Reflections

Volume 14, Number 3

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

FEATURE ARTICLESPeter Senge on the 25th
Anniversary of The Fifth
Discipline

Peter Senge with Frank Schneider
and Deborah Wallace

Inside-Out Collaboration:
An Integrated Approach toWorking Beyond SilosDavid Willcock

The Manager as Mediator:
First Manage You
Judy Ringer

Commentary

Sheila Heen and Debbie Goldstein
B ook E x ce r pt

Systems Thinking forSocial Change: Making
an Explicit ChoiceDavid Peter Stroh© Thinkstock/Design Pics

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

ii

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

publishe r ’ s N ote 1 4 . 3

T

his issue of Reflections
celebrates the 25th anniversary of the publicationof Peter Senge’s classic book,
The Fifth Discipline: The Art andPractice of the Learning Organization. A global bestseller, 		
The Fifth Discipline created 		Frank Schneider
a common language aboutchange and raised awareness about the need fororganizations—and the individuals in them—to develop the capacity to continually learn. By offering a setof guiding principles for meaningful collaboration,
personal development, and systemic change, the bookbecame and remains a key resource for organizations
around the world.
We start the issue with an interview of Peter Senge 		by Frank Schneider and Deborah Wallace, in which they
discuss the global impact of The Fifth Discipline and 		the evolution of Peter’s thinking over the last 25 years.
Peter identifies three key principles for success in applying this body of work and emphasizes the importanceof seeing failure as an opportunity for learning. He 		
also talks about next generation leaders and how
they might contribute to the evolution of the field 		
by moving it deeper into different cultural contexts.
In “Inside-Out Collaboration: An Integrated Approachto Working Beyond Silos,” David Willcock looks at how,more than two decades after the publication of The Fifth
Discipline, people in many organizations still struggle
to partner effectively across boundaries. David offers
what he calls an “inside-out” approach that starts withleaders, who act as catalysts for successful collaborations
throughout the organization. His “Relationship Review
Framework” details three behaviors that, once in place,can lead to productive working relationships.

In his interview in this issue, Peter Senge talks about
the emergence of practices that complement thoseincluded in The Fifth Discipline. In “The Manager asMediator: First Manage You,” Judy Ringer looks at one
example: the Japanese martial art Aikido. As Judy has
discovered through years of on-the-ground experience,the costs associated with unaddressed conflict far outweigh those involved in resolving them. She shows
how principles from Aikido can help people overcome
differences by shifting their internal stance away fromconflict and toward curiosity about their “opponent.”
Finally, the book excerpt for this issue focuses on theapplication of systems thinking tools in tackling social
issues. In this chapter from Systems Thinking for Social
Change: Making an Explicit Choice, David Peter Strohexplains the importance of aligning short-terms actions
with long-term goals. When people are aware of boththeir current reality and their true purpose, they are better equipped to deal with the dilemma of maintaining orchanging the status quo and can make more conscious
commitments to their highest aspirations.
While the focus of this issue was to share the evolutionof ideas and practices spawned by The Fifth Discipline, it
is also our intention to demonstrate the staying powerof Peter’s work. As shown in the articles we’ve included,
the ideas that were timely 25 years ago—the importanceof community and collaboration, the role of capacitybuilding in service of real learning, the necessity of taking
into account the cultural context, and the obligation
to solve the world’s most serious issues systemically—
have proven increasingly relevant today. As membersof the SoL community, and more broadly, as membersof society, it is our responsibility to continue to advancethe practice of these important concepts and to staycommitted to deep, collective, and systemic learningfor high-leverage action. n		Frank Schneider, PublisherE x ecutive D igeste x ecutive digest 1 4 . 3Peter Senge on the 25th Anniversaryof The Fifth Discipline

The Manager as Mediator:
First Manage You

Peter Senge with Frank Schneider and Deborah Wallace

Judy Ringer

Although it was published 25 years ago, The Fifth
Discipline continues to have a profound influence onorganizations around the world. What accounts for its
lasting relevance, and how has the way people workand learn together changed in that time? In this interview with Reflections, Peter Senge talks about what 		he has learned since the initial publication of The Fifth
Discipline and from the global response it has generated. He also discusses how his thinking has evolved
over time and the impact the field of organizational
learning continues to have in today’s context. Peter
highlights the importance of learning communities 		
like SoL for helping groups of people translate goodideas into an enhanced capacity for effective action—
the true definition of learning.

In today’s workplace, where time is a precious commodity, why should managers or leaders get involved
in resolving conflict among members of their teams?
One reason is that, in many cases, it takes more time
not to help address conflict than to constructively intervene. But before managers can successfully guide others
in managing disagreements, they first need to be able
to manage themselves. According to research, a manager’s attitude toward conflict is crucial in determining
how an impasse is resolved. In this article, Judy Ringer
describes five practices based on the martial art Aikido
that managers can follow to set the stage for positive
resolutions. Through this process, they also increase
their leadership presence, power, and clarity of purpose.
Book Excerpt

Inside-Out Collaboration: An Integrated
Approach to Working Beyond Silos

Systems Thinking for Social Change:
Making an Explicit ChoiceDavid Willcock

David Peter StrohPeople in separate divisions or teams of an organization often speak different “languages,” which can makeit difficult for them to understand and relate to eachother. The costs of this kind of “silo working” can behigh: lack of shared learning and innovation; unproductive conflict and stress; and significant financial costs
due to program failures. In this article, David Willcock
draws insights from psychology and organizational
development theory and practice to provide a framework for building and maintaining productive relationships across organizational boundaries. Through an
integrated approach to collaboration that includes 		the individual, team, and organization, managers andleaders can serve as catalysts for “partnership working,”
which can ultimately lead to high performance andcompetitive advantage.

One principle of complex systems is that they are
perfectly designed to produce the results they areachieving. But all too often, these results are contrary
to what we really want to accomplish. In this excerpt
from his book Systems Thinking for Social Change(Chelsea Green, 2015), systems consultant DavidPeter Stroh points out that surfacing the discrepancy
between what we want a system to achieve and theresults it is currently achieving is a powerful force forconstructive change. Acknowledging this difference
prompts us to question not only our assumptions about
how things are supposed to work, but also our intentions about what is most important to us and what wewant to accomplish. The article identifies four steps foraligning people’s espoused purpose with the purpose
their current actions are designed to achieve.

iiifeatu r e | senge , schneide r , and wallace

featu r e 1 4 . 3Peter Senge on the 25th Anniversaryof The Fifth Discipline
pete r senge with f r ank schneide r and D ebo r ah Wallace
Although it was published 25 years ago, The Fifth Discipline continues to have a profound influence onorganizations around the world. What accounts for its lasting relevance, and how has the way people workand learn together changed in that time? In this interview with Reflections, Peter Senge talks about what hehas learned since the initial publication of The Fifth Discipline and from the global response it has generated.
He also discusses how his thinking has evolved over time and the impact the field of organizational learning
continues to have in today’s context. Peter highlights the importance of learning communities like SoL for
helping groups of people translate good ideas into an enhanced capacity for effective action—the true
definition of learning.

REFLECTIONS: What impact do you
think The Fifth Discipline has had overthe past 25 years?
PETER SENGE: A lot has changedin the world in 25 years, but to me italways feels like we’re doing more orless the same thing. Complementary
Peter Senge
Frank Schneider
Deborah Wallace
tools and methods have evolvedthat didn’t exist 25 years ago, like Theory U and the Presencing tools. Because of this evolution, we can
now see the larger field of know-how that is emerging, what we have started to call “awareness-based
systemic change.” But nothing that we do has changed so terribly.
The work has always been about how the systems that shape our
The work has always been about
lives function as they do because of how we function. Whether we
use the language of mental models or “sensing” and “presencing,” real
how the systems that shape ourchange involves both the “inner” and the “outer,” both how we see thelives function as they do becauseworld and what we truly care about as well as what we measure andof how we function.
how we organize. So the work has both evolved and stayed the same.
In many ways, the main thing that has changed is the context for thework. Twenty-five years ago, all of the initial practical experiences were in the business world. Today, we
work in a much broader variety of organizations. A lot of the most interesting projects for me have beencross-organizational and even cross-sectoral projects, involving business, civil society, and government.
So in that sense, there has been a significant evolution in the application domains. Otherwise, a lot of
the basics really haven’t changed much.

1

2

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

A story might make this more concrete. The Fifth
Discipline was originally translated and publishedin Taiwan in 1994–1995 and then found its way
into Mainland China in 1996 or 1997, where it
became popular. I remember seeing a list of nonfiction bestsellers in Shanghai in 1998, and The
Fifth Discipline was number two, behind Stephen
Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. I thought thatwas pretty good company.

the ideas are mine, because I was the sole authorof the first book. One reason I like the subsequent
fieldbooks is that they clearly demonstrate thatthe work has always arisen from a community ofpractitioners, consultants, and researchers. In fact,
every book since the original The Fifth Discipline
has been jointly authored.

Real Learning
REFLECTIONS: How has your thinking and work
evolved over time?

If anything, The Fifth Discipline
is more relevant today than it wasin 1990.
In 2011, The Fifth Discipline, along with the rest of
the books in the series—The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Schools That Learn, The Dance of Change, andPresence—was retranslated and republished in
China. The next year, it was the number one bestselling business book in China, and two years later
it was the number two bestselling book in China.
That says something about the relevance of theideas, the tools, and the basic spirit of the bookover a long period of time. So I don’t think therelevance has changed at all. If anything, it’smore relevant today than it was in 1990.
With this particular sort of success, people tend toover-attribute things to you. People tend to think

SENGE: Who can remember how they werethinking and feeling 25 years ago? We’re all victimsof retrospective sense-making, right? We lookback at the past from where we are today. I wasvery confident about the relevance of the tools
and ideas when the book came out, and the reason
for that was simple. We had had 10 years of experience with these tools prior to the publicationof the book, through lots of consulting and training and initial research projects. We even had
a CEO group that met regularly at MIT throughout the 1980s.
So The Fifth Discipline was a reflection on and an
attempt to organize 10 years of previous experience, which was really the reason for writing thebook. There was no question that the basic tools
and ideas were enormously useful for people. I
remember sitting on an airplane one day, looking
out the window and seeing a bunch of droplets

featu r e | senge , schneide r , and wallace

and thinking, This book will sell a million copies.
It was just that clear to me, even though it wasa crazy thing to say for an unknown body of workby an unknown writer. But it was because of theprior practical experience, not only on my partbut on the part of a large number of people.
I knew how useful the work had already been
to many people.
As for the evolution of my thinking, it starts with
understanding that books serve a function, but it’sa narrow function. You can’t learn to walk by reading a book about walking. In fact, you can’t reallylearn anything by just reading about it. And that’s
because the modalities of awareness and thought
involved in reading are different from those
involved in real learning.
We take in a lot of important ideas by readingbooks that are well written and get us thinking.
That’s an important first stage for a lot of learning.
But reading is basically passive, and to learn you
have to do. There’s no learning from reading if you
define learning as processes that enhance yourcapacity for effective action over time. That has
always been our definition of learning in the SoL
community. Knowledge is a capacity for effective
action, and learning is a process that enhances
knowledge.
I never thought a book by itself would be verysignificant. The real question was, how does abook fit into something larger that could havemore impact? It was no coincidence that the
publication of the book and establishment of theOrganizational Learning Center at MIT, which was
the precursor to SoL, occurred at the same time.
In fact, I consciously wrote the book to be able tolaunch the MIT Organizational Learning Center.
The idea was simple. Books may have a lot of interesting ideas, but the only way to support people
in developing new capabilities over time is tobuild learning communities where people inspire
each other and help each other become part of alarger network of collaboration. It’s that collaboration that helps people sustain the efforts needed
to learn something in a way that just reading abook will never do.

I never thought a book by itself
would be very significant. The realquestion was, how does a book fit
into something larger that could
have more impact?
A couple of things became really evident in theensuing years. One was that different people were
having dramatically different results from working
with the same tools. Some people produced
amazing results, and others produced nothing.

3

4

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3This data that it made all the difference where
people were coming from was what led to thebook Presence. For example, someone who justpicked up the tools of The Fifth Discipline and said,“Hey, we can make more money if we use thesetools” generally accomplished very little. But
someone who had a deep intent to transform theprevailing organizational culture or the nature ofwork itself or people’s relationship to their work
could have amazing results. So, where the practitioner is coming from in terms of intent, spirit,and openness is important.

the world was always an intention, at least for me.
Many of us always had the idea that businesses
contribute to issues such as climate change andthe destruction of species and the profound inequality that operates around the world, and thatsooner or later, they would need to embrace theseissues as part of their core strategies. If they didn’t,
they would destroy the environments needed
for business to be successful. But the main learning was that you had to get different kinds oforganizations working together, including but
not limited to business.

Expanding Opportunities

I would not characterize that as a big shift inmy thinking, but a natural evolution of simply
continuing to inquire into larger systems. It wasno surprise that this expansion of focus would
be hard. It’s evident that we are still at the beginning of businesses redefining their purpose to
go beyond narrow self-interest. In my opinion,
this is starting to happen in a few industries, likethe food industry, where social and environmental breakdowns around the world are starting to
be seen as genuine shifts in businesses’ strategic
context. But fostering the sorts of collaborationand learning processes needed over time is challenging. For me personally, this was always the
direction I cared about. I had no inherent interestin business, but I was drawn to it as a great laboratory to develop practical know-how by virtueof the wonderful business leaders I had the opportunity to meet and learn from, like Bill O’Brien and
Ray Stata, who are often mentioned in The Fifth
Discipline.

REFLECTIONS: How did those revelations andexperiences change your thinking?
SENGE: I don’t know if my thinking changed
much about any of the basic things. In the earlydays, we had a lot of chances to work with somewonderful business people. So, I always appreciated that there was something about the qualityof the people doing the work that mattered. That
is why so much of The Fifth Discipline stresses
deep personal work, like the disciplines of mental
models and personal mastery. In fact, we evenhad some intuition about the role of connecting

The big, global issues were always
paramount in my mind, because
they’re paramount for our future
as a society and ultimately as a
species.
to deeper sources of change, which was expressedin terms of David Bohm’s “implicate order” in thelead essay I wrote for The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook.
But Otto Scharmer has been able to take theseintuitions much further in his development ofTheory U, which Presence was meant to introduce
in a non-technical way.
Moving beyond focusing on business alone andattempting to address the bigger issues we face in

I’m trained as a systems guy. I was an undergraduate student at Stanford when Paul Ehrlich wrote
The Population Bomb, and I was at the MIT System
Dynamics Group when the Limits to Growth study
was done. I grew up with the big, global issues.
They were always the ones paramount in my mind,
because they’re paramount for our future as asociety and ultimately as a species.
REFLECTIONS: Did the response to the booktake you in different directions than you had
anticipated?

f e at u r e | s e n g e , s c h n e i d e r , a n d wa l l a c e© 2009 Systems Thinking in Schools, Waters Foundation

Educators atwork with the
Iceberg Model.

SENGE: Not really. I knew it would be a longtime before we could focus directly on larger
issues because they simply were not on the radar
screen of businesses in 1990. It felt appropriate
to continue the focus on building a community ofbusinesses deeply involved in the work. I always
thought that business was the most powerful institution in modern society. That’s basically true inall countries, even China, where government clearlyplays a much bigger role than it does in a lot ofother places.
Really, I’ve had one interest my whole life: how
we can build the capacity to address the common
systemic issues that are taking our society indirections no one really wants to go. At one point
about 10 years ago, I had this shocking “aha”
moment when I realized that my desk had not
moved more than about 10 feet in 20 years. The
building my office was in had been completely
rebuilt, but when we moved back in after thereconstruction, my desk was right in the sameplace. That was kind of a symbol for me that myinterests have always been exactly the same.

I’ve had one interest my wholelife: how we can build the capacity
to address the common systemic
issues that are taking our society
in directions no one reallywants to go.
It’s just that things unfold and get clearer and newopportunities open up over time.

Milestones
REFLECTIONS: What are some of the milestones
from the last 25 years that have helped you determine what you would be doing next?
SENGE: The first was my visit in 1994 to the firstpublic school using systems thinking and organizational learning and seeing that—wow—there
was no reason that educators couldn’t do all
this stuff—shared vision, team learning, mental

5

6

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

models, personal mastery, and obviously systems
thinking. It all worked.
The next was the formation of the SoL Sustainability Consortium a few years later. We had several
failed efforts in organizing it initially, but the idea
was clear. We knew that gradually social and environmental conditions were becoming strategic,
and we wanted to get together a small group ofbusinesses that could learn together. We didn’t
want to waste time arguing about whether climatechange was real or things like that. We only wanted
to get a small number of businesses that alreadysaw these issues as strategic and see how that
affected the way they actually managed.

Today, many people see theglobal food industry as one of
the most interesting industries
in terms of deep change.
Then there was the series of fieldbooks, startingwith The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook in 1994 through
The Necessary Revolution in 2006, which actually
grew out of the SoL Sustainability Consortium.
The Fifth Discipline was really a book of theory andmethod, but the fieldbooks were all about stories
and lots of practical examples. The fieldbook team,led by Art Kleiner and Nina Kruschwitz, developed
a new genre that could help people in movingfrom theory to practice. The last was Presence,
which moved back to theory as we tried to convey
the experience of a group of four people as they
were co-creating a way of understanding
profound change.
The one other milestone that really stands out
was the formation of the Sustainable Food Laboratory, founded by Oxfam and Unilever in 2003–
2004. More than 10 years after its founding, it isstill a vibrant global network of 70 of the world’s
biggest food companies and NGOs working together to make sustainable agriculture the mainstream system.
The initial intent of the Food Lab was simple.
We wanted to build networks of collaboration thatconnected businesses and civil society organizations,specifically food companies and social justice andenvironmental NGOs, in about equal numbers.
Watching it evolve and take root, I think it has
had enormous impact on the world. Today, many
people see the global food industry as one of
the most interesting industries in terms of deepchange. It’s clearly been crucial to understanding
the huge problems that people were previously
unaware of, particularly in this country. Ten years
ago, you talked about food and nobody really
saw it as much of an issue. But for a long time,
the global food system has been driving farmers
around the world into poverty by connecting
them to commodity markets that behave as com-featu r e | senge , schneide r , and wallace

modity markets invariably do—with growing
output and falling prices. We in the rich countries
are the beneficiaries, because we have huge varieties of food that we can buy at prices far lower
than they would have been 30 years ago. But
those lower prices are farmers’ incomes.

SENGE: Well, I think you have to start thinking
about that question by distinguishing two levels.
There’s a top-of-the-mind acknowledgment andthen there’s the real transformation of capacity
and the building of new capabilities.

The global food system has also destroyed half theworld’s topsoil through practices that maximize
short-term yields but do not rebuild soil nutrients.
And, by the way, agriculture uses two-thirds of theworld’s water, and in many ways water is the mostacute problem in the world today. People havebegun to wake up to these problems, mainly throughmovements like fair trade and scares about thequality of and ingredients in the food we eat. Butof course most only glimpse a bit of the scope of
the problem. In my judgment, the industry as a whole,at least in the West, is really waking up. For example,
the importance of sustainable sourcing has become
evident to many retailers and food companies.

These are all one wave after
another of a larger sea swell ofrecognition that how we learn
really matters.

The Food Lab was a first-ever opportunity tomove right into the middle of a key industry.
You might also say it’s the single most important
industry we have, since it is the only thing we
actually consume.

Radical Shifts
REFLECTIONS: What would you say has been
the greatest impact resulting from the book andthis field of work?

Top-of-the-mind acknowledgment includes things
like organizational culture and organizational
learning. Look at the learning field over the last
30 years. In the manufacturing world, for example,
quality management, process improvement,
just-in-time, and lean represented radical shifts
toward embedded learning. Probably the mostrecent embodiment is the shift to what the software industry calls “agile.”
But to me, these are all one wave after anotherof a larger sea swell of recognition that how welearn really matters. As Arie de Geus said almost
30 years ago in his famous 1987 Harvard Business
Review article, “Planning as Learning,” “the ultimate
determinant of competitive advantage for a business is its relative ability to learn.” At the top-ofthe-mind level, everybody nods their head at that7

8

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3© Thinkstock/Comstock

now in the same way they nod and say, “People
really matter; you’ve got to create an environment
for developing the talents of your people.” These
are big changes in espoused views of business.

The complexity of the software environments into
which new elements are placed and will interact
has become so great that nobody really knows
what’s going to happen.

The focus on teams is another related big change.
Twenty-five years ago, people didn’t spend thatmuch time on teams. Now almost everyone in
the business world works in a team.

Obviously, when you’re designing new software,
you have goals and intentions. Maybe you’veeven made promises to your customers about thebenefits. But in fact the unintended side effects
can swamp the intended effects. The consequencein that industry is a deep cultural change thatis still gradually unfolding.

For me, the phrase “fail fast andearly” is encouraging, because it
encourages a genuine learning
attitude.
The second, deeper level concerns the real transformation of capacity and the building of newcapabilities. On this level, the results are pretty
uneven, and they vary by industry. I’ll use thesoftware industry as an example.
Most competitive, innovative software businesses
today are into agile. Agile is a disciplined approachto continuous learning. A good friend of mine
who’s a serial entrepreneur in the software industry said that somewhere within the last few years,
the industry crossed a threshold. And the threshold was that today nobody understands the impact of introducing a new element of software.

Think of it like walking in a dark room. You can’t
really see much. In such a situation, you naturally
don’t take big, long strides. You walk slowly; youtake small steps and feel your way through. It’svery much like that in the software industry today.
It takes small steps to introduce increments ofsoftware, often with thousands of people online
gathering data and reflecting on what’s happening, what’s working, what’s not working, whatsort of adjustments we have to make. That whole
philosophy is bundled up in this idea of agile,
the ability to continually keep shifting as you
learn more.
Another example of transformation in the business culture of an industry is the phrase you hearagain and again in the high tech world: “fail fastand early.” It’s not just a platitude. It’s a philosophy
and a discipline of “rapid-cycle prototyping.” Don’t

featu r e | senge , schneide r , and wallace

just sit around and talk about it. Don’t make elaborate plans. Get a prototype product quickly, so
you can learn what works and doesn’t. For me, thephrase “fail fast and early” is encouraging, because
it encourages a genuine learning attitude.
I would call things like agile and rapid-cycle
prototyping pretty radical shifts in the way thatmany businesses operate. In the case of the foodindustry, I think you’d call what is unfolding more
gradually a strategic shift in the perception of
the business environment. But in other industries,
like primary and secondary education, little has
shifted yet. Most people are still trying to run
schools and school systems the way they always
have. The industry hasn’t hit these kind of deep,
disruptive contexts yet. But it’s gradually happening, and I think when it does happens, all theunderlying ideas of organizational learning canbecome extremely relevant there as well.

Prerequisites for Success
REFLECTIONS: Looking at the impact of culture
and collaboration, what key principles or characteristics do you associate most often with success?
SENGE: Perhaps the most obvious is people
doing something that really matters to them. In
The Fifth Discipline, there was a lot of stuff about
purpose. If you think the purpose of your businessis to make money, you should forget all this stuff
about learning and systems thinking, because at
the most, you’ll accomplish a little, but you will
never accomplish a lot. The reason is simple: The
depth of commitment, time, dedication, openness,and patience just won’t be there. If people are only
focused on making money, and there is no senseof larger purpose, little will be achieved withthese ideas and tools.
Second, I would say is time horizon. If your organization operates on extremely short time horizons,
that’s fine, that’s a realistic part of many businesses
today. Some have very short product cycles andmore or less continuous introductions of new
products. That is not what I am referring to. I’m
talking more about the cultural time horizon.

Again, the software industry is interesting, because
a company like the one I was referring to before
operates in rapidly moving businesses yet has
disciplined learning cycles that can steadily movethe culture over time. In their reflective practices,people at that company continually ask, “What ishappening with new software?” “Is this what we
expected?” “What kept us from seeing theseIf people are only focused on
making money, and there is nosense of larger purpose, little
will be achieved with theseideas and tools.
changes?” “What are our blind spots?” These areclassic reflective questions. During some periodsin the development cycle, they have spent up tohalf a day a week reflecting on these questions
and analyzing the data they were gathering. Thisis a significant amount of time for any businessto spend on reflection.
Last, do you really care about people growing anddeveloping? If you’re going to foster an environmentof deeper thinking and a sense of purpose, you
can’t do that if you’re not focused on people reallygrowing and developing—popular today with Bob
Kegan’s and Lisa Lahey’s work on Deeply Developmental Organizations. These are all pre-requirements
for tools like organizational learning taking root.

Personal Challenges
REFLECTIONS: What are some of the personal
challenges you have experienced in realizing yourown vision and aspirations, and how did you
move through them?
SENGE: The first thing that comes to mind is all
the failures. We worked for six months to organize
the first meeting of the SoL Sustainability Consortium. We had this idea of building such a consortium,
but the first meeting was a complete disaster. Witha lot of time and effort, we managed to get a bunch

9

10

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3of CEOs together, and it was just a waste of time.
Most of the time they complained about theirinvestors, their boards, and the government—allthat stuff. That was a rude awakening. We thought,“Hey, this is a big issue—social and environmental
stewardship and responsibility—so it’s got to be
driven by CEOs.” We had a bunch of people who
said the right things, but when we got them together, we realized they actually were just talking.
They had no real skill in moving an enterprise.
And they spent a hell of a lot of time complaining.

I expect almost everything not
to work. If it worked the first timeout, it’s probably because you’re
doing something you know
way too much about.
So that was really an eye-opener. I remember talking with one of the CEOs who co-organized themeeting. It was about a day later. We both said,“That was really a horrible meeting. We don’t knowwhat we’ve learned, but we know that was not theway to do it.” It was one of those moments where
you could draw no conclusion, except to acknowledge the fact that it didn’t work. We went back to
the drawing board and restarted about six months
later with a group of people who were alreadyleading these changes in their organizations,mostly at local levels or focused on particular issues.
The energy was completely different. It was a groupof amazing innovators, and that reset became thebeginning of the SoL Sustainability Consortium.
Lots of experiences like that have occurred, tothe point where I always tell people, “Hey, I expect
almost everything not to work.” If it worked thefirst time out, it’s probably because you’re doing
something you know way too much about. If
you’re doing something really new, the one thing
you can be sure of is it’s not going to work.
Someone who worked with Edwin Land, thefounder of Polaroid, told me that Land used tohave a plaque on his desk that said, “A mistakeis an event that you have not yet turned fully
to your benefit.” Not getting too attached to theidea that everything is going to work fine has
been a great life learning.
The other lesson would be the importance ofrelaxing and being patient. I have a predisposition
to push a little too hard. But there are times when
you just need to stop pushing. Certainly whensomething isn’t going well, trying harder is often
not the best strategy, because the problem you
are having may not be about effort but about
limited insight.
With regard to working with other people, I probably wasn’t nearly as good at listening as I shouldhave been. In fact, I’m sure of that. How do you
collectively get better at understanding what’s
going on, as opposed to, “Hey, here’s the idea andlet’s go for it.” Getting better at listening has beena lifelong journey, which of course relates directly
to collaborating.

Next Generation Leaders
REFLECTIONS: Can you give us a few examplesof what some of the next generation leaders are
doing in the field of systemic change?
SENGE: In the last three or four years, a small
group of us has become involved with identifying
and supporting next generation leaders in thisemerging field of systemic change, people whoare in their 30s, who have already accomplisheda lot, and who could potentially evolve the whole
field in the next 20 or 30 years. This is the Next
Generation Leaders initiative of the Academy
for Systemic Change.
We’ve only had this effort organized now for alittle over nine months, so it’s a little early to identify too many patterns in these leaders’ thinking.
But one I do see is moving much deeper into different cultural contexts. For example, one of theFellows is doing marvelous work in the schoolsof Monterrey, Mexico. He’s been doing programson civic engagement with communities for 10

featu r e | senge , schneide r , and wallace

years and has now begun doing the same thingin schools. He’s a tremendously warmhearted
guy who also has plenty of drive. But what reallystrikes me is his connection and credibility withthe people in Monterray.
There’s also a young woman in China who has
been moving forward with various collaborative
initiatives. She’s getting a big education initiative
off the ground by being careful in building agroup of collaborators. She is also strikingly
attuned to the larger Chinese context she’s
operating in.
A woman who is the founder of one of the largest
indigenous reconciliation movements in the world,
Reconciliation Canada, is also one of the Fellows.
The native population in Canada, like many native
populations in the world, has been the victim ofa century of genocide, organized efforts to eradicate its culture. This woman is building a wonderful movement based on dialogue and what shecalls fostering a “relational economy.” In contrast
to a transactional economy, a relational economy

11

Cultural embeddedness allows
more and more of the ideas andprocesses of learning to arise outof different cultures rather thanbeing imposed on them.
goes back to the older ideas where services or
products were bartered on a one-to-one basis.
This kind of economy has totally vanished in themodern world, where you buy something but
don’t have any connection to who made it.
If we can support people like the three I justreferred to, people who know how to weave thetools and methods of systemic change deeply into
different cultural contexts, in the next 20 to 50
years, we won’t have to use terms like “systems
thinking.” We can just call it “thinking,” because real
thinking is about seeing the reality you’re in the
midst of, which naturally entails appreciating theinterconnectedness of things.

Courtesy of Academy for Systemic Change

12

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

Although business is the mostpowerful institution today, I believe
education is the most important.
The significance of cultural embeddedness is that
it is allowing such young leaders to connect more
and more to the systemic intelligence alreadypresent in older (pre-industrial) cultures—muchlike the educators are cultivating the innate systems
intelligence of children. This may be the really big
new idea: tapping and cultivating the genuine“naturalness” of all this work. The more experience
you have with these sorts of tools and learning
processes, the more you realize that we are doing
nothing more or less than enabling people todo what is most natural, though rarely easy—
opening head, heart, and will in very challenging
settings.

The SoL Community
REFLECTIONS: SoL North America has often beena birthplace for new ideas and connections. What
has the SoL North America community meant toyou, personally and professionally, over the last
10 to 15 years?

The SoL Sustainability Consortium was a community of people from different businesses who saw
social and environmental imbalances as a strategic
issue. The Sustainable Food Lab brought together
a community of people from business and NGOs
who saw the need to really rethink global food systems. Most recently, the SoL Education Partnership has been developing into a collaboration ofmany school districts focused on organizational
learning and systems thinking.
I’m focusing a lot of my time today in this last area.
Although, as I said earlier, business is the mostpowerful institution today, I believe education is
the most important. How we go about educating
children shapes the next 50 to 70 years of oursociety. It is the only institution in modern societythat has that long a time horizon.
The original SoL and its many partner SoL organizations around the world have always been aboutbuilding intentional learning communities. That’s
where the action is, and I hope it will become thefocus for many other organizations in the future.
Community is the heart of the changes thatreally matter in the world. n

SENGE: It all starts with community. If you lookat the history of SoL, the core idea in its founding
was to foster the communities of collaborationneeded for real change processes.

about the autho r sPeter M. Senge is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; founding chairof SoL, the Society for Organizational Learning; and author of the widely acclaimed book, The Fifth
Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Frank Schneider is president and CEO of the Society for Organizational Learning North America.
He is responsible for ongoing operations and strategic partnerships. frank@solonline.org
Deborah Wallace is contributing editor to Reflections and principal of BrinkPoint Consulting,an advisory firm focused on governance reform. dwallace@brinkpointconsulting.com

featu r e | willcock

featu r e 1 4 . 3

Inside-Out Collaboration
An Integrated Approach toWorking Beyond Silos
david W illcock
People in separate divisions or teams of an organization often speak different “languages,” which can makeit difficult for them to understand and relate to each other. The costs of this kind of “silo working” can behigh: lack of shared learning and innovation; unproductive conflict and stress; and significant financial costs
due to program failures. In this article, David Willcock draws insights from psychology and organizational
development theory and practice to provide a framework for building and maintaining productive relationships across organizational boundaries. Through an integrated approach to collaboration that includes theindividual, team, and organization, managers and leaders can serve as catalysts for “partnership working,”
which can ultimately lead to high performance and competitive advantage.

David Willcock

With economic, social, and environmental challenges reaching crisis levels andnew technology breaking down traditional boundaries, collaboration has moved
up in importance on every organization’s agenda. People in the commercial,public, and voluntary sectors have begun to see what we might call “partnershipworking” as playing a vital role within and between organizations. In Great Britain,
for example, the need for collaboration is a key theme of reform in the National
Health Service and the Civil Service. Multi-agency approaches are gaining traction
in aid work and the criminal justice system, and an increasing number of strategic
alliances have formed between commercial organizations.

More than two decades ago in The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge gave compelling evidence of the needfor thinking beyond silos in organizations—and the implications of not adopting this approach.1 But
in 2015, despite the examples given above, the problems of silo working remain. If you look at any
news source, you will find daily examples of breakdowns that occur within and between organizations
because of the failure to partner effectively. The negative outcomes can include lack of shared learningand innovation, delays in getting work done, unproductive conflict, stress, and significant reputationaland financial costs due to program failures. As one board director who contributed to my researchsaid, “In many companies, silos haven’t changed, yet everything else has. Why not this?”
My experience of “silo busting” over 25 years, alongside my recent book research, has led me to better
understand why efforts to increase collaboration don’t always work or become sustainable. In this article,
I will illustrate:• The challenges involved in collaboration among individuals, teams, and organizations• Ways to increase collaboration

13

14

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3• Principles that, if applied as part of an integrated
approach, can help people to collaborate forresults
Most of the work I have done has been with managers and leaders, because they have a particularresponsibility as role models for the organization.
Unless change happens with leaders and in leadership teams, any efforts to increase collaborationelsewhere in the organization will fall on stony
ground. I’m not advocating a top-down approach
to change, which we all know can reduce engagement and commitment. Rather, I recommend an“inside-out” approach, one that starts with theleaders, who then act as catalysts for their teams
and the rest of the organization. This approachis based on what I call the “Relationship Review
Framework,” which looks at collaboration fromthe individual, team, and organizational levels.

A key barrier to collaborationis that individuals naturally tend
toward silo working.
The Individual Level
A key barrier to collaboration is that individuals
naturally tend toward silo working. We get into
comfort zones and prefer to retain control over
our work. We also generally find navigating difference difficult, and the defensive behaviors weadopt can lead to rigidity and sometimes breakdown in relationships. The differences that exist
in any team can be a source of creativity and learning, but in a difficult and ambiguous businessenvironment, they hold the potential for misunderstanding and unproductive conflict.

Individual Styles and Preferences
There are a number of influences at work at theindividual level, including:• Psychological Type: The deep-seated disposition that influences people’s preferences
for extroversion and introversion, and the basic

psychological functions of thinking, feeling,
sensing, and intuition2• Personality Traits: The core dimensions of
personality, such as the degree to which people
are trusting or skeptical, controlling or accommodating3• Environmental and Social Influences: How
people experience and respond to external
factors, and the values and learned behavior
they have developed in turn
• Skills and Capabilities: These characteristics
include the social skills that people rely on topresent themselves to and influence others
With so many variables in personality, styles, andpreferences, it’s no wonder people often prefer
to work on their own:
Tom, an innovative and creative marketing
director, liked the start-up part of new projects.
A key issue, however, was his lack of attention
to planning, organization, and time management. This set of priorities was perhaps not surprising, given his strengths. Recently, though,his poor organization and time management
skills had started to damage his relationships
with others, including his management teampeers and boss. Turning up late for meetings
was being interpreted as a lack of respect forother people rather than just a part of how
Tom was. Tom had also taken on more management responsibility and had difficulty ensuringthat people were following through on andcompleting projects.
Leaders in this situation benefit from understanding their own underlying needs and motivations:Tom’s personality questionnaire results revealed a high need for free thinking, no constraints, and an informal approach. From his
perspective, other people, particularly his boss,
were too detail conscious, gave him too muchwork to do, and hounded him too much about
finishing things. We started to uncover someunderlying attitudes that were proving unhelpful to Tom in his role. Tom’s increasing

featu r e | willcock				

Relationship Review Framework
Over the last 60 years, human relations researchers have identified circumstances and behaviors
that can lead to productive working relationships and, in turn, healthy collaborations. These
focus on:• Task Clarity: Are the goals and desired outcomes clear?
• Supportive Processes: Are the right methods and procedures in place to support task
achievement?
• Underpinning Relationships: Are the core principles that underpin healthy and productive
relationships valued and demonstrated (e.g., positive regard, responsibility, openness)?
Each of these elements can influence one another in positive and negative ways. For example,
task uncertainty can lead to defensive reactions and dysfunctional relationships. Processes
that don’t align withfigu r e 1 Relationship Review Frameworkand support task
achievement can be
Challenge
Supporta source of frustrationand tension. RelationTASK• Stretch goals• Shared vision
ships based on anything•High
standards• Sharedother than mutual
responsibility
understanding andrespect can undermine
PROCESS• Clear timescales• Supportive workcollective performance.
•

Regular review

processes

However, meetingthese conditions is not
RELATIONSHIP• Critical feedback• Listening
necessarily enough to• Accountability• Trustachieve the highest
levels of performance.
Nevitt Sanford, an
American educational theorist, demonstrated that to expand their comfort zones, people need
to be sufficiently challenged while at the same time have enough support to prevent feelingsof threat and stress. The right balance of challenge and support creates “stretch”—the ideal
condition for realizing one’s potential.4
The “Relationship Review Framework” shows how to create stretch conditions for accomplishing tasks, improving processes, and building relationships. Individuals, teams, and organizations
can use this tool to review the health of working relationships and improve planning, implementation, and learning:
A corporate leader and a key supplier were experiencing stress in their relationship. Using
the Relationship Review Framework, they realized that they did not share a clear vision forthe program. As a result, they came up with the image of two courageous partners walking
side by side into a forest to face a significant challenge together. Creating a picture of the
future helped them understand how they needed to work together differently to get there.

15

16

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

awareness of the impact of his behavior andthe implications it had on his image in thecompany—which was important to him—
made him resolve to change.
In most cases, this kind of feedback can be usefulfor leaders and help them identify strategies for
improving working relationships. However, there
are often deeper obstacles to collaboration thatneed to be surfaced:
John, a manager in an international company,
worked in his own area of the organization in
splendid isolation. His work had been fairly selfcontained until the growing size and complexity of the organization put pressure on him to
be more visible and engage with colleagues inother functions. He struggled with this change,
defaulting to working independently as muchas he could. In a coaching conversation, John
voiced a strong value of “being all right on
my own.” Further discussion revealed that thisstatement was rooted in John’s distant relationship with his siblings.
These examples illustrate the influence that
individuals’ own systems, including their past relationships, can have on current performance andpotentially on the wider organizational system.
American psychologist Will Schutz considers therigidity of these unconscious defensive behaviors
to be the main cause of unproductive relationships at work.5

The Individual’s Responsibility
The most widely practiced principle for supporting people in collaborating for results is helping
individuals to start with themselves. In any relationship, we can influence our own beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors much more easily than we canthose of someone else. By taking responsibility
for the role we play in our working relationships—and increasing our adaptability and flexibility—
we can change the context of and improve thoserelationships.

But despite the many opportunities people in organizations have to develop emotional intelligence,change perspectives, and increase behavioral
choices, they don’t always see results. Differences
sometimes can’t be easily reconciled, particularly
where people lean toward opposite sides of personality dimensions or have different values. Also,
people can have different perceptions of whatmakes a good working relationship, and despite
increased self-awareness, they may find initiatingand having new kinds of conversations difficult.
When these issues involve senior leaders, whole
departments can develop negative, polarized
perceptions of each other, affecting the organization as a whole:
A former bank CEO told me about an operations director who was resistant to the change
program the CEO had initiated. The operations
director focused on controlling and protecting
his own area, an attitude that pervaded his
division, leading to a lack of empathy among
his staff members for other departments andteams. This dynamic adversely affected decision
making by the operations director’s divisionand bank branches, so that too much money
was held in each branch for too long. Millionsof pounds sat there, not earning any interest.
Clearly, individual efforts aren’t enough.
				

Food for Thought
The literature on team collaboration
doesn’t often address the topic of power
differentials on teams. In our attempts todevelop productive collaborations, do wetake sufficient account of the role of powerin preventing people from successfully
working together?

featu r e | willcock

The Team Level
As we explored above, in the team context, oneof the main causes of silo working is that teammembers arrive with their own individual senseof purpose, identity, and personality. Each personthen makes choices about how much difference
to exhibit and influence to accept. The interplay of
personal characteristics in the context of the teamis constant and shapes the group’s personality.
The resulting team personality then determines
the relationship of the team with the rest of theorganization. It’s ideally a dynamic, perpetually
evolving process that both reinforces and changes
the team’s character and culture over time.
In a complex organization that is experiencing
constant change, it can be difficult for team members to achieve a shared purpose and identity. In
my research, I found that the lack of clarity around
identity can lead to confusion and increased silo
working. For example, this is a challenge in the
UK public sector, where the government’s privatization agenda has interfered with employees’
ability to derive a sense of identity from the professional, social, and service aspects of their work.
When employees don’t identify with a team or theorganization, their sense of loyalty defaults to thelowest level—the sub-group, clique, or individual.
To combat this trend, leaders need to put effort
into creating meaning through common purpose,
vision, and values.

One of the main causes of silo
working is that team members
arrive with their own individual
sense of purpose, identity, andpersonality.
The Uncertain TeamThe Uncertain Team has no clear purpose, vision,or values and therefore no clear boundaries. It
may lack a team leader, perhaps as a result of
reorganization. In fact, the Uncertain Team may
not be a team at all, but a collection of individuals
doing complementary work. This lack of an organizing force results in poor relationships with otherteams because of the lack of integration anddefined team boundaries. The absence of a teampresence and voice can lead to inconsistency, lowambition, lack of creativity, and poor quality ofengagement across and outside the organization.

figu r e 2

The Uncertain TeamOn the other hand, too much identification withthe team can also get in the way of collaboration.
Boundaries between units can become rigid andimpervious, causing problems to occur. The strong
professional identity and frames of reference that
employees in different functional groups—suchas human resources, finance, and marketing—hold can contribute to the creation of barriers
between groups.
Following are key team archetypes I have experienced in my work and research. Do you recognize
any of them from your own experience?

The Uncertain Team has no clear purpose, vision, or values
and therefore no clear boundaries.

17

18

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

The Defensive TeamIn the Defensive Team, members over-identify
with the purpose and values. These characteristics
are often anchored in the past and are not open
to feedback and influence. Defensive Teams canfigu r e 3

The Defensive Team

result from old-style management based on adivide-and-rule mentality. Their mantra is “they are
all out to get us.” Team members feel under siege.
What they don’t do is ask “why?” Although theteam can be unified against a common enemy
in the face of perceived adversity, internally they
are as fragmented as the Uncertain Team.

The Arrogant Team
Some of the characteristics of the Arrogant Teamcan be similar to those of the Defensive Team,although members of the Arrogant Team are likely
to be dissatisfied with the status quo and want
to change things. These teams are often led byambitious action-oriented leaders. Team members
don’t want to hear disconfirming information, so
they choose not to listen. Similar to members of a
Defensive Team, they put a lot of time and energy
into criticizing others, but mainly in an attempt
to change things and possibly take charge. I haveseen this team archetype in sales organizations
focused on meeting their targets at the expenseof learning from each other and from others in
the organization.

In the Defensive Team, members over-identify with the purpose and values.

figu r e 4

The Arrogant TeamThe Open TeamThe healthy alternative to these archetypes is
the Open Team. Clarifying a team identity throughan agreed-upon operating framework is crucial,
but teams also need to be flexible and responsive.
Open Teams are proactive in relationship management, keep in touch with people and events outside of the team, listen to feedback, and respond
appropriately. They regularly take a step back,review how things are working, make neededchanges, and continually develop team members.
Working with a collaborative Open Team is notalways comfortable, with clear and passionate
differences often surfacing. However, as membersof the group work through conflicts, fresh insights
emerge:Members of the Arrogant Team are likely to be dissatisfied with thestatus quo and want to change things.

I worked with a senior leadership team over
several months to develop an Open Team
dynamic. This process included providing
in- dividual and team feedback and coaching.

featu r e | willcock

figu r e 5

The Open Team

Open Teams are proactive in relationship management, keep in touch with people and events outside of the team,listen to feedback, and respond appropriately.

After several productive meetings, we had ahighly charged, emotional session. Team members had developed sufficient confidence tochallenge patterns of behavior and working
that were holding the group back, including
the team leader’s relationships with colleagues
elsewhere in the organization. This process
was a sign of real maturity in the team andillustrates what can happen when team collusion around long-term patterns of behavior
starts to break down. Reflecting on it afterward,
team members still refer to “that awful day”
but recognize that it also resulted in a breakthrough in their working relationships, both
inside and outside of the team.
People are usually willing to join this kind of open
team dialogue if they feel it is safe to do so. The
Relationship Review Framework introduced earlier
in the article can be helpful for teams to use to
structure conversations and look at what works
and doesn’t work at the task, process, and relationship levels. It can also be part of a collective
review and action-planning process.

				

Food for Thought
Developing Open Teams is demanding
for facilitators and team leaders. How doyou support yourself so you can help
teams through the “deconstruction” of
unproductive patterns of behavior andthe development of new ones?

Influenced by people like Chris Argyris, Peter
Senge, and Will Schutz, I have always worked withteams in a way that engages them with their context and stakeholders to develop open rather thanclosed systems. If you focus on developing strong
team relationships without outside connections,
you run the risk of creating silos and damaging
the cohesion of the wider organization. For similarreasons, it is important to work with individuals
in the context of the teams they are part of.

19

20

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

The Organizational Level
The barriers to collaboration at the organizational
level mirror those found at the individual andteam levels. Patterns of behavior repeat in fractallike ways in organizations.6 In the same way that				

An Integrated Approach to Collaboration
I successfully used an integrated approach in a leadership andorganization development program for senior managers in anational charity in the UK. The key elements that contributed
to increased collaboration were:
1. Leaders received 360-degree feedback, completed personality
questionnaires, and participated in individual coaching 		sessions throughout the program.
2. The program was run in operational teams to develop relationships as well as leadership capabilities. Leaders shared
their feedback, strengths, weaknesses, and so on with eachother and provided ongoing mutual support throughaction-learning conversations.
3. Each team started the program by participating in an
operating framework workshop. In it, they:a.	Mapped the team context and agreed on the important
stakeholders to seek feedback fromb.	Reviewed the team’s effectiveness at the task, process,and relationship levels, using the Relationship Review
Frameworkc. Developed a draft core purpose, vision, and operating
principles
4. The teams invited senior managers from other directorates
to provide feedback to them using a goldfish bowl dialogue
process.
5. Following this session, the team confirmed its own operating
framework, decided on actions it needed to take to increase
collaboration with outside groups, and used the data collected
to tailor the remainder of the leadership program to theircontext and needs.
Each directorate team followed a similar process, receiving
feedback from across the organization as well as from customers
and clients. This process spawned a number of cross-functional
initiatives to increase collaboration.

the quality of relationships within teams influences
the quality of relationships between teams, so thequality of relationships between teams, functions,or other organizational units influences the identity, boundaries, and behavior of the organization
as a whole. To have effective partnerships inside
the organization as well as with external stakeholders, an organization needs to be open, adaptable, and flexible. It needs to respond to influenceand change as much as it needs to influenceothers. This ability will depend on the level of
openness it develops in its teams and on internalteam relationships.
Organizational culture has traditionally been
defined as “the commonly held values, beliefs andattitudes that exist in the organization and shape
behavior—the way we do things around here.” I’ve
used this definition for years. However, I’m now
not sure it’s helpful enough in terms of what we
can do to change organizational culture. It has
tended to support a top-down approach to organizational change, casting the leaders as the keyarchitects. For this reason, a lot of change efforts
fail.7 Here’s an example:
In a large local authority, the central Organization Development (OD) Department designed
a corporate initiative to break down silos. This
involved inviting managers from the different
directorates to hear the CEO and senior leaders
outline corporate challenges and understandmore about how different parts of the organization worked. The OD Department didn’t consult with other groups across the organization
to find out what was needed to develop morecollaborative working. Instead, it took a paternalistic stance and decided what the organization needed. Not surprisingly, compliance withthe change initiative ranged from only a few
percent in one department to 100 percent inanother, where the director imposed compliance. Members of the OD Department didn’tknow about the part-time and remote working
arrangements in the department with the lowest take-up and used language that led to mis-

featu r e | willcock

An Inside-Out Approach

Relationships between
teams in context influence the“personality” of the organization.
Coaching and facilitation
develop open and adaptive
cultures from the “inside out”
that deliver results.

Organization

Team
Coaching and facilitation
work at the boundary of relationships
to develop Open Teams. Team“personality” influences relationships
with others in the organization.

individual
Coaching and developing individuals to increase
responsibility and adaptability.

An inside-out approach starts with the individual, continues with the team, and influences organizational culture.

understandings. The director of this department
strongly resisted the initiative, and relationships deteriorated.
This is an example of a misconceived initiative tochange an organization, with the OD Department
attempting to take a “one-size-fits-all” approachto the problem rather than providing the context
and the means for teams to find their own solutions. There is no one size that fits all. Problemsof silo working and collaboration will be different,
depending on the context, and approaches need
to be adapted accordingly.
For this reason, I’ve reframed my definition oforganization culture to be “the identity, characteristics, and behavior that result from the relationships
between individuals in the context of the teamand between teams in the context of the wider
organization and environment.” I believe thisSenior teams need to see
relationship management as asenior management function andmake it a visible agenda item.
definition helps us better understand causality
and therefore how best to influence organizational
culture other than through a top-down approach(see “An Integrated Approach to Collaboration”).
I’m not advocating a bottom-up theory of organization development; it’s more of an “inside-out”
effect—starting with the individual, continuingin the team, and influencing the organizational
culture (see “An Inside-Out Approach”).
A starting point for this integrated approach is thebusiness planning process. Senior teams need to

Change from the “inside out”

figu r e 6

21

22

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

see relationship management as a senior management function and make it a visible agenda item.
The Relationship Review Framework is one way
to facilitate this goal. I have found that providing
a framework that the organization endorses canmake initiating and having a conversation about
relationships an organizational norm. It also allows
people to identify and plan appropriate actions
based on the specific barriers to collaboration andrisks they face. The result is often an increase in what
Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton, and John Kania call“systems leadership”—the ability to see the larger
system, foster reflection and generative conversations, and shift the collective focus from reactive
problem-solving to co-creating the future.8 n				Food for Thought
Is it sufficient for organizations to prioritize
and target critical initiatives where collaboration is essential for results, or do theyneed to build these capabilities in all functional areas and at all levels? Also, humanresource departments are uniquely placed
to help facilitate collaborative working relationships, but they are not immune fromsilo working themselves. What new perspectives and capabilities are required inthis functional area as well?

ENDNOTES
1

Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline, 1992.

2

Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, 1921.

3

Cattell, R. B., The Description and Measurement of Personality, 1946.

4

Sanford, N., Self and Society, 1966: 44-51; Where Colleges Fail, 1967:44-56.

5

Schutz, W., The Human Element, 1994.

6 Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, 1992: 132.
7

Binney, Wilkes and Williams, Living Leadership, 2012.

8

Senge, P., Hamilton, H., Kania, J., “The Dawn of System Leadership,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2015.

about the autho r
David Ian Willcock is a director and leadership coach. His organization, Liberating Potential Ltd.,
specializes in organizational development, with an emphasis on organizational culture and highperformance working relationships. This article is based on David’s book Collaborating for Results:
Silo Working and Relationships That Work, Gower Publishing, 2013. Read a sample chapter here.
david.willcock@liberatingpotential.co.uk

featu r e | r inge r

featu r e 1 4 . 3

The Manager as Mediator
First Manage You
J U DY R I N G E R
In today’s workplace, where time is a precious commodity, why should managers or leaders get involved
in resolving conflict among members of their teams? One reason is that, in many cases, it takes more time
not to help address conflict than to constructively intervene. But before managers can successfully guideothers in managing disagreements, they first need to be able to manage themselves. According to research,a manager’s attitude toward conflict is crucial in determining how an impasse is resolved. In this article,
Judy Ringer describes five practices based on the martial art Aikido that managers can follow to set thestage for positive resolutions. Through this process, they also increase their leadership presence, power,
and clarity of purpose.

How do I manage employee conflict? ​What should I do when coworkers don’t get along?

Judy Ringer

In 20 years of training and coaching, I have seen many managers and leaders
struggle with these questions. Usually, I’m invited in to solve a problem. A
manager, board of directors, or chief executive asks me to mediate a situation
between two employees who are both important to the company. Typically,
these people don’t get along, and their conflict is hurting the organization.

My approach to conflict stems from a background in the martial arts, specifically the Japanese art of
Aikido (see “Aikido: The Art of Peace,” p. 24). Many who are familiar with Aikido consider it a practical tool
for managing physical combat as well as the everyday clashes of personalities, ideas, goals, roles, andworldviews we experience at work and at home. When I’m working to resolve a conflict, I invite the participants to partner in Aikido movements and techniques that simulate the stated problem. Through visualand kinesthetic experiences, they gain insight into their behavior patterns and, more important, how
they might respond to their differences more intentionally and effectively.
By practicing hands-on exercises and developing an understanding of the basic Aikido intention ofdisarming without harm, individuals—and organizations—learn to regain composure and move fromadversarial to partnering relationships. When conflict is normalized, relationships mend, and teams
learn to discuss and resolve issues rather than avoid them.

The Costs of Unaddressed Conflict
Why is dealing with interpersonal conflict important for organizations? Unaddressed conflict is costly.
A 2008 study commissioned by CPP, Inc.—creators of the MBTI personality assessment and the ThomasKilmann conflict instrument—found that 85% of employees at all levels of the surveyed organizations

23

24

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3				

Aikido: The Art of Peace
Morihei Ueshiba, a highly skilled and renowned Japaneseswordsman and martial artist, developed Aikido in the earlytwentieth century. The word Aikido is often translated as “theway of blending or harmonizing with energy” or more simply“The Art of Peace.” Aikido principles such as alignment—stepping out of the line of the attack and moving alongside theattacker—and non-resistant leading—joining and redirecting
the incoming energy, or ki—are used and taught throughout
the world as a system to de-escalate conflict and build stability,
flexibility, and presence. In Aikido, the attack is reframed as
power that can be developed and guided. The Aikidoist does
not resist, block, or hinder the opponent. What would normallybe understood as an act of violence is seen simply as energy
to be utilized—which, of course, changes everything.

experienced conflict to varying degrees. The study
also found that in the U.S. alone, an average employee spends nearly three hours a week dealing
with workplace conflict. In 2008, that amounted
to approximately $359 billion in hourly wages.

When conflict is normalized,
relationships mend, and teams
learn to discuss and resolve issues
rather than avoid them.
Conflict among coworkers saps time and energy
and limits people’s creativity. It can literally keep
managers up at night. I see otherwise skilled
and technically savvy managers and executives
struggling with what to do when faced with teammembers who aren’t working together productively. Should I intervene? Bring them together?
Work with them individually? What do I say?
It’s not an easy decision. If you intervene unskillfully, you can make the problem worse. If you
avoid the issue, it usually remains unresolved andnegatively impacts the work environment. Good
people leave. Jobs don’t get done effectively

because coworkers won’t talk to each other. Relationships and output suffer, and entire organizations become polarized. According to the CPP
study, 43% of employees think their bosses don’t
deal with conflict well.
The good news? While not always intuitive, theskills and competencies to resolve organizational
conflict exist and can be learned. Learning tointervene intelligently in workplace conflict willsave you and your team money and time, and will
reduce people’s stress levels. You’ll also give theconflicting parties the opportunity to build theiremotional intelligence and confidence. Whenmanagers and leaders increase their ability toaddress conflict, the workplace becomes a happier, more productive place. And we spend too
much of our lives at work for it to be otherwise.

First Manage You
I have found that before managers can successfully guide others through conflict, they first need
to be able to manage themselves. This article focuses on that process. It’s an important aspect ofany manager’s job description and a step in the
direction of increased leadership presence, 		power, and clarity of purpose.
Research shows that a manager’s attitude toward
a conflict is crucial in how the impasse is resolved.
In the last part of the twentieth century, scientists
discovered specific neurons—called mirror neurons—that mimic the actions and emotions of thosearound us. For example, when one person’s facereflects frustration, the neurons identified withthose facial movements also fire in an observer’s
brain, eliciting similar emotions. In the Harvard
Business Review article “Social Intelligence andthe Biology of Leadership,” Daniel Goleman andRichard Boyatzis state: “When we consciously or
unconsciously detect someone else’s emotions
through their actions, our mirror neurons reproduce those emotions. Collectively, these neurons
create an instant sense of shared experience.” This
mirroring effect becomes a critical element in exercising leadership. In one of the studies referenced
by Goleman and Boyatzis, employees received

featu r e | r inge r

Courtesy the Browne Center, University of New Hampshire

positive feedback from a leader who exhibited
negative emotions (narrowed eyes, frowning)
during the feedback session. These employees
reported feeling worse about their performance
than employees who received negative feedback
given with a positive affect (head nodding, smiles).
Clearly, the way in which the message is delivered
has more impact than the message itself.
In your role as manager, parent, partner, or workmate, have you noticed how you can influencea conversation by the mindset you bring to it?
As you coach your conflicted employees, use
this awareness intentionally. Before each session,
whether joint or individual, do a mental inventory.
Are you thinking it will go badly, or are you thinking it will go well? Either way, you’re right. If you
enter the arena with fear, judgment, or tension,
you are setting the stage for an unhappy outcome. More than likely, the employee is alreadyConflict is actually potential energythat you and your employees canharness toward a positive result.
nervous and worried. Don’t add to their feelingsof foreboding.
Alternatively, bringing an optimistic, hopeful mindset into the room will trigger more of the same.
When you offer assurances that the individual
will benefit from the process and be able to makethe necessary changes, you foster trust and hope.
Your primary job is to have confidence that theoutcome is not predetermined and that the conflict is actually potential energy that you and youremployees can harness toward a positive result.

25

26

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

Helpful Practices and Attitudes
Bringing a positive outlook to a conflict situation
is easier said than done. Fortunately, over and overagain, I’ve found that certain practices and attitudes
keep me on track when things get difficult:

1. Reframing
In Aikido, it’s often said that the opponent’s attack
is a gift of energy. While we would rather not haveto deal with the problem, here it is. Shall I waste
valuable life energy (ki) fighting it or wishing it
away, or shall I see if I can turn it into a positive
force?

Although you may be working
with two people, a change in theirrelationship will create waves
throughout the system.
After many years of practicing and teaching Aikido
and applying its principles in the workplace, I’ve
found that things change dramatically when you
reframe an attack as incoming energy that can be
guided toward a mutually supportive outcome.
In dealing with employee conflict, for example,
we might reframe the problem like this:While it is a conflict, it is also an opportunity:• For the relationship to change for the better• To learn valuable work and life skills• To see each other’s positive aspects• To step into a leadership role and model
conflict competency in the organization

2. Possibility
When working with people in conflict, ask what
possibilities exist for each of the participants andhow the resolution will affect the larger team andorganization. Although you may be working withtwo people, a change in their relationship will
create waves throughout the system. Dialogue
will flow more freely between team members, forexample, when the logjam of this relationship iscleared. Time and energy previously claimedby the conflict will be released to the people andprocesses that need them. Wherever possible, document depleted resources, reduced momentum,
and other hidden or indirect costs that are likely
to improve when the conflict is resolved. Help
everyone see how a positive outcome will liberate
untapped potential—in them and in others.
For example, when Jamie joined Taylor’s department, they somehow got off on the wrong foot.
Their work stalled, productivity suffered, and theirteammates first avoided but soon polarizedaround the conflict. I worked with Jamie and Taylor
for three months, individually at first, building
skills and helping them to see the other in a newlight. Later, the three of us held several joint sessions
dialoguing on topics that usually caused difficulty
and working through how they would manage
their relationship going forward. Lastly, we brought
the rest of the team on board by being transparent
about the process and inviting them to support
Jamie and Taylor in their new relationship. Team
interactions became more relaxed, easy, andopen as the managers freed themselves fromthe conflict that had immobilized them.

3. Non-Judgment
If during the process of addressing a conflict
you draw conclusions about who’s right and who’s
wrong, you will find it difficult to do your job effectively. As human beings, we are practiced at forming judgments about everything. For example,
I have a workshop to give and there’s a blizzard
raging. I judge this as bad. My body tenses, mymood deteriorates, and I become angry. This
doesn’t change the weather. It is what it is. I still
have to decide what action to take. Do I cancel
the workshop or continue as planned? Seeing theweather as a neutral event reduces my stress level,saves time, and improves my ability to make awise decision.
When you coach, if you judge one of the parties
as the problem, you will see only the problem andmiss constructive signals or recast neutral behaviors
in unhelpful ways. Non-judgment is a practice. The
first step is noticing. Watch your judging mind,

featu r e | r inge r

27

and you’ll gradually become more open andcurious. Instead of judging, think in terms of whatskills each party needs and how they can attainthem.
The power of practicing non-judgment becomes
clear when you see others changed by it. The
individuals in a coaching and mediation process
will become more open to each other and more
willing to entertain each other’s positive intent.
People begin to see themselves and others as
more generous, kind, and forgiving.

© Thinkstock/Paul Katz

In one case, two women who were workplaceadversaries found a new way to interact after
engaging in a dialogue process with a colleagueof mine who models non-judgment extremely
well. She’s also a great listener who seldom offers
advice, instead preferring to ask useful questions
that validate and promote reflection. A few weeks
after the process ended, one of the women said
to my colleague: “I don’t know what you did to us,
but I’ve hated her for 10 years, and I actually likeher now.” Don’t underestimate the power of
non-judgment.

4. Curiosity and Inquiry
More than anything else, a mindset of curiosity
and inquiry will empower you and keep yourconversations safe and on track. Ask honest andopen-ended questions, such as:• How did you feel when that happened?
• What were you hoping for?
• What do you think your coworker’s intention
was?
• What was your intention?
Even more than the questions themselves, theattitude of curiosity is one of the most effective
tools you can bring to the process. For example,
a technically outstanding leader in a Fortune
100 company was triggered by a colleague’s email
etiquette. The colleague’s penchant for copying
a long list of people on every email angered her,particularly when the email reflected poorly on
the department. During one practice session,
I asked the leader to create questions she could

ask her colleague that would help her understandthe intent behind all the copying. One question
was, “Why did you copy everyone on that email?”
As we role-played, the leader sounded confrontational and aggressive. I asked if she noticed thetone of her delivery—she did—and what would
have to change for her to ask the question in an
open, curious way. She answered, “I’d actually haveto be curious.” We both laughed, and she got themessage. It’s not the question, it’s the mindset.
As soon as you feel judgment, shift your mindset.
Get curious. Ponder. Wonder. The more you practice this critically important skill, the more you’lllearn about each person’s perspective. And themore you model it, the more you’ll encourage it inyour people.

28

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

5. Appreciation
Since David Cooperrider introduced the conceptof Appreciative Inquiry in 1987, organizations andindividuals have been discovering the power ofnoticing what is already working in order to imagine what could be. As soon as you focus on thepositive, you gain energy and move toward a compelling future. Appreciative Inquiry practitioners
understand that we solve problems more easily
and sustainably by looking at what works thanby focusing on what is broken.

it’s vital to manage you first. If you don’t feel readyto lead in this way, you can always invite someone
else you believe is right for the job to do so.

I don’t have the skills to do this.
This may be true, in which case this is a great
opportunity for you to learn the skills to becomea more effective, respected, and responsible manager. You will increase trust and build influencewith your team.

They should just rise above it.
A concrete example of Appreciative Inquiry
happens every time a beginner learns a new technique on the Aikido mat. Invariably, the technique
is easier to do on one side of the body than theother. Instead of focusing on the “bad” side, theinstructor tells the student to focus on the “good”
side, the side that can do the technique effortlessly. Since that side knows how to do it, we say
to “let the good side teach the other side.” Coachyour people to appreciate what’s working andlearn from it.
When you help your employees focus on thegood, you reinforce their strengths, knowledge,
and positive attributes. When they find the areas
where they, in fact, do work well together, they
can apply that awareness to areas where they
have difficulty. When setbacks occur, remind everyone that this, too, is part of the process and thatthe setbacks can teach us what needs to happen
next. Throughout the process, express appreciation
for the commitment involved on all sides. You arebuilding a new relationship and a foundation forsolving future problems.

They would if they could. I’ve heard this phrase
too many times to count. I recently conducted aseries of coaching and mediation sessions withtwo employees of a food manufacturing company.
As I met with the employees individually, theyeach told me that when they asked their manager
for help, he suggested they “just rise above it.”
They said they tried, but they didn’t know how.
Just being in each other’s presence was enoughto shut down conversation and workflow.
If your employees could make wiser choices, theywould. It will help the process immeasurably if you
believe they’re doing the best they can with theskills they have and help them acquire the skills
they need.

What’s wrong with these people?!
Ask instead, What do they need to help themthrough this? What are they blind to, and how
can you help them see what they’re missing?

They’re mean, disrespectful, hurtful.

This is not my job.

They’re unskilled. When you reframe what you
see as negative intent to a need for skill building,you shift from judge to coach. You’ll also see what
the people in conflict really want (recognition,
support, autonomy, inclusion) and how theirattempts to achieve it have had an unexpected,
negative impact. And you’ll help them get 		
where they want to go more effectively.

This is exactly your job. As a supervisor, manager,
owner, or CEO, you are a leader, and leaders lead.
They show the way. They model. They put forth avision and invite others to join them. This is why

In the Aikido school I founded in 1995, a student
I’ll call Sam practiced with us for a number ofyears. In the beginning, no one liked seeing him

Attitudes Detrimental to the Process
Just as there are practices and mindsets that promote success in managing conflict, there are also
attitudes that can derail the process, such as:

featu r e | r inge r

come to class. He usually came in late, during preclass meditation time, when the rest of us weresitting quietly on the mat. Sam would come in,drop his large key ring noisily on a chair, sighor make some other attention-grabbing sound,and after much ado, finally bow onto the mat andjoin us. Another of Sam’s regrettable habits was
to insinuate his way into private conversations.
He was not well liked, and yet he came to everyclass and seemed committed to learning Aikido.
I let things go for a while, not knowing what todo (“This is not my job!”) and harboring my own
judgments about poor Sam (“What’s wrong withthis person?! He’s so disrespectful!”). In time, I realized it was my job. I was the chief instructor andowner of the school. If I didn’t address this difficult
situation, the class environment would deteriorate.
I also changed my story about Sam. I saw his positive intention: He wanted to fit in and he wanted
attention. Unfortunately, he was going about it
in all the wrong ways, and there was a wide gap
between intent and impact (see “Intent Versus
Impact”).

This will take too much time.
Whatever time the process takes will be less than
the time you, your customers, and your company
lose in reduced productivity and goodwill. (See“Do You Have the Time to Address Conflict?,” p. 30.)

Before You Engage
To give yourself the best chance at success as
you begin to engage with your staff, answer thesequestions and continually hold them in yourawareness:

What is the purpose of the intervention?
What do I really want—for each individual,
for the relationship, for the organization?
Imagine the ideal outcome and the ease and flowof the day once this difficulty has been resolved.
How will the individuals interact and how will
the team and organization reflect the shift?

Your actions may haveunknowingly helped the situation
develop. Once you determine
your contribution to the conflict,
you’ll clearly see what you cando about it.
Am I contributing to the problem?
Your actions may have unknowingly helped thesituation develop. For example, have you avoided
talking with the parties? Have you fallen victim
to one or more of the detrimental attitudes listed
above? It’s only human nature to hope people
will “rise above it,” to think that you “don’t have theskills,” or to worry that this course of action willtake “too much time.” Once you determine yourcontribution to the conflict, you’ll clearly see
what you can do about it.

What actions have I already taken that havehelped or hindered?
Review the conversations you’ve had with eachparty. What went well? Looking forward, what will
you do differently?
				Intent Versus Impact
Intent versus impact is a key concept to master when addressing a difficult conversation. In Difficult Conversations, Douglas
Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen note that we often makeassumptions and create stories about another’s intentions
based on the impact their behavior has on us. For example: I
felt intimidated, therefore, you are trying to intimidate me. We
often assume the worst. When talking with a coworker about
his or her behavior, try to imagine a positive intent. Is your colleague criticizing, for example, or trying to be helpful? By understanding that your coworker’s intent may be very different
from its impact, you can describe the impact without blaming
or becoming defensive. The concept also helps you give yourcoworker the benefit of the doubt when you imagine otherpossible stories behind their action.

29

30

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

				Do You Have the Time to Address Conflict?
Even understanding the importance of actively addressing
workplace conflict, you may wonder how you’ll find the time
to make it a priority. Ask yourself:• How much is the conflict costing you in wasted hours,
lost or unhappy customers, and stifled creativity?
• Are you waking up nights wondering what to do?
• Do you avoid certain meetings because of the conflict?
• Is the tension affecting others?
• Does the conflict limit the team’s ability to accomplish
goals?
In my experience, it takes more time not to resolve conflict
than to address it.

Your primary power and greatest
asset is in the quality of yourbeing.
Am I truly objective or have I formed a conclusion? How can I stay open to possibility?
It’s impossible not to judge—at least at first. The

judgment won’t necessarily be inaccurate, but it
will hamper your ability to facilitate the process.
A learning mindset, a sense of being in discovery,
and a willingness to be honest with yourself areinvaluable assets. As soon as you notice yourself
judging, interrupt and open yourself to what’s
really going on.

What is the best alternative to a successful
resolution of the conflict?
If the parties are unable to reach an amicable way
to work together and take their relationship to thenext level, what is Plan B? How will you implement
it? Is this alternative something you will share withthe participants or hold in reserve?

Understand It Is a Process
Understand that what you’re about to undertakeis a process of coaching, facilitation, and resolution.
Your primary power and greatest asset is in thequality of your being. Everything else is secondary.
Your quality of being is beyond skills. It resides
in your attitude, thoughts, posture, breath, andthe way you carry yourself. You have more power
than you realize. When you shift from certainty tocuriosity and from judgment to appreciation, thechange in energy is palpable and profound. If you
believe in the process and in your people, youwill lead them to a satisfying conclusion. n

RESOUrCES“Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Survive,” CPP, Inc. study“Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review
David Cooperrider/Appreciative Inquiry

about the autho r
Judy Ringer is the author of Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict. Her company,
Power & Presence Training, helps individuals and organizations normalize conflict, communicate
purposefully, and maintain power and presence under pressure. She is a second-degree black belt in
Aikido and founder of Portsmouth Aikido, Portsmouth, NH. Visit www.judyringer.com for additional
articles and support. judy@judyringer.com

co m m enta r y | H een and G oldstein

C o m m enta r y 1 4 . 3

Commentary
S heila H een and D ebbie G oldstein“It’s great that we are getting training on these new skills.
But what about everyone else in my organization? The problem
is [senior leadership or fill-in-the-blank function]. They are the ones
who REALLY need it!”

Sheila Heen

Debbie Goldstein

You must hear this complaint as often as we do—which is to say
100% of the time. It gets a predictable laugh. Yes, if we could just fix
everyone around us, voilá, our problems would be solved. Conflictsettled. Life is good. Or at least our lives are better.

But of course, in her article, Judy Ringer hits the nail on thehead—we can’t “fix” anything, let alone anyone, unless we startwith the person in the mirror. Rather than complain about
what’s wrong with others, with the culture “around here” or theleadership “up there,” we can spend our energy upgrading theone person we do have autonomy over: ourselves.

We can’t “fix” anything, letalone anyone, unless we startwith the person in the mirror.

Judy offers a set of practices for shifting one’s internal stance from conflict to curiosity, problem to possibility,and judgment to appreciation. These shifts seem simple and are clearly powerful, which raises the questions:
Why don’t people see these possibilities—let alone practice them—in the moment?
And why don’t we see or practice them ourselves sometimes?
To be clear, by “we,” we mean all of us. Because while many of us stand at the front of the room to help others
better understand their conflicts or themselves, when we are in our own conflicts, we are just as likely to be stuck—in our own story, in blame, in wishing “they” would just change.
It seems that for leaders—and even for enlightened, self-reflective practitioners who teach and advise leaders—learning about ourselves and our role in our own problems is flat-out hard.
Why?

The Difficulty in Receiving Feedback
We’ve spent the last few years trying to understand what is so difficult about receiving feedback, that is, taking
in information and learning about ourselves—as leaders, managers, family members, and human beings. Thereis plenty of material out there on how to give feedback skillfully and thoughtfully, but actually little on the

31

32

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

C o m m enta r y 1 4 . 3

challenges of receiving feedback—direct or indirect,
formal or informal. Why is it so hard to see our own rolein a problem or our impact on a conflict playing out ina relationship or on a team?
Here are a few thoughts on what we have learned:

A Core Tension
Feedback sits at the tender junction of two conflicting
human needs. On the one hand, we want to learn andgrow. Research on happiness tells us that learning andgrowing is a big piece of what makes life satisfying. It’s
why people take up new hobbies in retirement. It’s why
people enjoy the rich experience of leadership development programs. Acquiring new insights and skills
for tackling old problems is deeply satisfying, evenexhilarating.
The problem is that we bump into a second humanneed: The desire to be accepted, respected, and loved
the way we are now. Any suggestion that we may bepart of the problem, particularly one voiced in front ofour peers, can hit hard. Advice that maybe we shouldchange in some way suggests that how we are now 		is not necessarily okay.
So we can feel conflicted about seeing our own shortfalls and getting coaching from others on how wemight change. Sometimes it’s exciting and welcome,and we’re deeply grateful for it. Other times, it’senormously, cripplingly painful. It’s so much easier 		
to believe we are fantastic and everyone else is the 		real problem.

Three Triggered Reactions to Coaching
When someone else offers us feedback—even a perceptive observation or a well-intentioned suggestion—
we often have a “triggered” reaction. More specifically,
we have found that three triggered reactions to feedback are common:• Truth Triggers. The feedback is “wrong,” “not true,”or “off” in some way. The person giving the advice

doesn’t understand our situation or the constraints
we were under. It’s bad advice. It wouldn’t work.
• Relationship Triggers. Relationship triggers haveto do with who is offering us the feedback, what we
think about them, and how we feel treated by them.
Are they credible? Do we trust them? Do we likethem? Are they overstepping in telling us how to
do our job? Our response is less about the content
and more about our relationship with the giver.
• Identity Triggers. Identity triggers arise from thestory we tell ourselves about who we are (does thismean I’m incompetent?) or how we are perceived
by others (I am humiliated that you pointed thisout in front of my peers). Our particular sensitivity
to feedback—our emotional wiring—is also relevant
here. How upset we get and how long it takes us 		
to recover can vary widely in individuals. What’s
devastating to us is merely annoying to ourteammate, or vice versa.
When in the midst of any of these triggered reactions,
we can get argumentative, defensive, or just shut
down. As Judy points out, saying things like “just rise
above it” or “don’t get defensive” doesn’t help. If wewant to support leaders in learning and growing, 		
we have to help them recognize and navigate thesetriggered reactions in the learning process itself. And
we have to get better at navigating those triggers
ourselves.

Fixed versus Growth Mindset
Judy talks about the importance of doing a mindset
inventory and recognizing that shifting to an optimistic, hopeful mindset produces better outcomes thanremaining stuck in a pessimistic, discouraged one.
We’ll add another dimension to the conversation: Carol
Dweck’s research on fixed versus growth mindsets.
According to Dweck, a “fixed” mindset is characterized
by the sense that this is how I am and how I’m going
to be. Don’t ask me to change, because people don’t

co m m enta r y | H een and G oldstein

C o m m enta r y 1 4 . 3

really change. So finding out that I am part of the
problem means I’m stuck and maybe even that I am“the problem.” If you have this mindset, it’s hard tofeel receptive to feedback.
On the other end of the spectrum is what Dweck calls a“growth” mindset. When we hold a growth mindset, we
assume that we are always learning and growing. Bumping up against challenge is normal and an opportunity
to learn. A growth mindset means we aren’t as afraid
to fail, aren’t as afraid to be seen learning in front ofour colleagues, aren’t as risk averse if asked to try
something new.
Sounds easy as you are curled up on your couch reading
this article. Or when you are leading a group, sharing an
anecdote about a past failure that you turned into a lifechanging—and now teachable—moment. Of course weshould have a growth mindset—look at how much we
can benefit from it!
But conjuring a growth mindset is quite hard to dowhen you are in the depths of a soul-crushing conflict.
And it can be particularly hard to hold onto when the“learning” is happening in front of peers you respect,particularly for high achievers who are not used to 		
failure.
Shifting to a growth mindset requires a commitment
to tell a much different story about how you take in 		
information about yourself. It requires us as teachers tofind ways to give people the space they need for honest
self-reflection and to create group norms that value
this kind of growth.

Insiders versus Outsiders
When watching someone else’s conflict from the outside, it’s easy to see how both parties are contributing
to the problem, making things worse, and bringing out
the worst in each other. Yet when we are in the middleof our own conflicts, it feels like a big mess. We’re stuck.
We’re exasperated. We’re at a loss. The shift from“problem” to “possibility” doesn’t even occur to us. 		

Shifting to a growth mindset
requires a commitment to tell amuch different story about how you
take in information about yourself.
Our own conflicts feel like exceptions to all that 		
we teach and facilitate.
So there is something different about what we can 		
see when we are outsiders versus what we can see whileinside a conflict. That’s an interesting phenomenon to
notice that creates various possibilities for enabling
leaders to learn. Stepping outside of a conflict to viewit from the perspective of a neutral third party can beliberating and illuminating.
Judy’s approach to Aikido as a leadership philosophy,
stance, and metaphor is powerful in part because it
tempers some of the triggered reactions that can getin the way of learning. Using Aikido:• Lowers the stakes. Introducing leaders to Aikido—
an art form and practice in which few are likely to
be “masters”—creates a sense of shared exploration.
We can look foolish or make mistakes because we’re
not expected to be “at the top of our game” at thisstrange art. In this context, Aikido creates a playfulness that emphasizes the fun of learning andgrowing. It lowers the stakes on feeling acceptedor respected as we are now, since almost everyonein the room is trying something new.
• Invites us to step outside our story. The use of
Aikido as a metaphor for the dynamics of conflict—and the possibilities for how we might respond—
invites us to step outside of our own conflicts. It
creates the distance we need to spot patterns andsee things we often can’t see from inside the lockedboxes of our usual stories. We can suddenly understand why our usual responses result in ineffective

33

34

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

C o m m enta r y 1 4 . 3

outcomes. We can identify new possibilities for how
to respond and know why these different approaches
might be more effective than our standard way ofoperating.
• Mixes the familiar with the unfamiliar. Using
metaphorical learning loosens up the limitations on
people’s thinking about what’s possible. One reason
Aikido works in this context is that it mixes familiar
with unfamiliar. As human beings, we are always
looking for patterns we recognize and things we 		
understand or have seen before. So changing themode of learning or the sense we are using helps
us see things in new ways or in higher relief.
Aikido is one way to mix the familiar and the un-		
familiar to create space for self-reflection and learning. In our consulting practice, we do something 		similar when we teach soft skills, such as how tohave difficult conversations, negotiate effectively,or handle feedback well. These skills can feel foreign
to highly analytical types, so we teach them initiallyin a structured and intellectually rigorous way.
Through analysis, we break the conflict into com-		ponent parts. The worksheets we give participants
are based on spreadsheets. Engineers, scientists,
economists, and people in finance respond well tothese familiar approaches, making it easier for themto learn the soft skills we’re teaching. They find theidea that learning soft skills can be just as rigorous
and analytical as anything else they do reassuring.
That familiarity helps them feel willing to shift

their story, engage in the conversation with curiosity
rather than “solutions,” be open to learning something
they didn’t already know, and step into and explore
less familiar territory, including their own blind spots.

If we expect leaders to makethese shifts in mindset, to be open
to growth, we have to walk ourown talk.
Walk Our Own Talk
Learning about ourselves—and helping leaders to learn
about themselves—demands rigor, thoughtfulness, andreflection. Even as teachers and conflict professionals,
it often feels that we don’t have time or that it’s not 		that important compared to the client demands on 		our “to-do” lists.
But if we expect leaders to make these shifts in mindset,
to be open to growth, we have to walk our own talk.
We have to be role models in practicing the skills andbehaviors we are suggesting to clients and coaches. Ifthey can see us struggling to do it, especially in how weinteract with them on a project or in the room, they’ll
be more likely to take on the painful task of learning
about themselves.
At the very least, tackling the challenges of learning
about yourself will give you a great story to tell. n

about the autho r s
Sheila Heen and Debbie Goldstein are partners at Triad Consulting Group and both teach negotiation at
Harvard Law School. Sheila is the co-author of two New York Times bestselling books: Difficult Conversations: 		How to Discuss What Matters Most by Stone, Patton, and Heen and Thanks for the Feedback: the Science and Art
of Receiving Feedback (Even When it’s Off-Base, Unfair, Poorly Delivered, and Frankly You’re Not in the Mood) 		
by Stone and Heen.

B ook e x ce r pt | st r oh

35book e x ce r pt 1 4 . 3

Systems Thinking for Social Change
Making an Explicit Choice
D avid P ete r S t r oh
One principle of complex systems is that they are perfectly designed to produce the results they are achieving.
But all too often, these results are contrary to what we really want to accomplish. In this excerpt from his book
Systems Thinking for Social Change (Chelsea Green, 2015), systems consultant David Peter Stroh points out that
surfacing the discrepancy between what we want a system to achieve and the results it is currently achieving
is a powerful force for constructive change. Acknowledging this difference prompts us to question not only ourassumptions about how things are supposed to work, but also our intentions about what is most important to
us and what we want to accomplish. The article identifies four steps for aligning people’s espoused purpose
with the purpose their current actions are designed to achieve.

The broad-based teamwork
involved in solving complex
social problems requires aligning diverse stakeholders with acommon public purpose evenwhen each may have different
private agendas. In chapter 6,
for instance, we saw theDavid Peter Strohconflicts that almost always
emerge in coalitions trying to end homelessness.
Everyone has different primary concerns: Elected
officials worry about containing costs to keep voter
support; downtown businesspeople worry aboutkeeping homeless people away from their storefronts;
and shelter providers worry about filling beds to keep
their funding. The approach recommended in chapter
6 to align these different interests is to establish common ground by clarifying people’s shared aspirationand their initial picture of current reality. But thework doesn’t stop there.

stakeholders makes it difficult to not only align people
with one another, but also to align each stakeholder’shighest aspiration with their own immediate selfinterests.

While developing common ground is vital, it can missthe even deeper challenge of aligning people withthemselves. The diversity of concerns held by different

Many people are pulled between achieving what they
most deeply care about and meeting short-termgoals.1 We want to realize our divine nature while

This article is adaptedfrom David Peter
Stroh’s Systems Thinking
for Social Change (October2015) and is printed withpermission from Chelsea
Green Publishing.
© 2015 by David Peter Stroh.

36

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

also ensuring that we meet more basic needs such as
economic security, belonging, and recognition. Even
our desire to help others relieve their immediate suffering can conflict with helping these same people become
independently secure and fulfilled over time. The subsequent question for those who want social change is
how to support people to realize their highest aspirations,particularly when these diverge from their more immediate concerns. How do we help people make an explicit
choice in favor of what they most profoundly want?

Most people are pulled between
achieving what they most deeply
care about and meeting shortterm goals.
The answer is to connect people even more closely withboth their aspirations and current reality by uncovering
the bottom of the iceberg—the purpose that inspires
them and, often by contrast, the purpose that shapes
their everyday actions. By becoming more aware of both
purposes, people can make a more conscious commitment to their highest aspirations with full awarenessof the potential costs, not only the benefits, of realizingthem. In order to align stakeholders most powerfullyaround their avowed purpose, it is important to help
them make an informed choice to commit to thispurpose in full light of what it might take to get there.
Making this choice is pivotal to aligning people’s
energies in service of meaningful change.
You can learn to create this alignment by supporting
people to take four steps:• Understand that there are payoffs to the existing
system—a case for the status quo.
• Compare the case for the status quo with thecase for change.

• Create solutions that serve both their long-term
and their short-term interests—or make a trade-off
with the recognition that meaningful change often
requires letting something go.
• Make an explicit choice in favor of their higher
purpose by weakening the case for the status quoand strengthening the case for change.

1. Understand Payoffs to the Existing System
Systems are perfectly designed to achieve the results
they are achieving right now.2 At first glance, when we
look at how dysfunctional existing systems can be, thispremise seems absurd. For example, why would people
design a system that perpetuates homelessness, increases starvation, or undermines children’s abilities tolearn? The answer that emerges from a systems analysis
is that people are accomplishing something they wantnow, something other than what they say they want.
They are receiving payoffs or benefits from the statusquo, and they are avoiding costs of change.
Payoffs to an existing system include quick fixes thatwork in the short run to reduce problem symptoms 		
and the immediate gratification that comes from implementing them. In systems that unwittingly perpetuate
homelessness, some of the payoffs to the existing ways
of working are reduced visibility of the problem due totemporary shelters that keep people off the streets orout of the public eye, reduced severity of the problem
because some forms of shelter exist, good feelings on
the part of both shelter providers and funders that they
are helping people in need, and continued funding 		
for the shelter system.
Costs of change that people prefer to avoid include financial investment, the discomfort of learning new skills
and creating different work, having to act interdependently instead of independently, and being patient
while waiting for investments to demonstrate returns
over time. In the case of ending homelessness, some of
the costs people avoid are investing in safe, permanent,B ook e x ce r pt | st r oh

37

© Thinkstock/Spncer Plattaffordable, and supportive housing; closing shelters
or significantly shifting their mission and work; confronting fears on the part of citizens that they might
have formerly homeless people as neighbors; andconfronting fears on the part of homeless people thatthey might not be able to adjust to permanent housing.
The payoffs of the existing shelter system and thecosts of changing it combine to yield a case for the
status quo of helping people cope with homelessness.

The case for change includes thebenefits of changing and the costs
of not changing.

However, this case for the status quo actually undermines efforts to realize the avowed purpose of ending
homelessness.

2. Compare the Case for Change with
the Case for the Status Quo
The case for change includes the benefits of changing
and the costs of not changing. These are often easier for
people to clarify than the benefits of not changing andthe costs of change. People have already been thinking
about their vision for a desired future, and they can 		
also imagine a negative future where the problems 		
that concern them are not addressed.
In order to build the case for change, you can ask people
what benefits would be derived from realizing their 		
vision—benefits for their constituents and society as a

38

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

whole, for their partners and other stakeholders, andfor themselves. Those involved in trying to end (versus
cope with) homelessness might respond:• Reduced costs for the emergency response and social
services associated with chronic homelessness—		
including shelters, hospital bills, and substance abuse
treatment.
• Reduced unemployment costs for people who experience episodic homelessness because they havelost their jobs and ability to pay for housing.
• Ability to receive state and federal funds for meeting
best-practice requirements to reduce homelessness.
• Positive feelings associated with providing people
with permanent housing.
Then, to help people understand the costs of not changing, you can ask them to paint their nightmare scenario—to describe the worst that could happen if they donothing differently now. For those same people working to end homelessness, the costs of not changing
include:• All the above costs continue to increase.
• Lost funding caused by failing to meet government
requirements for implementing best practices.
• Lower quality of street life leading to economic decline.
In order to help people compare the case for changewith the case for the status quo, it helps to completea cost–benefit matrix, as shown in the table “CostBenefit Matrix for Ending Homelessness.”
The cost–benefit matrix helps people understand at aneven deeper level why change is not occurring despite
their best efforts. It depicts the often hidden case forthe status quo—one that is currently strong enough tooverride the case for change and perpetuate the way
things are.

3. Create Both/And Solutions—or Make a Trade-Off
People ideally want to have their cake and eat it, too:
They would like to keep the benefits of the status quo

T A B L E 1 Cost-Benefit Matrix for Ending Homelessness

Case for Change

Case for Status Quo

Benefits of change

Benefits of not changing (payoffs of status quo)

• Reduced costs of emergency response,
shelters, health care, substance abuse treatment,
unemployment• Reduced visibility of the problem• Increased ability to receive government funding• Positive feelings associated with providing people
with permanent housing• Reduced severity of the problem• Good feelings of helping people in need
• Continued funding for shelter system

Costs of not changing

Costs of change• Above costs continue to increase• Investment in safe, permanent, affordable, andsupportive housing• Lost funding from failing to meet government
requirements• Lower quality of street life leading to economic
declineSource: Bridgeway Partners and Innovation Associates Organizational Learning.

• Closing shelters or shifting their mission and work
• Confronting fears of ordinary citizens• Confronting fears on the part of homeless peopleB ook e x ce r pt | st r oh

People ideally want to have theircake and eat it, too: They would liketo keep the benefits of the statusquo while also realizing the benefitsof change.

people quickly move into permanent housing, usuallyin the private market), permanent supportive housing(permanent, affordable, safe housing combined withsupportive services for chronically homeless people),and services only. There can be a place for all thesealternatives as long as the overall system is incentivized
to provide people with permanent housing as quickly
as possible.

while also realizing the benefits of change. Indeed, both/and solutions are preferable where they can be found,and there are a number of methods such as Polarity
Management for creating those solutions.3 In the effort
to end homelessness, there are hundreds of communitybased continuums of care throughout the nation providing housing and services for homeless people. Components may include: street outreach, emergency shelters(least permanent), transitional housing (supporting
chronically homeless people to prepare to live in permanent housing), rapid rehousing (helping homeless

However, more often than not, people have to maketrade-offs. They have to decide if what they aspire tois worth giving up at least some of what they have. As
much as we prefer not to let go of anything to haveeven more, we also understand “no pain, no gain,” “there
is no such thing as a free lunch,” and “investing now for
the future.” Not only do systems exhibit a tendency forbetter-before-worse behavior (for example, throughquick fixes that undermine long-term effectiveness),but the reverse is also true. Things often have to getworse (or more difficult) before they get better. We

39© Bank of America

40

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3

have to let go of something such as comfort, security,and independence to have what we want even more.
By contrast, the unwillingness to let go of such benefits
to the status quo is the greatest obstacle to change.

challenge: “What might we have to give up as anorganization in order for the whole to succeed?” I had
never heard the question before and realized how
powerful it is in catalyzing change.

Lyndia Downie, the president and executive directorof Boston’s Pine Street Inn, one of the most respected
shelters in the country, realized that the inn needed
to totally transform its mission in order to truly tackle
homelessness.4 She discovered that 5 percent of thehomeless people in her shelters took up more thanhalf of the beds on any given night, and that thesewere the chronically homeless who most needed permanent housing. Committed to Housing First, whichcenters on providing homeless people with permanent
housing quickly and then providing services as needed,
she convinced her board to transform the inn’s mission
from emergency shelter provider to real estate developer and landlord. She describes the “hard-to-stomach”
decision for both the board and staff that involved
closing some shelters and shifting those resources
to buy homes instead.

As in the case of the Pine Street Inn, sometimes thegreatest challenge begins with letting go of one selfimage and replacing it with another:• The Area Education Agencies and local school districts in Iowa realized that they needed to give up
their identities as being solely responsible for the
students in their respective geographies. In order toimprove education outcomes across the state, theyneeded to access the power of interdependence andlet go of a measure of independence with respect toeach other and the state Department of Education.
• The regulator of food safety in a major city learned
that it was more effective when it shifted its role withrestaurant owners from being an enforcer to being
an information provider and educator.
• A county public health department increased its
ability to improve the health of a poor community
when it shifted its role from being an arm’s-length
expert to becoming the facilitator of a communitydriven process.

We have to let go of somethingsuch as comfort, security, andindependence to have what wewant even more.
The need to let go of current payoffs became compellingly clear to me when I spoke one evening with thepresident of a nonprofit providing health care for thehomeless in a major city. He told me that his COO had
participated in a systems mapping exercise I had ledthat morning with many stakeholders working to end
homelessness. After reviewing the map and her organization’s place in the larger system, she had returned toa meeting the same afternoon with the president andorganization’s board, and she had posed the following

4. Make an Explicit Choice
You can support people to let go more easily by 		
first weakening the case for the status quo, and thenstrengthening the case for change.
A systems map naturally helps weaken the case for the
status quo by showing how people’s current thinking
and actions tend to lead them away from achieving 		the purpose they aspire to. For example, the emergency
response system to cope with homelessness unwittingly diverts attention and resources away from ending it. Separately optimizing parts of K–12 education 		in Iowa undermines the state’s ability to improve education outcomes for all its children. Depending on
enforcement as a way to motivate restaurant owners

B ook e x ce r pt | st r oh

A systems map helps weaken thecase for the status quo by showing
how people’s current thinking andactions tend to lead them away fromachieving the purpose they aspire to.
to increase food safety makes it more difficult toachieve the cooperation required to do so.
Strengthening the case for change involves two
steps that deepen people’s connections with theirhighest aspirations. The first is more receptive in natureand supports people to stop and listen to what calls
to them most authentically. Otto Scharmer describes
this as presencing in his pioneering book Theory U:
Leading from the Future as It Emerges.5 He states:
Presencing—the blend of sensing and presence,means to connect with the Source of the highest
future possibility and to bring it into the now. When
moving into the state of presencing, perception begins to happen from a future possibility that depends
on us to come into reality. In that state we step into
our real being, who we really are, our authentic self.
Presencing evokes a deep connection described by 		different names in various wisdom traditions. Scharmer
describes it as an eco-centered view, one captured by
the famous philosopher Martin Buber when he encouraged people to “Listen to the course of being in theworld . . . and bring it to reality as it desires.” Asking,“What is being called of us?” can lead people in a significantly different direction than one based on thequestion “What do we want to create?”—which risks
focusing them on a more ego-centered place.
The second step in deepening people’s connection to
the case for change is more active in nature. It supports

people to envision the ideal future that profoundly
calls to them. The following guidelines for visioning are
based on principles developed by Robert Fritz, a masterof the creative process:• Separate what you want from what you think ispossible.
• Focus on what you want versus don’t want.
• Focus on the results instead of the process.
• Include the consequences you want.
• See/experience the vision in the present.
I then ask people several questions to describe an
ideal time in the future when the vision has beenaccomplished:• How are the people you want to serve being served?
What are they doing, seeing, feeling, hearing, andsaying?
• How does serving these people contribute toother stakeholders and society as a whole?
• What is your group doing differently? What are
you seeing, feeling, thinking, and hearing?
• What am I personally doing differently? How does
realizing this vision serve my highest self?
Weakening the case for the status quo and connecting
people more closely to the case for change throughboth deep listening and visioning help people makean explicit choice in favor of their highest aspirations.

What Can You Do When People Are
Still Not Aligned?
While the four steps above stimulate alignment among
diverse stakeholders, they do not guarantee it. One
possible outcome is that you still cannot find common
ground on which people want to build something together. In this case it helps to remember the alternatives
proposed in chapter 6:• Collaborate indirectly by legitimizing and addressing
others’ concerns, and then seeking to influence themthrough mutually respected third parties and/or to
engage them at critical phases in the process.

41

42

r eflections | volu m e 1 4 , N u m be r 3• Work around the people you cannot work with.
• Work against them through such channels as advocacy, legislative policy, and nonviolent resistance.
It is also important to recognize that not everyone needs
to agree at once on a new course of action in order forchange to occur. Everett Rogers’s famous study on the
diffusion of innovations concluded that attitudes shiftprogressively through a population, and that the 15 percent who comprise innovators and early adopters canbuild sufficient momentum for others to follow.6
Another possible scenario is that people look clearlyat the case for the status quo and the case for change—and deliberately decide to maintain the status quo withfull appreciation of the future they are giving up on. Thisis certainly a valid choice, and I only encourage people
in these cases to make peace with what they have—since they are now consciously choosing it. This means
accepting all of current reality including its undesirable
aspects since none of it is likely to change if they do
not change themselves.

Closing the Loop
• It is difficult to establish common ground whenpeople’s everyday actions are not aligned with theirhighest aspirations.
• Helping people make an explicit choice in favor ofwhat they most profoundly want is a pivotal stage
in the change process.
• You can enable people to align their current behavior
with their avowed purpose by supporting them totake four steps:
1. Understand that there are payoffs to the existing
system.
2. Compare the case for the status quo with thecase for change.
3. Create both/and solutions—or make a trade-off.
4.	Make an explicit choice in favor of their higher
purpose.
• You still have alternatives available when stakeholders
do not align around a higher aspiration even after
taking these steps. n

ENDNOTES
1 	Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, How We Talk Can Change the Way We Work (Jossey-Bass, 2001).
2. This insight has been attributed to many systems thinkers, including Dr. Paul Batalden, professor emeritus at the Geisel School of
Medicine at Dartmouth College; Don Berwick, past president and CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the former
administrator of the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and Edward Deming, founder of the quality movement.
3 Peter Stroh and Wynne Miller, “Learning to Thrive on Paradox,” Training and Development, September 2014.
4 Shirley Leung, “Pine St. Inn’s Bold Move to End Chronic Homelessness,” The Boston Globe, July 16, 2014.
5 Otto Scharmer, Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges (Berrett-Koehler, 2009).
6 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition (Free Press, 2003).
about the autho r
David Peter Stroh is a founding partner of Bridgeway Partners and a founding director of the website Applied
Systems Thinking. He also cofounded Innovation Associates, the consulting firm whose pioneering work in 		
the area of organizational learning formed the basis for fellow cofounder Peter Senge’s management classic 		
The Fifth Discipline. dstroh@bridgewaypartners.com

Reflections

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

Volume 14, Number 3

E ditoria l T eam
Managing Editor
Janice Molloy
Contributing Editor
Deborah Wallace
PublisherFrank Schneider

S ubscription O ptions
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)© Thinkstock/Design Pics

To receive Reflections as a SoL NA Organization
Member, please contact Frank Schneider, SoL NA
President/CEO, at frank@solonline.org.
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:

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

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

A