady’s article.
As I launched into my professional life, I was an aggressive learner. Not content with what “we” already knew,
I was always looking for more. For the first 20 years of my				career, this search was mostly for techniques, methods, andpractices that would help me be more effective in the world.
Rick’s Definition of a Model
Mindfulness, creativity techniques, and sports psychology
were important learning areas to me. The results of my
A model is a representation of reality, necexplorations were significant, but I rarely got down toessarily simplified and incomplete, that exlooking at why and how these methods worked.
plains how results come about. All models
are incomplete; therefore, in assessing thequality of a model, we must do so against
some purpose that the model is to serve.

And then I fell into the organizational learning field with Innovation Associates. At Innovation Associates, our staff had
a lot of what we called “model conversations.” We debated* David Kantor taught us to use the phrase “in my model” any time we assert a piece of theory in our modeling conversations. I do so here in this text.
What difference do you think this makes for the speaker? For the listener?

23

24

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2© iStockphoto/tiero

extensively about what we were doing, what our clients
really needed, how we could deliver it, and what methods
were most effective. When we addressed why a method
might be effective or not, we were modeling. But muchof this conversation was less modeling and more like,“We should do X because it has attribute Y, which weknow works.”
My point in all of this is that, in consulting work, wehave a lot of conversations that get close, but seldom
do we carry them into real model building or write out
an exposition of our models. Grady argues that we all
have models that guide the things we do, but thesemodels are tacit, and we would benefit from making
them explicit. Jay Forrester has long expressed thesame view, and it’s hard to argue against it.
So, what happens when we start to be explicit about
the beliefs and practices that guide our work?

An Explicit Model
Meeting and working with Grady McGonagill and David
Kantor, starting in the 1990s, pushed such reflections togreater depth and rigor. Now, through our discussions,
we were creating models of our work that were similar
to the management science models of my earlier career.
By being more open and precise about our models, 		
we were better able to subject them to scrutiny andto test them.

Before starting to work with Grady in 2003, I was fullycommitted to many ideas about organizational learning,
including, for example:• Human beings can do amazing things.
• Our work helps people realize higher potentials.
Notice there’s an ambiguity here, a conflict, a blankspace: If human beings can do such amazing things,
how come the world is such a mess? That’s a bigquestion, but it’s not a show-stopper. The gap didn’t
particularly impair my ability to be productive inleadership workshops and individual coaching.
In the model-building process with Grady, I filled insome of that gap. In my model:• Human systems can be remarkably stable insuboptimal patterns.
• Interventions can perturb a system to shift toa new stable pattern.
• Our work is to create interventions that shift
to better patterns.
These insights made more explicit my understandingof the human condition, why things are the way they
are, how things can change, and how in our work wehelp create such changes. What difference did thatmake? For me, model building improved my ability toadjust my delivery methods for differing contexts, toextend the work to new settings, and to teach others.

comm e ntary | karash

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

Subsequently, my work shifted significantly from workshop delivery to coaching, where I found a greater needto modulate my ways of working to suit different individual clients. In this and in my work in training professionals, deeper understanding made me a more skillful
practitioner and a better teacher. In my model, modelbuilding is especially impactful in these kinds of highlevel practices.

The Benefits of Exposition
I want to highlight one key aspect of model-building
practice: the act of writing out the model, creating an
exposition of it, and explaining it to another person.
In my model, articulating something for an interested
listener is not just a report-out; it’s a process of reflectionin which our own understanding develops. It’s happening right now as I write this piece. It certainly happened
as I wrote out my model for Grady and again when I
later published it on the Learning-org discussion list
(see “Theory Underlying Organizational Learning,” p. 26).
Comments and responses were helpful, but writing 		
it out three times for others was the most significant
element in advancing and clarifying my thinking.
Since incompleteness is inherent and fundamental in
any model, when assessing the quality or validity of amodel, we must do so against some purpose that themodel is to serve. In my model, the more incompletea model, the more important clarity about its purpose
becomes. For physical phenomena, our models are
pretty complete; the question of purpose might be put
aside. For human systems, our models are vastly incomplete; therefore purpose is always a primary question.
I created my model for organizational learning with 		
this purpose: to help in designing actions that will beeffective in producing desired results in my organizational
work. The key parts of my model therefore involve performance, energy, and capacities in a human system.
My model addresses the mechanisms by which an intervener (a leader or perhaps a consultant like me) affects
performance and other results. If you have a different
purpose, your model might be very different.

Reasonable Doses
If the benefits of model building are so obvious, why
is it so seldom done with any rigor? A student of Dana
Meadows had a good explanation. He told me, “Shepushed us to be explicit and rigorous to the point thatmy head hurt!” This is difficult work, exposing the things
we don’t know, and that’s uncomfortable. In my model,
it’s more comfortable for all of us just to continue on

If the benefits of model building
are so obvious, why is it so seldom
done with any rigor?
with our tacit models, using our practiced skills to produce results. In my model, there’s little pressure to makeour models more explicit unless there’s a breakdown or
until we are challenged by someone like David Kantor
or Grady. What helps me is remembering that just because a pattern is stable and even sustainable doesn’tmean it’s optimal.
Is model building worth the effort and discomfort?
Yes, taken in reasonable doses from time to time.
After all, it is rumored that Chris Argyris’s wife once
told him he didn’t need to apply his tools to all theirconversations. n

abo u t th e a u thor
Richard Karash is a consultant, facilitator, and executive coach living in New England. A high-tech entrepreneur
earlier in his career, he served as a founding trustee of the Society for Organizational Learning. He is a principal
in Systems Perspectives LLC and in Karash Associates LLC. richard@karash.com

25

26

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

				

Theory Underlying Organizational LearningThis is a condensed version of a posting published by Richard Karash on the Learning-org discussion list in 2003.
For the whole piece, do an internet search for “Richard Karash LO30797.”
In my model:
1. People tend to wallow in shallowness. Unlessprovoked, few will rise to serious reflection onmeaningful issues; for many, life is just to be
lived. There is joy in going with the flow.
2. Most people will rise to seriousness if provokedskillfully.
3. Some things are successful stimulation for #2,
that is, they succeed in provoking people toseriousness. Some of these serve as usefulongoing exercises for those so provoked:
Visioning: Think about your life exactly theway you want it to be, talk about what you
really care about
Conversations: Listen to others talk about
what they really care about

Centering: Reaching a meditative state ofheightened concentration and awarenessGreat Life Events: Life-changing events can
provoke reflection, but these are generally notunder our control
4. Personal Mastery: Some ways of thinking are more
powerful than others. What we carry in our mind
tends to become realized. The “unbendable arm”
Aikido exercise illustrates this. This can be developed and strengthened by practice.
(See #6 below.)
5. It is more engaging and energizing to figure out
something yourself than to hear someone else,
even an expert, describe their analysis of thesystem and its dysfunctions.

© Flickr/Josh Smithcomm e ntary | karash

27

C omm e ntary 1 4 . 2

				
6. Many people are missing capacities (skills, abilities)
for learning and for depth. These skills can be
developed just as muscles can be strengthened.
Practice, instruction in specific methods, andcoaching all help develop these capacities. Reading about the theory of doing so has little effect.
a. The org learning field seems based fundamentally on an assumption that the important skills
are developable. This is well demonstrated inour experience!
b. There is great joy and energy in learning skills.
“The drive to learn may be more powerful thanthe drive to reproduce,” Senge, speeches in
the mid 90s.
7. Most org learning work is based on the premisethat “It’s a depth problem (i.e., are we serious
enough about it) as well as a learning problem(the need to learn certain behaviors and skills).”
The organizational learning approach is distinguished by addressing “depth” as well as “skill.”
8. Living systems are structurally determined systems(Humberto Maturana). That is, a wide range ofstimuli can cause a living system to make a response,
but the nature of the response is determined by
the internal structure of the living system and notby the stimulus itself.
a. A corollary I draw: I cannot reliably cause
another human being to do anything significant. I can stimulate a response, but I cannot
reliably determine the response.
9. Awareness is curative. Or is it? Several authors
say, roughly, “When a gap is identified, people
learn to reduce the gap.” This is a very contentious
theory. . . . It is demonstrably untrue in many examples, where people discover gaps and the gaps
are stable. But much work in org learning andknowledge management seems based on thetheory that awareness will be curative. I believe ittakes more than awareness—it takes awareness,relationships, depth, and skills.

a. Maslow said that “peak experiences” include
these three elements: meaningful goal, realistic appraisal of self, other people caring.
Org learning is based on the notion thatthese provide energy, producing a desirable
state: highly energized, clear about meaningful results we are trying to create, highly
skilled, and taking great personal reward andsatisfaction from the flow.
b. There is great joy in creating (Robert Fritz).
10. “There is nothing as powerful as a good theory.”
Daniel Kim, Einstein (?), and Charles Sanders
Peirce. That is, by considering our experiencein the world, by trying to explain why and how
things happen, we can create theories of how
the world works that help us be more effectivein the world. This is Senge’s “fifth discipline”(the discipline itself, not the book).
11. Differential Impact. Our systems present a wide
variety of intervention possibilities. Researchon dynamic systems shows that interventions
in different places have vastly differing effects.
In most places, our interventions will beineffective.
a. Leverage. In a few places, a small effort can
produce a large benefit. This is leverage. The
alternatives are brute force (attacking everything) or Pareto (making a list of concerns
and addressing these in priority order). In mymodel, leverage is essential: We cannot beeffective today by brute force or by Pareto.
12. Distributed thinking. People close to the problem
have essential knowledge that cannot be heldat higher levels. Operating in a way that engages
and harnesses collective wisdom is more powerful than top-down operation or than an expert
model, such as Michael Hammer’s reengineering. The Society for Organizational Learning
includes this point in its Purpose and Principles
as “Localness.”© Richard Karash

28

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

f e at u r e 1 4 . 2

Polarity Thinking
The Power of “And”

B arry J ohnson and M argar e t S e idl e r
A challenge in managing organizations is that many dilemmas don’t have one right answer. Instead,potential solutions often pull in opposite directions, compelling leaders to choose one response at theexpense of the other. Polarity Thinking shows that by adopting a both/and rather than an either/or approach,organizations can harness the upside—and minimize the downside—of each side of a polarity. Tools like
Polarity Maps can help in developing a full picture of both sides of a polarity and in anticipating the natural
flow of energy from one side to the other. By learning how to manage seemingly irreconcilable tradeoffs
in this way, leaders can increase the likelihood of arriving at solutions that support both short-term andlong-term organizational success.

We call it polarity. Whether you call it paradox, dilemma,
tensions, dual strategies, positive opposites, the “Geniusof the ‘And,’” managing on the edge, yin and yang, interdependent pairs, or some other name, there is an underlying phenomenon that works in predictable ways. The more
we understand about the elements of this phenomenon,
and the dynamics by which it functions, the more effective
we can be at leveraging its natural power. This leveraging
Barry Johnson
Margaret Seidler
can support us in pursuing our most expansive dreams
and addressing our most chronic issues—as individuals, families, organizations, nations, and humanity.

Polarities are ongoing,
chronic issues/situations
that are unavoidable,
unsolvable, indestructible,
and unstoppable.

Polarities are ongoing, chronic issues/situations that are unavoidable,
unsolvable, indestructible, and unstoppable. Attempting to address themby finding the one “right” answer, as in traditional problem solving, often
makes things worse. There is significant competitive advantage for thoseleaders, teams, or organizations that can distinguish between a problem tosolve and a polarity to leverage—and are effective with both. The Polarity
Thinking™ model and set of principles are a user-friendly way to deal withall polarities in life.

Polarity Thinking helps us:• Simplify the complexity without being simplistic• Convert intuitive wisdom into strategic action• Address multiple facets of leadership• Bring clarity to leadership and other complex organizational issues• Capitalize on diversity without alienating the diverse groupsf e at u r e | J ohnson and S e idl e r• Accelerate the speed, attainability, andsustainability of change efforts• Give voice to resistance and the less powerful• Manage chronic issues and minimize theunintended consequences of our solutions• Reach and sustain top performance as
individuals and groups
Using a Polarity Thinking approach increases
in value as the system or issue:• Increases in complexity• Increases in diversity• Increases in speed of change• Increases in resistance to change

A “Swiss Army Knife” for the
Leader’s Toolbox
Through a combination of experience, intuition,and hard-earned wisdom, effective leaders havedeveloped the ability to look within complex issues, identify interdependencies in tension, andcapitalize on that tension. We all have a degreeof ability in leveraging polarities because they aresuch a central part of our daily lives. We have an
implicit understanding that there are many opposites in tension in our lives. Yet most leaders do
not have an explicit model and set of principles
both to enhance their skills with these issues andto collaborate with others to intentionally leverage them better. In the past, the lack of such amodel and set of principles has undermined ourability to teach this core leadership competency
to others.

f ig u r e 1

What Are Polarities?

andPolarities are interdependent pairs that support acommon purpose and one another. They are energy
systems in which we live and work.

leadership development; in change efforts as away to convert resistance to change into a resource
for change; to build cross-cultural competence,both domestic and international; in mergers andacquisitions as a way to capitalize on the bestof two or more cultures; as a key to integrated
healthcare; in identifying corporate values, which
are best seen as pairs in tension; in strategic planning; and in addressing polarizing issues in local
communities. The situations above have a numberof things in common:• They involve complex issues at many levelsof system.
• There are key, underlying polarities within
the difficulties.
• The “problem-solving” mindset alone is not
up to the challenge these issues present.
• Identifying and intentionally leveraging one ormore key polarities has made a big difference.

Case Study of “The Expansive Leader”
The Polarity Map© and set of “realities” provide auser-friendly resource for effectively addressingorganizational complexity and the dilemmas
within that complexity (see “What Are Polarities”).
The power of the polarity map is found in its
ability to convert what is complex and hard to
define into something that is simple to see whileraising awareness, be it self-awareness or organization awareness, to a deeper level.
Like a Swiss Army knife, polarity maps have multiple
applications in a variety of situations. For example,
they have been used as a core competency inWhile interviewing three executive team members
to identify current organizational issues, I [Barry]
was told by one executive, “Barry, if you reallywant to make a contribution here, I suggest you
just leave as soon as possible and don’t look back.”
I inquired as to whether there was an option “B.”He smiled and said, “It’s nothing personal, Barry,
it’s what you represent. You are the most recent ina long line of people who have been invited here
by Don [the CEO] because he wanted to try out
the latest fad that caught his interest. We keep
starting one thing after another and never finish
any of them. We are overwhelmed and frustrated

29

30

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

with unfinished projects all over the place.
So you are a part of the problem.”“If you are serious about helping us out, I can thinkof one thing that would really help: If you could
get Don to be more focused and provide someclear direction. We need to choose a few projects
and make sure they are completed. Then people
wouldn’t be so overwhelmed and would have asense of completion and accomplishment. Can
you help us get Don to do that?”
Since I was asked by Don to come in and help
apply Polarity Thinking to a few key challenges,
I used this issue to explain Polarity Thinking to thethree executive team members who had raised it.
I went to a flip chart and summarized what they
had been saying about Don by drawing the simple
figure “Model One.”f ig u r e 2

Model One

Effective Leadership
Clear direction
Completion of projects
Satisfaction and energy froma sense of accomplishment

B
Ineffective
LeadershipA

Lack of direction
Projects not completed
Staff overwhelmed withprojects and frustrated withlack of accomplishment

The executive team encountered resistance as it tried to move theorganization from what it deemed “Ineffective Leadership” to “Effective
Leadership.”
Source: Polarity Management, Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, HRD Press, 1992, 2014.

What the three executives were asking was forme to help them get Don to move from area A,
which was seen as the problem, to area B, which
was their solution. Don would then become amore effective leader.
When you look at Model One, it is quite obviousthat an organization with the problems in area A
could clearly benefit from moving to the solutions
found in area B. This is a very understandable
change strategy, which is based on a problemsolving mindset using “gap analysis.” First you
describe the present state in negative terms anddeclare it the problem = A. Then you describe an
improved future state in positive terms and call it
the solution = B. Finally, you decide on a strategy
to bridge the gap between A and B, which issymbolized by the arrow.
When I put the model on the flip chart, they agreed
that it summarized their statements. I told themthis situation was a good example of a polarity
to leverage. I then indicated that if it were treatedlike a problem to solve, with B as the solution,
efforts to get Don to area B would meet withsignificant resistance and that, even if they could
get Don to agree to go to area B, he wouldn’t
go there.
They looked surprised and said, “Who have you
been talking to?” I said, “No one but you three, sofar.” They said, “You have described exactly what
happened. Two years ago, we had a meeting withDon and told him about our frustrations with lackof direction and too many uncompleted projects
and the need for direction and completion, and heagreed to move to B, like you’ve written it on thechart. But in the last two years, we haven’t moved
an inch in that direction. How did you know thatwas going to happen?”
I told them that, from a polarity perspective, it wasquite predictable. The problem with the model
they were using was with what was missing. It was
accurate. If you have a lack of direction, you needdirection. If projects aren’t completed, you need tocomplete them. The limit of the model was that itf e at u r e | J ohnson and S e idl e r

was incomplete. It was based on the assumptionthat this was a problem to solve when it was actually a polarity to leverage. What was needed was
to see the whole picture—to be accurate andcomplete.

The limit of the model was that it
was based on the assumption that
this was a problem to solve when it
was actually a polarity to leverage.

“Model Two” is a polarity map. This is the mental
model I was using as I was hearing them describe
their problem and their solution.

upside of Being Focused (B) is because he strongly
valued the upside of Being Expansive (C). He liked
being flexible and innovative and exploring new
ideas and opportunities. And the stronger hisvalue for the upside of Being Expansive (C), thestronger will be his fear of the downside of Being
Focused (D). He will do anything to avoid getting

The two poles describing the underlying tension
they were dealing with could be called “Being
Expansive” (E) and “Being Focused” (F). Don liked
being expansive, and they wanted him to be more
focused. The reason Don would not go to thef ig u r e 3

Model Two: Polarity Map©

G

Greater Purpose-GP5t

Effective Leader
Why leverage polarity?

Values =positive
results fromfocusing on
the left pole

Flexibility in responding
to new challenges

Clear direction

Innovation and creativity
is stimulated

Completion of projects

Satisfaction and energy for
new ideas createdSatisfaction and energy froma sense of accomplishment

E

B

C
Being
Expansive

andA
Fears =
negative
results
from overfocusing
on the leftpole to theneglect of
the right
pole

Being F
FocusedD

Lack of direction

Rigidly in a rut and unable
to respond to new challenges

Projects not completed

Lack of innovation andcreativity

Staff overwhelmed withprojects and frustrated withlack of accomplishment

Staff bored with lack of innovation and new opportunities
Deeper Fear

H

Values =positive
results fromfocusing on
the right pole

Ineffective Leader

Fears =
negative
results
from overfocusing
on the rightpole to theneglect of
the left
pole

Loss of Greater Purpose

By creating a polarity map, the executive team came to see that their real goal was to get the upside of Being
Expansive and the upside of Being Focused, which in combination move toward Effective Leadership. ( “Being
Expansive” (E) and “Being Focused” (F) describe the underlying tension the executive team was dealing with.)

31

32

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2© Dana Mason/Flickr

in a rut, with lack of innovation and creativity leading to boredom for him and the staff. The stronger
the value, the stronger the fear.
Notice that “Effective Leadership” (G) moved frombeing in area B, as in Model One, to being on topof the model with an arrow pointing to it, separating the two halves of the polarity map. The goal ofeffective leadership is not to get Don to area B as
the solution. The goal is to get the upside of Being
Expansive and the upside of Being Focused, whichin combination move toward Effective Leadership.
Also, “Ineffective Leadership” (H) moved frombeing in area A, as in Model One, to being at thebottom of the polarity map. This indicates that,within this example, there are two ways to become
an ineffective leader: over-concentrating on Being
Expansive or on Being Focused will get you introuble, two different types of trouble.
Once the executives saw the larger picture andbegan to understand the dynamics of how polarities
work, it changed the whole conversation andapproach to addressing their concerns with Don.
Paradoxically, if you want more focus, you have toembrace the benefits of being expansive and beclear that you are not rejecting expansiveness.
Looking at the map together, the shared challenge
is to get the upsides of both over time. That iswhat it means to leverage a polarity well.

Competitive Advantage
There is significant competitive advantage forleaders and organizations that can both solve
problems and leverage polarities. The researchis very clear on this. Leaders and organizations
that tap the power of polarities outperform
those that don’t. Below are a few examples:• The authors of Competing Values Leadership,
Creating Value in Organizations conductedempirical research to demonstrate how thetensions in the competing values “Control andCreate, Compete and Collaborate,” when integrated, improve financial value within organizations and help predict future market values.1• The authors of Built to Last: Successful Habitsof Visionary Companies identify the “Genius ofthe ‘And’” as a central variable that distinguishedthe “Gold” companies from the “Silver” companies. The whole book is based on managing

f e at u r e | J ohnson and S e idl e r

•

•

•

•

•

•

the polarity of “Preserve the Core and Stimulate
Progress.” This could also be seen as the generic“Stability and Change” polarity.2
The “Genius of the ‘And’” continues as an important variable in Good to Great: Why Some
Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t
and is identified as a key characteristic of leaders moving companies from Good to Great.
There are 10 polarities identified as central
to becoming a “Level 5 Leader.”3
The authors of The Three Tensions: Winning theStruggle to Perform Without Compromise interviewed executives from 200 companies andidentified three important tensions (polarities)
central to their organizations’ effectiveness:“Profitability & Growth; Today & Tomorrow;
and, The Whole & Its Parts.”4
The authors of Lost in Transition: How Business
Leaders Can Successfully Take Charge In New
Roles identify eight tensions (polarities) that,when managed well, contribute significantly
to being successful in new jobs.5
Unbalanced Influence: Recognizing and Resolving
the Impact of Myth and Paradox in Executive
Performance reports on 10 years of executive
research indicating the importance of paradox(polarities) in executive performance.6
Drawing on research and interviews, in The
Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win
Through Integrative Thinking, Roger Martin
shows that truly successful leaders are skilled
at holding two opposing ideas at the sametime and reaching a synthesis that contains
elements of both, but improves on each.7
The authors of Firms of Endearment: How WorldClass Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose
discovered that the key indicator for whether acompany is a great investment is the degree towhich it manages the polarity of taking care of
the stockholders and the stakeholders; in otherwords, attending to “Company Interests and theInterests of the Larger Community” in which
the company exists.8

The Phenomenon Is Everywhere
The phenomenon of interdependent pairs (dilemma,
paradox, polarity) has been written about inphilosophy and religion for over 4,000 years. It isa central reality in all of life and all human systems.
It has only been in the last 60 years that it has
been explicitly identified by business and industry
as an important dimension to pay attention to,because leveraging the power of this dimensionof life gives a competitive advantage. Blake andMouton were early contributors with their
managerial grid in the 1950s.

The phenomenon ofinterdependent pairs (dilemma,
paradox, polarity) has been
written about in philosophy andreligion for over 4,000 years.
All of us focusing on these wonderful phenomena
have been saying that it is both a core leadershipcompetency and a core organizational capacity.
As leaders, we need to use our head and our heart.
We need to show all people basic respect as
human beings regardless of performance and weneed to show respect for good performance. We
need to listen and talk. We need to manage andto lead.
Polarity Thinking practitioners recognize thatleaders constantly manage inherent tension
within these fundamental leadership polarities:• Task AND Relationship• Candor AND Diplomacy• Responsibility AND Freedom• Guidance AND Tolerance• Confidence AND Humility• Critical Analysis AND Encouragement• Control AND Empowerment• Grounded AND Visionary• Structure AND Flexibility• Logic AND Creativity• Individual AND Work Group• Planning AND Implementation• Decisiveness AND Mindfulness• Conditional Respect AND Unconditional
Respect33

34

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

In Power Surge, Energizing your Leadership Strengths,(HRD Press, 2009, 2010, 2014), 98 sets of polarities
are identified for leaders to consider in managing
for increased performance.

good places to own, good places to lead, goodplaces to work, good places to supply, good places
with whom to be a customer, and good places
to have in the community (see p. 35).

It is not a question as to whether you have any
polarities in your personal and organizational life.
Polarities are everywhere, and they have been
everywhere since the beginning of time. What is
an important question is, “How we can learn to
see them more clearly and leverage the wonderfulpotential within key polarities in our life for something constructive and life enhancing rather thanhave the inherent tension between the poles
become destructive and life destroying?”

And it goes beyond just effective organizations.
It is about the quality of life with our loved ones,
our spouses and families. It is about our relationships as nations and unique groups within nations.

More Than One Model
There are a host of bright, compassionate people
who have been doing some very creative thinking
about this phenomenon of interdependent pairs.
Our experiences have led to some different models.
In each case, the desire is to create more effective
organizations in all dimensions of effectiveness:

Summary• The research is clear: Those organizations
that are better at leveraging the potential ofinterdependent pairs (the Genius of the “And”)
outperform those that are not so good at it.
• Part of what makes good leaders good is thatthrough some combination of intuition, experience, and wisdom, they have learned to leverage
the potential of interdependent pairs.
• Polarities are everywhere. You have been
dealing with them all your life and will continue
to deal with them all your life. The only question
is, “How well?” n

ENDNOTES
1 Cameron, K., Quinn, R., DeGraff, J., and Thakor, A. (2007). Competing Values Leadership, Creating Value in
Organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
2 Collins, J.C., and Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. HarperCollins.
3 Collins, J.C. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t. HarperCollins.
4 Dodd, D., & Favaro, K. (2007). The Three Tensions: Winning the Struggle to Perform Without Compromise.
John Wiley and Sons.
5 Elsner, R., & Farrands, B. (2006) Lost in Transition: How Business Leaders Can Successfully Take Charge In New Roles.
Marshall Cavendish Limited, 2006.
6 Hammett, P. (2007). Unbalanced Influence: Recognizing and Resolving the Impact of Myth and Paradox in
Executive Performance. Davies-Black Publishing.
7 Martin, R. (2007). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking.
Harvard Business School Press.
8 Sisodia, R., Sheth, J., & Wolfe, D.B. (2007). Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion
and Purpose. Wharton School Publishing.
abo u t th e a u thors
Barry Johnson is the Creator of Polarity Map© and Principles, and the founder and chief thought leaderof Polarity Partnerships, LLC. barry@polaritypartnerships.com
Margaret Seidler is a Polarity Management Master and the principal of Seidler & Associates, LLC.
margaret@margaretseidler.com

f e at u r e | J ohnson and S e idl e r				Polarity Thinking in Action: Frank Conversations
M argar e t S e idl e r and J e nni f e r H olladay
She stood at the microphone, clad in a tank top withsunglasses perched atop her head. Shoulders and chindown, the woman glared up at the elected official
before her.
Shaking a poster of President Obama as Hitler, she asked,“Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?”
Like other members of Congress, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank(D-MA) had called a town hall meeting on healthcare.
Unlike his Congressional peers, Frank sniped back at
this constituent with a contrarian view.
“On what planet do you spend most of your time?”
he retorted, ultimately concluding, “Trying to have aconversation with you would be like arguing witha dining room table.”
Despite their differences, these citizens share somethings in common: they both care about the future of
our country and want healthcare that works. Apathetic
people don’t show up for town hall meetings, and one
doesn’t run for Congress without a deep commitment
to our democracy.
So, why were these two passionate Americans exchanging verbal blows? Had they simply come down witha bout of bad manners—her talking about Nazis andwaving a Hitler-ized picture of President Obama at her
elected official, and him equating his own constituent
to a piece of dead wood?

equality. The result is widespread incivility that seems
to be more and more accepted in how we disagree.
What if Frank and his constituent had a chance to replay
their exchange? What if they assumed the best about
each other, rather than the worst? What if they approached
the conflict with a genuine sense of inquiry for the other’s
point of view, rather than with an either/or approach
where one must be “right” and the other “wrong”?
Maybe, the conversation would have unfolded like this:WOMAN: “Why are you supporting socialized medicine?”
FRANK: “I don’t think I am, ma’am. Still, I’m curious:
Why do you support today’s healthcare system?”
WOMAN: “I get to make the decisions about my care,and I pay my own way, take care of myself.”
FRANK: “Choice and personal control are incredibly
important. So, what bothers you about the proposedchanges?”
WOMAN: “Well, socialized healthcare feels un-American.”
FRANK: “How so?”
WOMAN: “I don’t want a government bureaucrat
dictating my healthcare. And socialized medicine opens
the door for people to freeload on people like me who
do pay their own way—not to mention the fact that thecountry will go bankrupt trying to pay for all of them.”

Perhaps.
And something deeper, too. There’s a conflict unfolding
in town halls, living rooms, and bars all across this country:
a conflict between our nation’s values of freedom and

FRANK: “I don’t support creating a system that’s easy
to abuse, and I certainly don’t want the country to go
bankrupt. I just worry that what we have now is not as
effective as it could be. For example, many uninsured

This article was originally published in August 2009 and is reprinted with permission.

35

36

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

				Americans use the ER for primary care and face unimaginable debt as a result. Those costs are sometimes passedalong to taxpayers, too.”

WOMAN: “OK, so, you don’t want to dictate my
choices—you want to expand and improve my options?
And, you’ll do this only if it’s financially responsible?”

WOMAN: “So, this new government program won’t
run up the deficit?”

FRANK: “Yes . . . And, you agree there’s room for
improvement in the system we have now?”FRANK: “I’m not interested in exchanging personalbankruptcy for national bankruptcy. I’m afraid thatmillions of Americans don’t have a choice. They wanta choice just like you and me.”WOMAN: “I do. So, where do we go from here,
Congressman?”WOMAN: “How so?”
FRANK: “Millions lack insurance, not because they
don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. Millions
more are at risk of losing coverage because of job loss.
Others can’t secure quality coverage because they’vebeen sick before . . .”WOMAN: “. . . Yeah, when my aunt started her own
business, the insurance company wouldn’t cover her
for like five years because she’d had breast cancer . . .“FRANK: “And, what a terrible choice for her to have to
make—follow her heart, or stay in a job she might not
enjoy to keep the health benefits she must have . . .”FRANK: “I’m not sure. What I do know is that, at theend of the day, we both want a healthcare system thatworks.”
This imagined exchange may seem idealistic, yet theactual conversation between Barney Frank and his constituent that day mirrors many national conversations
on this subject. We seem stuck in an either/or mindset,
where being right is the end game, and we’re missing
a vital opportunity.
If we want the most robust solution possible, we must
approach complicated issues from a both/and perspective, one that acknowledges the merits hidden within
our opposing viewpoints. In matters of life and death,the very essence of healthcare, let us rise to a higher
purpose, ferreting out healthcare that works—for allof us. n

WOMAN: “. . . Right . . .”FRANK: “. . . What we’re missing in this country is asafety net and a way to foster new competition within
the insurance market, increasing affordability andaccessibility for everyone.”abo u t th e a u thors
Margaret Seidler is a Polarity Management Master and the principal of Seidler & Associates, LLC.
margaret@margaretseidler.com
Jennifer Holladay is director of School Development and Support, Denver Public Schools, and a former seniorstaff member at the Southern Poverty Law Center. jenniferholladay@me.com

B ook e x c e rpt | Z h e x e mbay e va

37

book e x c e rpt 1 4 . 2

Overfished Ocean Strategy
Five Principles That Make It Work
N adya Z h e x e mbay e va
Resources are being depleted at an alarming rate, and the cost of raw materials is rising dramatically. The linear,throwaway economy—in which we extract resources at one end and throw them away at the other—is rapidly coming
to an end. Nadya Zhexembayeva argues that, as a result, businesses need to make resource scarcity their primarystrategic consideration, not just a concern for their “green” divisions. In this chapter from Overfished Ocean Strategy,
she offers five essential principles for innovating in this new reality. Through examples from real companies, sheshows how businesses can find new opportunities by taking the old, linear model and turning it into a circular one.

It is green, dense, and surprisingly light. Fitting perfectly inthe palm of my hand, it leaves
a light, oily residue on myskin. It is fragrant (just a touchof soft, alluring smell) andtextured (it looks like thousands of little worms squishedNadya
together). It goes against
Zhexembayeva
everything we are taught by
conventional strategy theory. And it is an amazingly
powerful symbol of the new era dawning.

Reprinted withpermission from BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc.
From Overfished Ocean
Strategy: Powering Up
Innovation for a ResourceDeprived World
Nadya Zhexembayeva
Copyright © 2014 by
Nadya Zhexembayeva.
All Rights Reserved.

Intrigued? While you are trying to guess what exactly
I am holding in my hand, let me set the context to
spice up the big reveal.

ø
Popular strategic thought tells us that to competewell, we need to find the most advantageous positionin the crowded market space and stick to it. Michael E.
Porter is the guru at the helm of this thinking, and his
famous menu of “generic” strategies suggests that in
the tough search for ideal positioning, we are to maketwo primary choices.1 The first choice is between priceand differentiation. Do you compete on cost, striving

for the most competitive (read cheap) production on
the market, or do you have something unique to offerthat differentiates you from other, cheaper competitors?
The second choice is about focusing your efforts: doyou want to target a specific segment (narrow focus) or
the entire universe of consumers (broad, global market
scope)? The two choices set into a two-by-two grid will
present you with four possible options making up theentire landscape of the market to consider.

38

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

Play with brands of your favorite product—say, a smartphone—and you will immediately see which strategy
is pursued. Today, Apple’s iPhone is conquering themarket with a unique differentiation strategy—it canhardly be called the most cost-attractive smartphoneon the market, but the company is pursuing a broad
market scope. The Vertu cell phone, in contrast, is adifferentiation-clad product made attractive to a very
narrow segment on the market—a luxury brand for asmall slice of the consumer pie. The LG Optimus smartphone is a choice that pursues cost leadership—at 		a price one-tenth that of the iPhone—with a broad,global appeal. Huawei (ever heard of this one?)—thethird-largest cell-phone producer on the market2—
offers the even cheaper Y-300 model targeted at Asia’s“ant tribe community,” which refers to young people
who go to the city for a better life but get stuck with
low-paid jobs and high costs to live there.

“It’s not that we need new ideas, but
we need to stop having old ideas.”— Edwin Land, Founder, Polaroid

mini mill. In a mini mill, you melt scrap in electric 		
furnaces, and you could easily fit four of them in thisroom.”3 The author of an impressive collection of books
and one of the most celebrated strategic thinkers of ourtime, Clayton Christensen is telling a story of disruptive
innovation he has shared with thousands before.
“The most important thing about a mini mill is that you
can make steel for 20 percent lower cost than you canmake it in an integrated mill. Now, imagine you’re theCEO of a steel company somewhere. In a really goodyear, your net profit will be 2 to 4 percent. Here is a technology that would reduce the cost of making steel by
20 percent. Don’t you think you’d adopt it?” The answer
to Christensen’s question is so obvious, it almost turns
the inquiry into rhetoric. Yet why is it that no integrated
steel companies anywhere in the world have built a mini
mill—even though it would save them from bankruptcy,
which caught up with all but one integrated mill by
2012? The answer, as Christensen suggests, is the coredilemma for any innovator in any industry, anywherein the world.

Once you explore the marketplace and find your own
unique position, the question becomes, how do you
maintain it? What can you do to preserve your stake?
The logical answer would be to keep doing what you
are doing—and continue to get better at it. If you are
selling a product that is uniquely different, keep pushing it forward and upward; add features; build newbells and whistles, and more of them. If you are goingfor cost leadership, keep driving down the cost withmore efficiencies and better processes. And that isexactly where the problem lies.

In the steel industry, as in your own industry, many tiers
make up the market. The lowest-cost products are at thebottom of the market: for steel, that would be concrete
reinforcing bar, or rebar. Any company can make rebar,
while steel for cars, appliances, and many other pricier
products is much harder to produce. Rebar happened
to be the only market that mini mills were capable ofserving at the beginning. Then, mini mills used scrap
to produce steel, and the quality was low. Reinforcement bars get buried in cement, have almost no
specifications, and thus can be made of low-quality
steel. And thus, mini mills set off to conquer the rebar
market with all their might.

“For those of you who haven’t made a lot of steel,historically there are two ways to make it. Most of theworld’s steel has been made by massive integrated
steel companies. The other way to do it is to build a

What about the integrated mills? Well, they were happy
to give up the rebar market. As a commodity, reinforcement bar is a low-margin product, so dropping it would
allow for shifting the focus on angle iron and thickerB ook e x c e rpt | Z h e x e mbay e va

iron and rods and bring home a higher margin. While
the mini mills built-up their rebar capacity, the integrated mills shut down rebar lines—and enjoyed ahigher gross-margin profitability. Everyone was happy.
The mini mills were enjoying a piece of the pie, while
the integrated mills got better performances. And
then came 1979.
It was the year when mini mills celebrated their final
victory, driving the last of the integrated mills out of thereinforcement bar market. But the happiness was shortlived: the price of rebar fell by a whopping 20 percent.
It turned out that a low-cost strategy makes you competitive only when there is a high-priced competitor.
With all the high-cost integrated mills out of the game,mini mills had to look for a new way to make money.
Making better quality steel was the only way forward—
and for the integrated mills, it was a new chance to 		
get rid of another low-margin product. So the story
repeated itself again and again.
This climb up the hill to the top of the market—continuous improvement of bells and whistles in products,
services, and processes—is what most big companies
do as they try to survive. They do exactly as demandedby the customer, trying for a better version of the product, hiking up the market tiers, until there is nowhere
else to climb. And at just about that time, a newcomer
comes along, offering a completely different—cheaper
or more appealing—alternative, sending the big companies down the drain. Remember the story of Kodak,
a company that misjudged the charm of digital photography and went bankrupt in 2012? Or how about thestruggle of Nokia, once the top-of-the-world producerof cell phones, which failed to notice the growing
appeal of smartphones?
As with the slow collapse of the integrated steel industry, they, too, were not too big to fall. Christensen calls
this all-too-familiar story of old-versus-new “disruptive
innovation.”

And it is precisely this kind of innovation that I am
holding in my hand in the photo below. So what is it?
Take a close look. A soap bar? A spinach hamburger? A
sponge? Some sort of energy tablet? An eco-macaroon?
A new-age vitamin pill? A breakthrough detergent?
Before you is the equivalent of not one, not two, butthree bottles of shampoo—all squished into one solidbar. That is the way to disrupt!

Pop Quiz. Is this a beauty product, a fertilizer,
or something good to eat?

ø
What do we sell when we sell shampoo? What end
benefit do the customers get? What is the value? Clean
hair, indeed. What ingredient need not be supplied toensure this desired outcome, as it is always available?
Water, indeed. So why do we pump water, processwater, bottle water, package water, store water, transport water, sell water, and waste plastic post-water towash our hair, when water is the only ingredient thatis not necessary to provide?
That was exactly the starting point for Lush Fresh
Handmade Cosmetics, a 20-year-old UK brand, when it
started working on its solid-shampoo line. According
to the company, “The inventors worked with Stan
Krysztal”—one of the leading cosmetic chemists ofGreat Britain—“to create these very clever little bars;

39

40

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

an effective, hardworking shampoo base, quality
ingredients, beautiful fragrances and, best of all, require
no packaging. Handy for travelling, compact and easy
to use, each bar is roughly the equivalent of threeplastic bottles of shampoo. These humble bars are(probably) one of the greatest inventions we’ve evercome up with.”4 The Lush team loves to talk about it.
But what about the customers? Naturally, a numberof customers would refuse such a strange-looking
shampoo option. My baby brother is one of them.
Whenever he visits us in Europe, I have to make aconscious effort to restock his bathroom. “I am anormal person,” he claims. “I like my soap solid andmy shampoo liquid, and not the other way around!”Yet by any measure other than my brother’s comfort
zone, Lush’s solid invention has been a great successsince its launch in 2007, capturing rave reviews and asolid (pun intended!) customer following. Here is one
such review from a rather conventional consumer—		
a Boston.com writer’s take:
Trust me, I was skeptical too. A rock of shampoo, 		eh? Sounds about as effective as a steel wool pad asconditioner. But after trying it multiple times at an
adult sleepover—don’t judge—I slowly became convinced. The stone of shampoo seems to last forever(if you keep it in a dry place after use), and it comesin a variety of scents. I recently picked up cinnamonand clove. But most importantly, it’s pretty damn
effective. The shampoo itself lathers nicely (sorry tosound like a Prell commercial . . . wait, do they still
make that?) and at about $10 a rock, it’s a better
deal than it appears.”5
But the glowing reviews and growing revenues are 		
not the only business victories for Lush solid shampoo;on the other side of the business continuum, the company is also doing well with costs. As of 2013, Lush has
avoided producing, bottling, and distributing six million

plastic bottles globally by selling shampoo bars—countin 2.6 ounces (or 75 grams) of plastic saved per shampoo
bar, and multiply that by all the savings in energy andlabor costs that would have been incurred designing,producing, bottling, and storing the bottles.6 Annual
water savings from producing the solid shampoos arenearly 120,000 gallons (or 450,000 liters) globally, whiletransportation savings are beyond surprising: whencalculated per wash, transportation costs are 15 times
less than those of liquid shampoo. Additional resource
intelligence comes in a form of raw-material savings:
the bar has no preservatives, as there is no liquid content requiring preservation. And with a scale of 830
stores in 51 countries carrying the product (which
nearly doubled from 2007’s 438-strong chain), strengthened revenues and intelligent cost structure for theunusual product are a welcome performance outcome
for the once-tiny underdog of the cosmetics industry.

øThe story of Lush solid shampoo is a story of radical
innovation. While the traditional majority of cosmetics
companies are fighting for a share of the difficult
consumer market with more appealing packaging andstronger advertising campaigns, and while the ecoconscious minority is struggling with recycled plastic
and third-party “green” certification, Lush goes well
below the surface and delivers an entirely new way oflooking at a product. Once a barely known company
that started with a sausage machine in the messy
workshop of a nearly bankrupt husband-and-wife team,Lush has put into question the essential value deliveredby traditional shampoos and paved the way for an entirely new way of thinking.7 Lush’s solid-shampoo bar
exemplifies the company’s production standards. About
70 percent of the products sold require no packaging,much of the product range has no synthetic raw materials, and over 70 percent of the range is totally unpreserved. For Lush, this approach to resources is simply
business as usual. For most of us, it is anything but.

B ook e x c e rpt | Z h e x e mbay e va

In its unexpected take on resource intelligence, Lushis not alone. OMV, an integrated oil and gas company
that supplies 200 million people in Central and Eastern
Europe with energy, calls it resourcefulness. This term,
which smells of ingenuity in the age of the Great 		
Recession, captures the new essence of survival. “As oneof the leading European oil and gas companies, OMV
faces major challenges to which only innovative thinking can be the answer,” OMV explains. “Global energy
requirements are increasing significantly. At the sametime, environmental protection and social justice are of
growing importance. The demands placed on us grow“We are currently not planningon conquering the world.”— Sergey Brin, Cofounder, Google

as we expand our operations. This is why we made being
careful with our resources one of our basic business principles.” OMV Resourcefulness Strategy demands thatevery one of the company’s 29,000 employees face
the fundamental question of the collapse of the linear
throwaway economy—and take it as a productive
challenge.8 As such, it is a strategy that deliberately
tackles both natural and human resources. On one hand,the company runs extensive eco-efficiency and ecoinnovation programs to reinvent the way it provides forthe energy needs of its customers. Hydrogen (fuel cell)
mobility, biofuels, and water and carbon management
all are under this umbrella. On the other hand, OMV
looks at the diversity, skills, and community engagementof its employees as key resources of the future, and runs
comprehensive programs to protect and grow this capital. When I visited the company’s biggest refinery in thesummer of 2013, I was surprised to learn that even theapprentices—high schoolers striving to get trained andemployed by OMV—look at the issues of resources in a
broader sense. “We sell something that is disappearing.

So the question for us is what to sell next, so that allof us don’t disappear, too,” said a shy 16-year-old.
Trendwatching.com, the leading consumer trend
reporting company, gave the new wave of strategic
resource intelligence a catchy name—Eco-Superior. It
flagged this trend in 2011 as among its 11 most important consumer demands for the year, and again in 2013
as one that is here to stay. Here is why: “When it comesto ‘green consumption,’ expect a rise in ECO-SUPERIOR
products: products that are not only eco-friendly, but
superior to polluting incumbents in every possible way.
Think a combination of eco-friendly yet superior functionality, superior design, and/or superior savings.”
Among the products and innovation highlighted byTrendwatching is the Throw & Grow confetti sold by the
Netherlands-based gift store niko niko. The confetti ismade of biodegradable material embedded with wildflower seeds; when the confetti is used, it can be left
on the ground or discarded onto soil to disintegrate
naturally and grow into flowers. Another innovation on
the list is a billboard that generates drinkable water—
9,000 liters of it in three months—thanks to Peru’s
University of Technology and Engineering (UTEC). The
Torre de Especialidades building of the Mexico City
hospital also makes the cut—it now absorbs and breaks
down chemicals in the surrounding air. Using Prosolve370etiles, developed by Berlin-based design firm Elegant
Embellishments, the building features tiles painted withtitanium dioxide, which interacts with UV light to break
down pollution into less toxic chemicals.9
Together with Lush, OMV, and Trendwatching.com,
Design Hotels elevated the search for innovation for a
resource-deprived world to the level of core strategy.
A 20-year-old company that represents and markets a
carefully selected collection of 250 independent hotels
in over 40 countries across the globe, Design Hotels
refers to this new strategic effort as Finding Infinity. “Welive in the age of sound bites, of short attention spans,of celebrity worship. First-term politicians seem to want

41

42

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

only one thing: a second term.” Is there a vaccine against
our collective short-sightedness? For Design Hotels,
there is. With a goal of replacing today’s fuels with clean
and endlessly renewable alternatives, the company has
initiated a “full-speed-ahead-no-time-to-lose movement. . . setting a path for a future based on infinite resources.”
The company has joined intellectual forces with a number of inventors and change makers, such as a young
Australian engineer named Ross Harding, who createdFinding Infinity. The resulting program, named “Design
Hotels is Finding Infinity,” attacks the essential problemof the disappearing linear economy. 10 “The world is
powered by fuels that will run out in two lifetimes. This
is not our problem—it’s our opportunity!” declares thepowerful partnership.
Pursuing this opportunity is what I call the Overfished
Ocean Strategy.

Overfished Ocean Strategy
In their 2005 blockbuster Blue Ocean Strategy, W. Chan
Kim and Renée Mauborgne invited the business world toleave behind the crowded waters of the existing market

and instead search for—or create demand in—theuncontested market space.11 “The only way to beat thecompetition is to stop trying to beat the competition.
In red oceans, the industry boundaries are definedand accepted, and the competitive rules of the gameare known. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant
because the rules of the game are waiting to be set.”
Kim and Mauborgne’s invitation offered a striking contrast to Michael Porter’s positioning concept. With thepowerful advice of the latter, companies for decades
claimed their victory by finding the best spot—aunique position on the crowded competitive landscape.12 Following the fresh invitation of the former,
other companies strived to avoid the crowd by discovering a new market space—swimming into the “blueocean” waters far away from shark-filled blood-red existing markets.13 What a great idea! However, at the core,
the “blue ocean” companies studied by Kim andMauborgne operate and invent within the same resource constraints as their “red ocean” counterparts,
oblivious to the collapsing linear economy and all thepressures associated with it. As the linear throwawayB ook e x c e rpt | Z h e x e mbay e va

economy is approaching its collapse, this old economicorder is running its course. Whether red, blue, or rainbow, the oceans are getting excruciatingly empty, andthose managers who deeply understand and master thisshift are able to use the new reality to power up radical
innovation and secure a remarkable competitive advantage. As they ride ahead of the wave, new products, newbusiness models, new markets, and new profits follow.
Behold the Overfished Ocean Strategy.
A new economy is being born, transforming the collapsing linear throwaway economy into a more lasting, moreabundant, more sustainable version of itself. The transformation brings about a new economic reality, where
we compete and win using a radically new set of rules.
While the companies, people, and projects pioneering
these new rules are still rare, there are enough of themto suggest the first few essential principles that allow
managers to innovate their way into a new world. Five
new rules of the trade—five essential “secrets”—appear
increasingly important for individuals and companies
eager to power up a new strategic direction and secure
the source of a truly sustainable value:• One: From line to circle.
• Two: From vertical to horizontal.
• Three: From growth to growth.
• Four: From plan to model.
• Five: From department to mind-set.

That path, however, is not new at all—indeed, it has
been perfected over the course of millions of years by
nature itself. You see, nature does not have waste. Wasteof one process becomes food for another, in perpetual
cycle. When an animal dies, its body is not thrown intoa landfill; instead, it becomes a source of valuable nutrition for millions of bacteria that in turn produce waste
products that are essential for the formation of soil.
Soil in turn churns out vegetables, consumed by thosesame animals.

Similarly, the line that describes the global value chainof goods and services can be transformed into a circle,
where the waste of one process becomes food for another. The “Cradle to Cradle” approach and many otherpotent concepts have turned companies that have discovered this secret into industry champions. From line
to circle is the central principle of the Overfished Ocean
Strategy, but to make it work, four more “secrets” areessential.

Two: From Vertical to Horizontal

One: From Line to Circle

Imagine the global value chain of the industry you’re in.
This long line consists of many steps: upstream, reaching to your company, and downstream, touching yourcustomers, consumers, and end-of-life entities. Thisline is also many layers deep, with different industries
feeding and interacting with each other. Growing up
in business, we are taught to look downstream, paying
attention to our customers and consumers. We are asked
to pay attention to our immediate suppliers—to makesure that we have secured prices and quantities. But
even more so, we are asked to pay utmost attention
to the vertical cut in this chain—our competitors.

The rapid decline of resources—from coal to tuna tovitamin C in a typical tomato—means that one way or
another, all of us will have to find a new path forward.

Surely, mainstream strategic thought invites us to 		
pay attention to the whole of five forces in business

Together, these approaches inspire radical change anddrive disruptive innovation across countries and industries—and my task is to make them work for you too.
In the chapters that follow, I invite you to explore eachof the principles in depth and discover companies thathave already mastered them. Here is an introduction
to this very different—and very hopeful—future.

43

44

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

It is precisely in the service of
creating more with less—designinga total solution, a uniqueexperience—where growth lies.
(competitors, consumers, suppliers, new entrants, andsubstitutes),14 but in reality, most dig into the competition, positioning their businesses uniquely in that narrow vertical cut of a global value chain. Yet in the worldof rapidly declining resources, this choice might just be
the one that kills you—along with the entire competitive
space. Surely, you might have the best price or the mostunique set of product features, but failure to noticechanges far away at the left or the right of the value
chain might cause elimination of the entire product line,
company, and even industry. We must learn to movefrom a vertical to a horizontal orientation, going beyond
the boundaries of our company to the risks—and 		
opportunities—hiding within the entire system.

Three: From Growth to Growth
Ask managers in Atlanta, Delhi, or Copenhagen where
their growth comes from, and they will give you a clear
answer: selling more. Yet in a world constrained by 		
every type of resource, including landfill space, only
one type of “selling more” is possible. We are taught tolook at our businesses in terms of our products—even
the financial services industry uses the term “product.”Yet it is precisely in the service of creating more withless—designing a total solution, a unique experience—
where growth lies.
The surprise is that once you sell a total solution, rather
than get attached to one specific product, you are
eternally motivated to innovate with the highest levelof resource intelligence. Once we put aside products
and start selling relevance, the question changes. It is
not “To grow or not to grow?” but “What do you wantto grow?”

Four: From Plan to Model
What do we do when we want to launch something
new? How do we turn a hunch, an idea, into a true, commercially successful innovation? The “normal” decadesold path looks something like this: develop a solid,
detailed plan (five years seems to be the assumption
behind most business plans); get financial backing(budget approval in the existing corporation or investment/loan for a start-up); develop your product to perfection; and sell as much as you can. But for the world ofoverfished oceans, planning is overrated. In the face of
extreme uncertainty, plans become obsolete in no time.
The only way to make the new reality work is to constantly adapt your business to the new reality—treating
it as a strategic priority rather than a short-lived sidekick
to the core business. For companies mastering theB ook e x c e rpt | Z h e x e mbay e va

a result, the hero becomes nothing more than a scapegoat—a poor soul in charge of meaningless glossy 		reports and pet projects. The new market reality demands
a new mind-set, a new way for the entire company tolook at the world, rather than a new scapegoat. As thismind-set takes over all functions and all layers of thecompany hierarchy, you can learn how to discover value
where it was previously invisible and impossible.

Overfished Ocean Strategy, business modeling, rather
than strategic planning, is the name of the game. Unlike
cumbersome, static, and rigid plans, models are agile,
evolving, and open to change. Modeling, rather thanplanning, is the key to turning line to circle—andmaking money in the process.

Five: From Department to Mind-Set
Every crisis calls for a hero—a new department, a new
VP, a new project manager is born. Unfortunately, whenit comes to the fundamental changes in the marketplace
driven by the disappearing linear economy, a few “converted” can hardly make a dent in the way that processes,
products, and services are developed and delivered. As

For companies mastering theOverfished Ocean Strategy, businessmodeling, rather than strategicplanning, is the name of the game.
Unlike cumbersome, static, and rigid
plans, models are agile, evolving,and open to change.

The five big secrets I am laying before you are not meant
to be a complete and comprehensive set. Rather, these
are a few brushstrokes among the many trends thatdefine the background of the emerging Overfished
Ocean Strategy. Together, these five principles pave 		
the way for the emergence of the world that is yet tocome—one that takes the line and turns it into a circle,
channeling the art of resourcefulness into the world of
infinity. In the following chapters, we will explore eachof these principles, or disciplines, in depth, travelingthrough the many companies that have invented theirway into the new economic order. Trust me, there isplenty for all of us. n

45

46

r e f l e ctions | vol u m e 1 4 , N u mb e r 2

ENDNOTES
1. 		 For more on Michael Porter’s work, see “Porter’s Generic Strategies,” Wikipedia.
2. 		 Huawei is eager to go beyond its current market focus to capture the global market. For more, see Kristie Lu Stout, “Would
You Buy a Huawei Smartphone?” CNN, May 16, 2013.
3. 		 I have borrowed these words of Clayton M. Christensen from a wonderful article by Larissa MacFarquhar, “When Giants Fail,”
New Yorker, May 14, 2012. You can find much more of Christensen’s powerful research in his own book The Innovator’s
Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business (New York: HarperCollins, 2011, reprint edition).
4. 		 For the story of the Lush solid bar development, see Lush.
5. 		 Christopher Muther, “Beauty Bet: Lush’s Solid Shampoo,” Boston.com, May 24, 2011.
6. 		 Lush received an important award for the ingenious packaging of its solid shampoo; see RSA, ”Lush ‘Squeaky Green’:
Best Green Packaging Award,” 2008.
7. 		 For the full story of Mark and Mo Constantine, the founders of Lush, see David Teather, “Lush Couple with a Shed Loadof Ideas,” Guardian, April 13, 2007.
8. 		 For an in-depth look at the OMV Resourcefulness approach, see OMV Group.
9.		 Eco-Superior was one of five trends described in Trendwatching.com’s July/August 2013 Trend Briefing, Trends: Refreshed.
10. For more on the “Design Hotels is Finding Infinity” initiative, see “Finding a Future Based on Infinite Resources,” Design
Hotels.
11. If Blue Ocean Strategy is new to you, you can start your exploration with Blue Ocean Strategy, Wikipedia.
12. The work of Michael E. Porter, such as Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors(New York: The Free Press, 1998), is the best illustration of the positioning approach.
13. For more on this approach, see W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market
Space and Make Competition Irrelevant (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2004).
14. Michael Porter has advocated for the five forces analysis for a number of decades now; see “Porter Five Forces Analysis,”
Wikipedia.

abo u t th e a u thor
Nadya Zhexembayeva is a business owner, author, and educator working at the intersection of innovation,
leadership, and sustainable growth. She serves as the Coca-Cola Chaired Professor of Sustainable Development
at IEDC-Bled School of Management, chairs the Resourcefulness Advisory Board at OMV, sits on the Advisory
Board of the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value at Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve
University, and serves as Vice-President of Challenge:Future, a global student think-DO-tank and innovationcompetition. nadya.zhexembayeva@gmail.com

Reflections

The SoL North America Journal
on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

Volume 14, Number 2

Ed i t o r i a l T e a m
Managing Editor
Janice Molloy
Contributing Editor
Deborah Wallace
PublisherFrank Schneider

S u b scr i p t i o n Op t i o n s
To order online and for a full descriptionof subscription options, please visit our website.
Receive Reflections (and many other member
benefits) by becoming a SoL NA Connections
Member:• USD$200 U.S. (electronic edition only)
Receive Reflections (and many other member
benefits) by becoming a SoL NA Student Member:• USD$85 U.S. (electronic edition only)
Receive Reflections by becoming an Institutional
Subscriber:• USD$195 U.S. (single use, electronic edition only)
To receive Reflections as a SoL NA Organization
Member, please contact Frank Schneider, SoL NA
President/CEO, at frank@solonline.org.

© iStockphoto/SandroBassi

ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2015 by the Society for Organizational Learning North America.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational Learning
North America.
Design & Production: NonprofitDesign.com

The Society for Organizational Learning, SoL, changed
its name to SoL North America in November 2014.
Reflections: The SoL North America Journal is publishedby the Society for Organizational Learning North
America. Inquiries regarding subscriptions, addresschanges, back issues, reprints, and permission requests
should be directed to:reflections@solonline.org
Reflections: The SoL North America Journal
One Broadway, 14th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142 USA+1.617.300.9500 (phone)+1.617.812.1257 (fax)E-mail: reflections@solonline.org
www.solonline.org