BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: CREATING DOUBLE-LOOP ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THROUGH APPLICATION...

BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: CREATING DOUBLE-LOOP ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

THROUGH APPLICATION OF A JUNGIAN SYSTEMS THEORY

A dissertation submitted by

Dean J. Robb

to

FIELDING GRADUATE INSTITUTE

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in

HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS

This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of

Fielding Graduate Institute by:

___________________________________ Annabelle Nelson, Ph.D.

Chair

___________________________________

Peter Park, Ph.D. Faculty Reader

___________________________________

Charles Seashore, Ph.D. Faculty Reader

___________________________________

Dane Hewlett Student Reader

ii

Building Organizational Resilience: Creating Double-Loop Organizational Learning

Through Application of a Jungian Systems Theory

by

Dean J. Robb

ABSTRACT

This study constructed a model of individual and human systems

development as an interpenetrating gestalt, which was used as the foundation

for action research-based double-loop learning. The model’s essence is well-

captured by an ancient archetype: the Birth-Death-Rebirth Cycle.

The model proposes that only two stances are possible toward life: we

can either embrace it or resist it. Embracing the flow of life — and shepherding

ourselves through cycles of ‘death and rebirth’ — reinvigorates identity, unfolds

latent potential, and expands capability, creativity and adaptability. Resistance

— attempting to block or control the flow of life and defend the status quo — is a

defensive strategy that lowers performance, creativity and flexibility, increases

rigidity, stagnation and dysfunction, and may lead to early death.

Action research was performed in a large government agency and in a

small private company. Loop One focused on practical application of the model

to build systemic resilience and address specific system concerns. Loop Two

consisted of collective reflection on the model for the purpose of improving it.

The results suggest that leaders and managers must:

iii

o Embrace — and build practical supports to — ongoing cycles of death and

rebirth.

o Build ‘safe containers’ for members to express authentic individuality —

within the system.

o Manage individual and human systems development as interdependent

processes.

o Support integration of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ capabilities and attitudes

at the system and individual levels.

o Support dis-identification with the shared domain (the ‘organization’) as the

sole basis for identity, acceptable meaning-making and action. The shared

domain should become an object of reflection and co-construction by a

community of differentiated individuals.

o Build ‘whole-person’ commitment as the basis for gaining shared alignment

with the shared purpose/task.

o Gain shared alignment with the systemic purpose by building ‘whole-

person’ commitment.

o Root organizational purpose in genuine service to the world.

KEY WORDS: Resilience, Jungian theory, archetypes, individuation, community, Jungian organization theory, organization theory, organization development, organizational learning, organizational psychodynamics, systems theory, complexity theory, human development, action research

iv

Copyright by

Dean J. Robb

2003

v

Acknowledgements

This dissertation is an outgrowth of my long-held belief that Jungian thought provides a

critical ingredient missing in our current frameworks for understanding and acting in organizational life. That ingredient is an essentially spiritual and developmental view of human social systems, founded on the primacy and centrality of individuals-in-community as the source of continuous renewal of those systems. This view is antithetical to the view of individuals as functionaries in pre-existent, fixed systems. It is fitting, therefore, that this dissertation be viewed as a communal effort. I spearheaded the effort, but behind these pages are many genuine individuals, who have made deep and continuing efforts to support the development and presentation of the concepts and findings herein. Without them, this dissertation would not exist, and I would not be who I am today.

My fiancée, Tamara Laing, supported me with steadfast love, caring, support, and an insistence that I continue with the work despite many obstacles and setbacks, despite my periods of self-doubt, and despite many sacrifices both of us have had to make. She believed in me and in my future, founded on this labor of love, service and scholarship.

My committee chair, Annabelle Nelson, Ph.D., believed in my work and intuitively grasped its potential, even when I couldn’t quite perceive it myself. She encouraged me to pursue this study, helped me frame it, helped me structure my committee for maximum effectiveness, and helped me structure and present this dissertation in an intelligible manner, despite my reluctance to follow her excellent suggestions.

Charles Seashore, Ph.D., is a long-time mentor and friend, besides serving as a faculty reader. For several years now, Charlie has understood and supported my interest in individuation-in-community, has helped me navigate many administrative complexities, taught me by example how to be an effective change agent, provided me with many small nuggets of wisdom, helped me laugh a lot, and always provided me with a “room at the Seashore Inn” when I needed one.

Peter Park, Ph.D., provided me with many excellent insights and needed changes to my multiple drafts, and encouraged me to pursue an action research approach.

Dane Hewlett, who served as my student reader, became a brother-in-arms with respect to post-conventional development of individuals and organizations, and has become a true friend.

My clients and co-researchers, whom I unfortunately cannot name, took a risk by agreeing to try a new theory and approach to practice, stayed with me throughout a long and demanding research process, and provided me with many rich findings and insights. I feel privileged to have worked with them, and I am honored to have helped them.

My closest friends ― Jim Gessner, John Irwin, Valerie Irwin, Don Meehan and Alan Smialowicz ― were there for me through all the highs and lows, and provided me with the support and encouragement I needed to follow my path.

Charles Schwartz, Ed.D, my mentor for the past 10 years or more, worked closely with me to unlock and actualize the vast potential hidden within. For this, I am deeply and eternally grateful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

vi

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Dissertation Overview 1

Important Preliminaries 2

Research Summary 6

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 9

Section One: The Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle: An Archetype of Equilibration

9

Introduction 9

Primary Quotes 9

Primary Themes 10

Primary Archetypes 11

Systemic Equilibration as Two Integrated Life Tasks 13

Task One: Birth and Bipolarity 16

Task Two: Death and Rebirth 18

Dialectic and Development 19

Passage Through Chaos 20

Section Two: Individual Equilibration – A Living Gestalt 21

The Gestalt as Two Life Tasks 23

Critical Characteristics of Individual Equilibration 28

Section Three: Human Systems Equilibration – A Living Gestalt 32

The Gestalt as Two Integrated Tasks 33

Pre-Birth: Systemic Totality and Diffusion 33

Birth: A Performance Response 34

Death and Rebirth: an Adaptive Response 42

Dialectic and Equilibration 44


vii

The Role of the Community Archetype 45

The Importance of the Community Archetype 46

Critical Characteristics of Human Systems Equilibration 48

Section Four: The Interdependence of Individual and Human System Equilibration

50

The Correspondence of Inner (Psychic) and Outer (Social) Multiplicity

50

The Performance Domain as Contingent on Internal Conditions 52

The Individual Ego as Embedded in the PD 56

Section Five: Resistance and Repression 59

Introduction 59

The Structure of Section Five 60

Resistance – Individual Level 61

Resistance – Human Systems Level 63

Cultural Factors 63

Repression vs. Suppression 65

Repression in Individuals 66

Repression in Human Systems 67

Section Six: Resilient Human Systems 74

Introduction 74

The Foundational Image 75

An Elaboration of the Foundational Image 76

The Vision Is Not the Goal 79

Foundations of a Resilient Human System 80

Enabling Practices and Conditions 83


viii

Postscript 90

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 92

Introduction 92

Loop Two Methods 96

Loop One Methods 100

Summary 115

Chapter Four: Findings 116

Loop One Results 116

Loop One Findings 121

Loop Two Findings 133

Opening Remarks 133

Thematic Structures 136

A Short Story of Organizational Resilience 140

Resilience as the Integration of Polarities 143

Key Facets of the Performance Domain 148

Key Facets of the Adaptation Domain 154

Managing Alignment: Commitment and Compliance 160

Splitting: Compliance vs. Commitment, and Performance vs. Adaptation

173

Managing the Adaptation Domain: Repression and Suppression 175

Repression 175

Suppression 187

Differentiation Within a Group/Organizational Setting 197

Macro Conditions that Foster Differentiation, Alignment and Integration

206


ix

The Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle 212

Symbol and Image: Capturing Identity and Complexity 226

Further Dimensions of the Resilient Organization 228

Summary 235

Chapter Five: Discussion 236

Introduction 236

Loop One Results Discussion 236

Loop Two Discussion 241

Introduction 241

Structure of the Loop Two Discussion 243

Detailed Discussion of Findings 243

Conceptual Clarity vs. Situational Complexity 244

Wholeness, Splitting, Pain and Healing 245

Alignment & Commitment: With the PD, Self, Community and the Greater Good

248

Death and Rebirth 257

Building the Enabling Container 260

Intimacy and the Resilient Human System 262

The Differentiated/Integrated System: Conscious Community

264

A Tentative Model of Group Development 268

The Model – Revisited 274

Resilient Human Systems – A Brief Recap 279

Practice: Build a Strong Temenos 284

References 287

x

List of Figures

Page Figure 1. Equilibration. 15

Figure 2. Individual equilibration. 21

Figure 3. Human systems equilibration. 32

Figure 4. Theory & praxis in human systems. 94

Figure 5. Group development process. 269

Figure 6. Human system as meta-psyche. 274

Figure 7. The structure of human systems. 297

Figure 8. Spectrum of capabilities. 313

List of Tables Table 1: Equilibration as Two Integrated Life Tasks 13

Table 2: Systemic Domains 17

Table 3: Structure of the Performance Domain 37

Table 4: Developmental Challenges by AD Sub-domain 89

Table 5: Interviewee Pseudonyms and Letter Codes 117

Table 6: Thematic Structure of Findings 136

Table 7: Contents of the Performance Domain 299

Table 8: Definitions of Equilibration Capabilities 318

xi

List of Appendixes

Page Appendix A: Archetypes and the Model 292

Appendix B: The Structure of the Individual Unconscious 295

Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems 297

Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities 313

Appendix E: Resistance to Equilibration — Individual Level 320

Appendix F: Resistance to Equilibration — Human System Level 325

Appendix G: A Summary of Model Assumptions 334

Appendix H: Interview Protocol 347

Appendix I: Principles of Differentiated Discourse 348

Appendix J: Subgroup Healing Process 350

Appendix K: Resilience Assessment Questionnaire 352

Appendix L: AR Loop One Output – ST-ODT 354

Appendix M: AR Loop One Output – Life Transitions 360

Appendix N: Loop Two Discussion – Themes and Relevant Data 362

Appendix O: Pattern Archetypes, Model Constructs, and Theoretical Constructs and Languages

379

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Dissertation Overview

The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a model of human systems

performance and development, apply it in actual human systems, and through the

process of its application, create learning about the model. Using academic language,

the purpose is to create a simplified theory, or model, of human systems development,

use the model as the foundation for a cycle of action research, and via this action

research, create complex or “double-loop” learning about the model.

The model is constructed in the Review of the Literature. The model attempts to

shed light onto the structures and developmental processes of humans systems capable

of ongoing adaptation; i.e., of ongoing learning, development, change, transformation

and self-renewal. It also attempts to serve as a guide to practice in facilitating such

capability.

The model is applied through the methodology of action research. The specific

practices, or “actions,” associated with the model assumptions will be developed by

myself and the team of co-researchers. These practices will be described in the methods

chapter, together with a description of the action research process.

Action research is used to create complex, or double-loop, learning (Argyris &

Schon, 1996 ;Bateson, 1972), based on qualitative analysis of interview data and a

journal. Double-loop learning occurs in two domains. The first learning domain, which

we shall call “Loop One,” is practical and instrumental, and answers the question, “How

2

can we improve our actions to better achieve our goals?” While documented to an

extent in the findings chapter, Loop One is not the central focus of this dissertation.

The central focus of this dissertation is the second learning domain (“Loop Two”),

which asks, “How do participants and facilitator describe the strengths and limitations of

the performance-adaptive model1 that guided collective action within the cycle of action

research?” The purpose of this latter inquiry is to create a revised set of assumptions,

and thus a revised model. This learning is theoretical in nature, and will occur through

general qualitative analysis of data collected through interviews with co-researchers,

together with data collected in the form of a journal kept by me. The remainder of the

methods, data collection, findings and discussion chapters are devoted to this purpose.

Important Preliminaries

The Model - Origins, Purpose, Meaning

The model2 informing our action-research-based inquiry is developed in the

literature review. I have developed the model in response to a long-standing perception

that traditional group and organizational development frameworks are inadequate to

illuminate or facilitate development of the capacity of human social systems and their

members to adapt - i.e., to learn, develop, change, transform and self-renew3 - on an

1 Developed in the literature review. 2 Model: 1. A structural design or pattern. 2. A system of postulates and inferences presented as a description of an entity or state of affairs [Fred Mish, 2002 #112]. 3 I view learning, development, change, transformation and self-renewal as interdependent, intertwining and inseparable aspects of a common underlying archetypal life pattern ― a gestalt ― that is probably most accurately termed equilibration or adaptation.

3

ongoing basis.

The model points to the possibility that human systems, like individuals, can

develop the capacity for continuous unfolding or development. It points to the possibility

that human systems can embrace an ongoing series of small births ― deaths ― and re-

births, yielding a succession of qualitatively new, broader and more resilient evolutionary

balances with their environments. It points to the possibility that human systems do not

have to become stagnant, stifling, conformist, change-resistant institutions. Rather, they

have the potential to become alive and vital by embracing deep change, creativity and

individuality. The model does not deny death; rather, it points to the possibility of a

longer, healthier, more creative and robust lifespan.

The model represents a synthesis and creative extension of theory drawn

primarily from the literatures of adaptation (from a Piagetian viewpoint), of evolutionary

(or adaptive) systems, and Jungian theory, at both the individual and human systems

levels. These literatures are included because they all inquire into the fundamental

structures and processes of living systems capable of ongoing adaptation. The model

also draws on the literatures of organizational psychodynamics and social defense

theory, because they inquire into the social, or “system-level,” manifestation of the

psyche and its defenses against adaptation.

The term “model” is used here to indicate a rough formulation and simplification

of, and precursor to, a fully developed theory. Within the purview of this dissertation, the

model (as well as the theory and the phenomena toward which it points) must be

4

understood as a true gestalt. 4 The model is represented (ultimately) through a set of

statements (assumptions, assertions, proposals, postulates, hypotheses) that are

believed to be true. The statements are an initial attempt at “decomposition” or

“unpacking” of the central gestalt, and each statement describes an important facet or

phenomenon of the gestalt. Because the central domain of investigation and model

building is a true gestalt, this set of statements cannot be understood as neatly “adding

up” to an exhaustive description of what is in fact an extremely complex, socio-psycho-

biological unity. Also, because these facets or phenomena of interest are so integrated

as to constitute a functional unit, the set of statements cannot be understood as being

mutually independent (like the axial structure of a crystal); rather, the statements are

mutually interdependent. Given this state of affairs, the model-building and research

processes that underlie this dissertation are explicitly rooted in a spirit of humility, which

is at the core of complex learning ― its central research focus.

An overview of the model is provided at the beginning of the Literature Review.

The list of statements that represent an attempted decomposition of the model are

presented in Appendix G: A Summary of Model Assumptions.

4 Gestalt: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological [or social-psychological or sociological] phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts [Fred Mish, 2002 #112].

5

The Role of Jungian Theory

Jungian literature in particular is central and fundamental. As will be seen shortly,

in certain key ways, Jungian theory closely parallels the findings of the other literatures.

There are a variety of non-Jungian perspectives on human and social development

which also exhibit such parallelism that I might have selected them as my theoretical

baseline. However, Jungian theory makes certain core assumptions, adopted by the

model, which depart significantly from other literatures and theoretical bases. Other

literatures reflect a fundamentally biological/materialistic/deterministic viewpoint, which

either explicitly or implicitly regards the psyche as a secondary, derivative phenomenon

of purely biological processes, and, in some cases, in a stance which is paradoxical at

least, more or less reject the existence of the psyche entirely.

Jungian theory, on the other hand, tends to emphasize psyche as a principle sui

generis and as autonomous, creative and purposive, rather than as a secondary

derivative of external, prior, physio-biological causal factors. Further, Jungian theory

assumes that the processes, dynamics and structures of the psyche rest fundamentally

on archetypes, patterns of potential deeply embedded in the processes of life and

psyche, a position that is shared by this dissertation. As far as I am aware, Jungian

theory is the only theoretical perspective that takes this position so explicitly and

unabashedly.

A baseline assumption of this dissertation is that any analysis of individuals

and/or human systems from a purely biological/materialistic/deterministic perspective will

be inescapably flawed because human systems, social structures and development

6

processes are deeply embedded in the processes and products of the psyche, a

principle sui generis, which is autonomous, creative and purposive. Jungian thought

views development as the autonomous, creative and purposive ‘unfolding’ or ‘realization’

of psychic potential, shaped and ordered via the mediation of archetypes, a viewpoint

that is foundational to this dissertation.

Research Summary

Research Question

The specific question to be investigated is “How do participants and facilitator

describe the strengths and limitations of the performance-adaptive model that guided

collective action within the cycle of action research?”

Research Focus and Limitations

The primary goal of the research is to learn about a specific model, developed in

the literature review, as the basis for possible improvement to the model.

The goal is not to test a narrowly specified hypothesis. In complex evolutionary

systems (living systems), the notion of an explicitly determinative, linear, cause-and-

effect process ― essential to traditional notions of hypothesis testing ― becomes

quickly lost in the complex array of interdependent, interwoven feedback loops that

permeate living systems. In the viewpoint taken here, living systems must be understood

as gestalts. In such contexts, events unfold within archetypal patterns, which shape and

order potentials but do not determine specific actualities (Stacey, 1996). We will be

searching for traces of such archetypally-ordered dynamics.

7

Neither is the goal to validate the entire model. Rather, the research will inquire

into a subset of model assumptions and associated practices, chosen democratically by

an action research team as most relevant to their issues and goals. The research will

inquire into the efficacy of those assumptions in terms of their explanatory or illuminative

power and in terms of their ability to help a human system meet its goals.

One challenge of action research is that as a co-researcher I cannot unilaterally

determine in advance which subset of model assumptions and associated practices the

team will select as the basis for the research. Action research is based on democratic

principles; the team of co-researchers ― as a whole ― will select what dimensions or

aspects of the model they see as most relevant to their goals and issues. The research

will reflect upon their experience of using those assumptions and associated practices

as a basis for intervention, and hopefully create new learning about them.

Research Approach

The approach to answering the research question will be a combination of action

research and qualitative analysis of interview data and a journal. For more information

about the research approach, see the research methods chapter.

Research Orientation

Traditionally, accepted scholarship has tended to rely heavily, if not exclusively,

on intense and often scrupulous observation and exploitation of differences and details

― from major to minuscule ― across levels of analysis, theoretical perspectives,

language uses, material details, etc. This dissertation, on the other hand, explores deep

8

patterns of life’s structure and development ― archetypes ― that span multiple contexts,

manifestations, theoretical perspectives and levels of analysis. In every context, they

manifest in concrete form and take on specific shape with differences in detail and

elaboration. Archetypes might be likened to the axial structure of a crystal, which is

shared by every crystal of the same type, while each particular crystal is unique in its

concrete form. However, while the axial structure of minerals can be represented simply

and completely in both verbal and graphical forms, life archetypes, on the other hand,

are essentially unknowable in their fullness and richness; because of this, they become

known to us through the mediating agent of symbol ― of image. Different manifestations

of a given archetype become described through specific languages and theoretical

constructs ― differentiated symbol systems ― across disciplines, manifestations and

levels of analysis. The viewpoint taken here is that each differing symbolic referent

points toward a shared pattern archetype, or fundamental image, informing it.

The work of scholarship here is one of tracing fundamental pattern archetypes

across different disciplines and levels of analysis. As such, this dissertation is 180

degrees apart from the model of scholarship noted above, since it is rooted in

recognizing patterns common to multiple domains rather than in an intensive

examination and analysis of details and differences. Of course, both reader and

researcher must remain deeply sensitive to differences, but I invite the reader to depart,

for the moment, from a traditional tendency toward scrupulosity around minor

differences, and to join me in the hunt for shared patterns of meaning, structure and

process among different domains, disciplines, levels and details.

9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Section One: The Birth !!!! Death !!!! Rebirth Cycle: An Archetype of Equilibration

Introduction

Section One provides the reader with an introduction to the foundational

constructs that inform the model of human and human system development5 that is built

in the literature review. These constructs are viewed as foundational properties of living

entities and systems that are capable of ongoing adaptation, development and evolution.

Subsequent sections explore how these foundational constructs apply more specifically

to the ongoing development, or ‘equilibration,’ of humans and human systems.

Primary Quotes

It is not the strongest, nor the most intelligent, that will survive, but those most responsive to change. (Darwin, 1859)

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. (Henri Bergson)

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. - Luke 17:34 (Barker, 1985, p. 1574) If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. Gospel of Thomas (Pagels, 1989)

The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind. Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since

5 For the remainder of this document, the term development will be replaced with a broader, more encompassing term: equilibration.

10

oneself is a part of humanity. Once the individual is thus secured in himself, there is some guarantee that the organized accumulation of individuals… will result in the formation no longer of an anonymous mass, but of a conscious community. (Jung, 1954/1966, p.227) (emphasis added) This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom. (Bertalanffy, 1969, pg. 53) (emphasis added)

Primary Themes

The literature review builds a model of human and human system equilibration,

viewed as a functionally integrated gestalt. The model revolves around and repeatedly

returns to certain primary and interdependent themes that are powerfully and beautifully

embedded or alluded to in the quotes above. The model asserts that human and human

system equilibration:

◊ Is an ongoing, spiraling process of maturation, triggered by the need to respond to

changes in context, which gradually yields increases in the explicit realization of

implicit potential. 6 It is a gradual process of movement in the direction of ‘conscious

wholeness.’

◊ Proceeds or ‘unfolds’ according to an archetypal pattern symbolized in the ancient

image of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle

◊ When consciously embraced, yields gradual increases in capacity for performance

6 The phrase “explicit realization of implicit potential” could also be phrased as “development of undeveloped potential.”

11

and adaptation; and when avoided, leads to ever-increasing levels of dysfunction

and disease, and perhaps to early death

◊ As an integrated phenomenon, embedded in a true gestalt,

• Is the foundation simultaneously for intra-personal (psychic) and social-systemic

harmony, healthy functioning and well-being

• Is mutually interdependent and interpenetrating between individuals and human

systems

◊ Is best fostered in a co-individuating community with a co-owned task responsibility.

Primary Archetypes

The model is founded on the archetypal foundations of living systems. Two kinds of

archetypes are explored. The first kind will be called a “pattern archetype.” 7

Fundamental pattern archetypes include:

◊ Equilibration as a living gestalt comprised of two functionally integrated,

complementary life tasks.

• Task One: Responding to a context

• Task Two: Responding to a change in context

◊ Bipolarity, created through enactment of the first life task, as foundational to living,

adaptive systems.

7 Briefly, a pattern archetype is defined as a fundamental pattern of behavior or development in living systems. It is often noticed by differing disciplines in different domains of study, and (Continued on next page)

12

◊ Dialectical relations between polarities.

◊ Equilibration (development) as a product of this dialectic.

◊ The equilibration process, which:

• Proceeds (or unfolds) according a pattern symbolized in the ancient archetypal

image of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle

• Is objectively accomplished via the mechanism of differentiation, integration and

transcendence (“individuation”)

• Is subjectively experienced as “passage through chaos.”

• Is motivated by the central archetype of the system (see next paragraph)

The second type investigated is a particular kind of Jungian archetype, which we will

call a “central archetype.” 8 The model proposes that there are two central archetypes.

The first is the Self, a Jungian archetype that has been extensively documented in

Jungian and post-Jungian literatures, and which is the central archetype for individuals9

(Edinger, 1992; Jacobi, 1973; Jung, 1960/1969/1978; Samuels, 1994).

The model proposes a second central archetype, called “Conscious Community,”

which represents a theoretical extension of the Self into the collective domain. There are

only a handful of prior referents for this theoretical construct, all of which describe or

described using differing theoretical constructs and languages, but the same fundamental pattern underlies all of them. See Appendix A: Archetypes and the Model for a fuller description. 8 A central archetype is a particular kind of Jungian archetype, which forms the ultimate foundation of the living human system – whether at the individual or collective level. See Appendix A: Archetypes and the Model for a fuller description of both central archetypes. 9 For more about the Self, see Appendix B: The Structure of the Individual Unconscious.

13

intimate a construct similar to, but having significant differences from, the construct

developed here. These are noted in Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems.

Systemic Equilibration as Two Integrated Life Tasks:

Long-term equilibration of a living system is viewed as an ongoing, coordinated

integration of two fundamental and complementary tasks:

Table 1 Equilibration as Two Integrated Life Tasks

Focus of Task

Task One Responding to a context10

Task Two Responding to a change in context

Each of these tasks requires and constellates significantly different and

complementary capabilities, attitudes and activities. 11 My belief is that, in general,

Western culture privileges Task One, and the competencies and activities attendant to it,

and for the most part either denigrates or radically under-emphasizes and under-rewards

Task Two, both for individuals and for human systems (organizations). Furthermore, this

10 A context is defined as a set of "interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs” (Mish, 2002). Such conditions can be internal to the system as well as external to it. A change in context can be equated roughly with the concept of “a difference that makes a difference” (Bateson, 1972). In other words, in this document, when we say change we mean a significant change — a change that, for the response to be truly effective, calls for a shift from an assimilative response strategy to an accommodative one (Piaget, 1970). 11 These complementary capabilities are described in Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

14

cultural problem manifests itself in the current massive struggles, by both individuals and

organizations, in effectively dealing with the reality of near-constant change.

In this document, these fundamental life tasks are separated for purposes of

analysis, but in life they are functionally integrated in a living gestalt, symbolized in the

ancient archetypal image of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle. There are many myths

and religious beliefs that share this symbol as a central archetypal image. One such

instance is the ancient myth of the Phoenix; another is the ancient and living belief in

reincarnation or in its close correlate, death and resurrection. This dissertation makes

no statement about this symbol or its derivative myths and beliefs from within the

disciplines of religious studies, mythological studies, cultural studies or any other related

field; nor does it examine its objective truth or falsity.

We are interested solely in interpreting this living symbol as a projection12 of

fundamental psychological and social-psychological processes and dynamics. We want

to investigate the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle as a symbol of the relational dynamics

between the ego and the Self at the individual level, 13 and between their proposed

analogues at the collective level, and we want to investigate the connection of this

relational dynamic to the ongoing equilibration (development) of individuals and human

systems. An illustration follows (Figure 1).

12 Projection: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects (Mish, 2002). 13 “The ego’s relation to the Self is a highly problematic one and corresponds very closely to man’s relation to his Creator as depicted in religious myth. Indeed the myth can be seen as a symbolic expression of the ego-Self relationship." (Edinger, 1992)

15

This living process gestalt or pattern archetype has been noticed and described

among several theoretical domains. Appendix O: Pattern Archetypes, Model Constructs,

and Theoretical Constructs and Languages looks across these domains, and shows

how their constructs and languages relate to the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle

archetype, and to the model we will be constructing.

16

Task One: Birth and Bipolarity

A living system, sans any outside stimulus requiring attention, tends to remain in

a relatively diffuse state: quiescent, relatively non-organized, and non-focused. Given

an outside stimulus requiring attention or response, the system responds through

shifting relevant energy and resources to particular subsystems, and centration begins

(Bertalanffy, 1969; Gray, 1996). At the most basic level, centration describes a living

system’s ability to respond to an environmental context via bracketing and focusing of

relevant energy and resources - i.e., to fulfill Task One.

Implicit in the twin ideas of centration and focus is the idea of differentiation - the

current focus is differentiated from the unfocused (Gray, 1996, p. 41). Each centration of

the system14 yields a temporary complex15 of differentiated systemic resources, focused

through a structured and organized grammar (or schema) in response to an

environmental context. Kegan called this relational grammar a self-object balance

(Kegan, 1982). Thus, the centration process gives birth to this differentiated adaptive

complex or response grammar.

The portion of the system that is not currently bracketed via the centration

process remains relatively more diffuse; that is, relatively less focused, differentiated,

and organized. Diffusion represents the total latent, undeveloped capacities of a living

system at any point in time.

14 A.k.a., evolutionary balance or dynamic equilibrium. 15 The response complex is temporary because it is genuinely adaptive only in relation to a particular, temporarily relatively stable, context. As the context (inevitably) changes, so must the adaptive response complex.

17

Thus Task One yields a fundamental structural bipolarity or splitting of systemic

resources and energies into the centrated and diffuse domains. 16 For purposes of the

model, these domains17 are:

Table 2 Systemic Domains

Systemic Poles Individual Level Human System Level

Centrated Domain Conscious Ego Performance Domain

Diffuse Domain Unconscious Adaptation Domain

The pattern archetype of “Birth” points to this process of creation of a

differentiated domain of systemic resources, structured and organized into an adaptive

relational grammar or schema, and focused on effective response to a context. At all

times, there is an underlying wholeness or totality of elements, energies, relations, etc.

that are available to the system; however, at any given time only a portion of this totality

is centrated and focused via the current adaptive schema.

An important point here is that in a living system, the Birth process yields a

systemic capability that approximates, or operates in a manner analogous to,

16 The centrated and diffuse domains are known by different terms, depending on the literature. The centrated domain is also known as focused, differentiated, structured and organized; the diffuse domain is also described as non-focused, undifferentiated, non-structured and non-organized. 17 These domains within individuals and human systems are summarized in a later section, and described in detail in Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems.

18

consciousness. 18 In broad terms, the adaptive response grammar in the centrated

domain can be viewed as the biological root of consciousness. “From the smallest of

organisms to the greatest society, focus - centration defines the center of

consciousness and of activity” (Gray, 1996, p. 116). “It is even possible to go so far as

to say that centration, or biological focus, is the root of consciousness and the most

primitive level of meaning” (Gray, 1996, p. 41). Here, consciousness is viewed as rooted

in, and developed from, the fundamental capacity to attend or respond, and thus can be

located within biological activity not ordinarily classified as conscious.

Task Two: Death and Rebirth

During periods when the response context remains relatively unperturbed,

centration of a systemic response grammar or identity takes place, and the system can

enact or assert its current identity without having to make significant alterations to the

systemic grammar driving its adaptive response. This is the essence of an assimilative

strategy (and of Task One). Of course accommodation occurs, but accommodation

takes a back seat, as it were, to assimilation. In a sense, the system is able to digest its

experience, which is the root meaning of assimilation.

But as contexts dynamically shift, the system is inevitably confronted with a

situation that is indigestible within its current response grammar. Rather than bending its

experience, the system must bend or re-form itself in response to an inassimilable

experience. At this point, equilibration demands that the system re-focus or re-centrate

18 The importance of this observation will be made clear in subsequent sections.

19

(Task Two). Recentration begins with a shift toward a primarily accommodative strategy.

As the systemic context continues to change, the current response schema becomes

increasingly difficult to maintain, and inevitably, to a greater or lesser extent (depending

on the severity of the change needed) it degrades, decays, or loosens. This

decomposition or melting process corresponds to the archetypal image of Death.

Living systems then access and differentiate latent, undifferentiated energies and

materials from the diffuse domain and draw them up into the (re)centration process,

where they are integrated into the centrated domain, ultimately yielding a newly

broadened, enriched, (and potentially reorganized) systemic response repertoire,

grammar, schema or identity. This latter process corresponds to the archetypal image of

Rebirth. Upon completion of this task, once again an assimilative strategy (Task One) is

adopted within the new context.

Dialectic and Development

This re-centration or re-focusing process is the outcome of a living, ongoing

dialectic between the systemic poles. On one hand, the centrated domain will tend to

block or suppress activity and energy originating from within the more diffuse domain, in

the interests of attending to the current survival task, and of maintaining a primarily

assimilative response strategy and schema (Gray, 1996, p. 217). “Every pattern of

adaptation…is maintained in essentially the same unaltered form and anxiously

defended against change until an equally strong or stronger impulse is able to displace it

(Whitmont, 1969).” The diffuse energies, on the other hand, seem to share the

characteristic of being in a creative/destructive tension, or dialectic, with the centrated

20

domain, with the function of providing for the future adaptive capacity of the system

(Stacey, 1996; Jung, 1960/1969). This creative tension is at the essence of an ongoing

dialectic relationship between the two domains, which triggers and motivates ongoing

equilibration, or development, of the system.

An interesting piece ― the “kicker,” if you will ― is that too much suppression

(i.e., repression) of the diffuse or adaptive domain leads to stagnation and/or death of

the system through an inability to respond to changes in context and survival task.

Healthy living systems maintain a living connection between the centrated and diffuse

domains, and maintain an ongoing dynamic of re-centration. System elements circulate,

so to speak, through the process of becoming bracketed, differentiated, reorganized,

and refocused, as the survival focus of the system changes in response to changes in

context, rather than attempting to maintain a fixed, rigid organizational configuration or

grammar. All parts are important; all parts are needed, but not all at the same time or for

the same purpose. There is an implicit wholeness to the system, even as only a portion

of it is in focus at any given time.

Passage Through Chaos

A key insight of Piaget, other modern biologists and systems theorists is that this

ongoing adaptive relation or equilibration process is not one of continuous upward

development, consolidation and augmentation. Rather, it consists of ongoing movement

between relatively stable equilibriums, each movement marked notably by an in-between

period of instability, or “passage through chaos” (Death), which ultimately yields up a

qualitatively new balance ― a Rebirth (Kegan, 1982, p. 44; Stacey, 1996).

21

Section Two: Individual Equilibration: A Living Gestalt

Below is an illustration of the living gestalt, or pattern archetype, of ongoing

equilibration (or development) for individual human beings, which we will be exploring:

From the Jungian perspective adopted by the model, the ongoing process of

individual psychic equilibration is known as individuation. According to Edinger, a noted

Jungian scholar, individuation is a lifelong, continuous, spiraling, evolutionary, dialectic

process characterized by a flow of psychic energy between the psychic poles, in a

progressive differentiation and integration of unconscious (diffuse) contents to be related

to consciously through the ego (Edinger, 1992, p. 5). This spiraling developmental

22

process is also known as the cycle of libido (Jung, 1928), which once again is rooted in

the archetypal pattern of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle.

Over time, the ongoing process of differentiation and integration of new contents

from the unconscious/ diffuse domain yields an increasingly broad, enriched

consciousness, together with an enhanced set of individual capabilities and self-object

relational grammar (or response repertoire or schema) for meeting life’s continuing

challenges with increasing grace and resilience. In plain English, individuation is a

process of healing and movement toward wholeness, which allows an individual to live in

a state of ongoing creativity, personal change and development, and unfolding psycho-

spiritual growth.

From the Piagetian perspective, equilibration or development of the psyche is

characterized by ongoing cyclical movement between accommodation and assimilation.

Initial centration of the psyche (ego formation) enacts a self-object relational grammar

and strategy that is strongly assimilative in nature. Subsequent development, or

recentration of the psyche, takes place through recurrent shifts toward an

accommodative strategy, during which the self-object relational grammar is broadened

and reformulated through an infusion of contents from the diffuse (unconscious) domain,

followed by another shift toward an assimilative strategy, founded on the newly-

restructured relational grammar.

23

The Gestalt as Two Life Tasks

“Pre-Birth”: Unconscious Wholeness or Complete Diffusion

In unborn, newborn infants and very young children, prior to development of a

separated, individual conscious ego, there exists a state of complete diffusion ― an

unconscious totality of latent, merged, interpenetrating, undifferentiated psychic

potential. It is a state of near-complete unconsciousness, or perhaps self-

consciousness, also known as the original state of unconscious wholeness. Edinger

called

it a state of complete “ego-Self identification” (Edinger, 1992). The ego is

implicit within the Self, but has not yet been born (centrated or differentiated). Ego and

Self are one: nothing exists but the Self-mandala. It is the primitive state of early

childhood, but also of certain psychoses, in which there is a total identification of the ego

with the Self (archetypal god-image).

Task One: Birth

The task of survival (i.e., responding to a context) centrates the psyche ― i.e., it

fosters development or birth of an organized, conscious ego, together with a set of

differentiated competencies, organized into a survival grammar or schema, and a

persona ― a conscious, outwardly adapted personality. Centration, or differentiation, of

the ego occurs through encounters with the limitations and demands imposed by the

24

task of survival within the current life-context, 19 which is inevitably not in complete

accord with the expectations and projections of the Self, or more accurately, of the ego

in an unconscious identity with the Self. Such frustrations inevitably bring about an

estrangement or alienation, and hence some degree of differentiation, between ego and

Self. Hence, Edinger called this process ego-Self differentiation (Edinger, 1992). Jung

called it the progression of libido (Jung, 1960/1969).

Psychic potentials not immediately related to survival within the current context

are suppressed, and remain unconscious ― undeveloped, undifferentiated, latent ―

within the diffuse domain of the unconscious. 20 This is a process of psychic splitting

which yields inner multiplicity ― a spectrum of aspects of the whole self which are split-

off from consciousness ― “a state of inner fragmentation involving a number of relatively

autonomous complexes [within the unconscious]” (Edinger, 1992, p. 174). These

unconscious potentials are the source for ongoing adaptive development of the

individual.

Task Two: Death and Rebirth

The initial ego structure21 birthed through this process tends to relate to the world

in a manner that is strongly assimilative in nature; it is also situated or embedded in a

19 E.g., family, school, neighborhood, culture, religion, etc. 20 The contents and structure of the unconscious are provided in Appendix B: The Structure of the Individual Unconscious. 21 The ego structure: the conscious executive function, the systemic self-object grammar, the current identity, adaptive competencies and structure.

25

particular, local context or life-world. As life progresses, one’s world changes (externally

or internally), and if the changes are of sufficient magnitude or personal significance, one

is faced with the need to adapt ― to respond to a change in context ― or to face Task

Two.

Such phases in life are characterized by a failure of the ego to effectively address

or assimilate either the vicissitudes of life or an unconscious content seeking expression

and integration. The ego is no longer comfortably situated or embedded in its former

context. The ego fails, identity is lost, meaning fades, coping strategies become shop-

worn and ineffective, and life becomes stale ― perhaps even meaningless. This phase

of development is a “dark night of the soul” and corresponds to the pattern archetype of

Death.

As the ego fails, energy is withdrawn from the conscious/ego domain. This

process is known either as regression of libido (Gray, 1996, p. 262; Jung, 1960/1969) or

as ego-Self reunion (Edinger, 1992). Psychic energy flows in the direction of the

diffuse/unconscious pole, in a temporary abaissement du niveau mental, or loosening of

the structures and defenses of the ego, in order to access diffuse/unconscious contents

(Jacobi, 1973). During such periods, the ego is confronted with the challenge of facing

and integrating difficult materials from within the personal unconscious, such as the

shadow and complexes. At the same time, it is also potentially enriched though contact

with positive, supportive energies and contents such as latent personal capabilities that

26

have been suppressed and/or denied22 or as numinous (spiritually charged) encounters

with archetypal materials from within the collective unconscious.

Personal shadow and complexes are faced, owned, addressed and consciously

integrated. Formerly denied personal capabilities are faced, owned, integrated into the

conscious identity structure as real aspects of the self, and actively developed. 23 The

ego becomes more deeply rooted in, and connected to, its numinous, spiritually charged,

archetypal foundations within the Self. If this work is addressed successfully, the ego is

renewed and restructured and returns to life reinvigorated, refreshed and reanimated,

broadened, and increasingly resilient ― more capable of facing the life task of ongoing

equilibration. This phase of development corresponds to the archetype of Rebirth, and is

described either as progression of libido (Gray, 1996, pg. 262; Jung, 1960/1969) or as

ego-Self differentiation (Edinger, 1992). It corresponds to a flow of psychic energy in the

direction of the conscious (centrated) pole of the psyche, and in the direction of the

masculine principle within the psyche.

The Role of the Self

It is important to note the role of the Self-archetype in ongoing individual

equilibration. In Jungian thought, the unconscious is not an inert container of rejected or

22 Formerly experienced only indirectly via the mechanism of projection as attributes of others in the environment. 23 In this context, development refers to the process of accessing a latent, undeveloped, undifferentiated capability and transforming it, through intentional, active, conscious effort into a more highly developed, differentiated, consciously integrated competency.

27

forgotten psychic contents.24 Rather, the unconscious, with the Self-archetype at its

ultimate foundation, is an active and powerful participant in the psychic economy. In fact,

the Self is vastly greater and ultimately more powerful than the ego. It is totally

indifferent to the purposes and intentions of the conscious ego, and operates with a

mysterious25 purposefulness of its own, directed towards the completeness and

wholeness of the psychic totality. This purposefulness is not strictly teleological, in that it

is not focused on some particular end-state; rather, it is focused on unfolding and

consciously realizing the full potential of the individual. Thus, it is a force that the ego

must reckon with, rather than an inert container to be mined at the ego’s whim and

leisure.

From the Jungian perspective, ongoing equilibration for individuals26 is a process

of collecting, integrating and transcending inner psychic multiplicity. That is, it is a

process of movement from unconscious inner fragmentation and incoherence (psychic

splitting) to conscious psychic coherence and wholeness, achieved through the

progressive differentiation and conscious integration of unconscious psychic contents. It

is a process of conscious realization of a pre-existent unity (the Self) that precedes the

apparent multiplicity (Edinger, 1992, p. 174).

24 As in Freudian and neo-Freudian thought. 25 Mysterious, that is, from the perspective of the ego. 26 I.e., individuation.

28

Dialectic and Development

As mentioned earlier in the general discussion of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth

cycle, ongoing equilibration is the product of a living, ongoing dialectic between the two

poles of the system ― in this case, the ego and the Self. There is a creative tension

between them at its heart: On one hand is the ego ― preoccupied with achieving its

immediate goals and gratifications, maintaining its assimilative stance in the outer world,

and defending the psyche from conscious awareness of its inner fragmentation and

wounds. On the other hand is the Self ― utterly indifferent to the ego’s immediate and

narrow concerns, and slowly but inexorably moving toward conscious realization of the

psychic totality, toward building increased adaptive capacity within the ego’s conscious

domain, and toward psychic integration and healing.

Critical Characteristics of Individual Equilibration

Birth: Development of the Masculine Principle27

Traditional Jungian theory equates development of ego consciousness with

development of the masculine principle within the psyche. Ego development includes

several interpenetrating phenomena, all of which, according to traditional Jungian

thought, are manifestations of the masculine principle:

• Differentiation or separation of the individual, conscious ego from the collective

27 Jung viewed masculine and feminine as complementary psychic energies and attributes that do not refer to physical gender. In Jung’s view, the masculine principle can be equated roughly with the ancient Greek notion of Logos, while the feminine principle can be equated with the Greek notion of Eros. For more information, see Johnson (Johnson, 1983, 1986).

29

unconscious

• Separation of the self from the environment ― i.e., enactment of psychological and

interpersonal boundaries

• Separation of the external, objective world from the internal, subjective world

• Separation of the world into distinct categories and parts (analysis)

• Development of abstract, rational thought

• Movement away from complete embeddedness 28 in an interconnected network of

relationships, and toward establishment of an autonomous, self-directed identity with

its own sense of power, control and competence, and with the ability to make its own

independent choices. 29

All of these phenomena share basic themes, which lie at the heart of the Jungian

notion of the masculine principle: separation/differentiation of psyche from

embeddedness in a surrounding matrix of influences, and increases in consciousness

and autonomy.

Birth: The Beginning of Appropriate Object Relations

Ego-Self differentiation also corresponds to the withdrawal of projection.

Contents which were formerly unconscious, and experienced indirectly as an aspect of

the external world, become an object of consciousness, and become experienced

28 “Complete embeddedness” is another term for unconsciousness or non-differentiation: An individual in this state is unable to perceive his/herself as a distinct, unique individual in his/her own right; such a person’s identity is completely defined/determined externally, through mirroring by others in their relational network ― i.e., identity is completely embedded in the social context.

30

directly as an aspect of the self. As projections are withdrawn and the content becomes

an object of consciousness, a shift occurs from being embedded in the content to having

the content (Kegan, 1982). One becomes able to separate oneself from the content or

perception, and to reflect upon it as an object of attention, and thereby choose one’s

response to it, rather than remain subject to it while it remains unconscious. Distortions

to appropriate object relations, characteristic of diffusion (ego-Self identification), begin

to become ameliorated. One moves from victim to actor; self-responsibility becomes

enhanced. Thus, differentiation necessarily precedes appropriate relation ― both to

internal psychic objects and to external objects ― to others and the world.

Birth: The Beginning of Personal Humility

Ego-Self differentiation is also known as ego-Self dis-identification, or ego

deflation (Edinger, 1992). The ego identified with Self is inflated; the ego dis-identified

with Self becomes deflated - it experiences its essential limitedness and boundaries.

Such experiences aid in defining ego, as well as interpersonal, boundaries - they

highlight the distinction between self and “not-self,” and aid in delimiting the extent of the

ego’s power and control. In plain English, the ego develops the quality of humility.

Death and Rebirth: Gains in Strength Through Gains in Humility

Death and Rebirth has a paradoxical quality. It is simultaneously a process of

further ego deflation via further ego-Self dis-identification, and of ego strengthening via

29 The importance of differentiated, autonomous selves will become clear later, during the discussion of the challenges involved in the human systems development process.

31

differentiation and integration of unconscious contents and via connection with the

archetypal realm. The ego is simultaneously enriched and humbled. It is enriched via

enhanced access to the Self; it is humbled via the experience of limits and of withdrawal

of projections of deity arising out of the residue of ego-Self identification.

32

Section Three: Human Systems Equilibration - A Living Gestalt

Below is an illustration of the living gestalt, or pattern archetype, of ongoing

equilibration in human systems, which we will be exploring in this section:

The model proposes that human system equilibration ― like that of individual

humans ― is a continuous, spiraling, evolutionary, dialectic process characterized by a

flow of energy between fundamental systemic poles, in a progressive differentiation and

integration of contents from the diffuse domain, yielding over time a series of

33

qualitatively new, successively broader and increasingly resilient system-environment

response grammars and competencies in the centrated domain. From the Jungian

perspective applied at the psychosocial level, this pattern is also known as the cycle of

libido occurring at the system level (Gray, 1996, p. 262). From the Piagetian perspective,

this equilibration pattern consists of ongoing cyclical movement between assimilation

and accommodation. It is characterized in any case by the underlying pattern archetype

of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle.

The Gestalt as Two Integrated Tasks

Pre-Birth: Systemic Totality and Diffusion

The model defines the concept of systemic totality in a human system by

establishing the boundary of the system around its members, and not by the purpose or

task responsibility that they share. The systemic totality is the total of all content30

available within the system boundaries. At any given time, all of this material is

potentially available to the system either for focusing on the task, or as ore to be mined

for developmental or evolutionary purposes. The model defines diffusion as the state

that precedes systemic centration ― i.e., organizing around a shared task. It is the

system-level analogue to the individual level concept of unconscious wholeness.

30 Systemic content: all intentions, desires, energies, thoughts, perceptions, emotions, competencies, capabilities, activities, meaning-making, behavioral repertoires, adaptive strategies, etc., both conscious and unconscious, both shared and unshared.

34

Birth: A Performance Response

The task responsibility of a human system establishes the relation between the

system and its current environmental context, upon which it depends for survival. That

is, a systemic task presupposes a current environmental need or purpose that the

collective task is intended to fulfill. Through successful execution of the collective task,

the system receives from the environment the resources it needs to survive. This is the

essence of Task One.

A Performance Response is defined as the formation and enactment of an

assimilative response strategy at the system level, which takes place via systemic

centration (or focusing) in response to Task One: that is, a portion of the resources and

energy within the systemic totality are bracketed, developed (differentiated), structured,

coordinated and focused in an initial systemic identity and grammar of response to the

environmental context. 31 In archetypal terms, enactment of a Performance Response

gives birth, via the process of centration, to a shared notion of systemic identity and a

collective response grammar, which we shall term the Performance Domain (defined

more precisely below).

Thus, via a Performance Response, the systemic totality is split into two

domains: the Performance Domain (addressed in this section) is separated out of the

systemic totality and centrated; the Adaptation Domain (addressed in detail below) is

that portion of the systemic totality that is not centrated/differentiated/organized/focused.

31 This process is basically equivalent to the traditional notion of organizing within the literature of organization theory.

35

During periods of relative stability, the system is enabled to assert this identity

and grammar within its environmental context with only relatively minor change. It can

maintain its sense of identity and relative autonomy without significant negative

consequences. This is the essence of an assimilative strategy.

In Jungian theory applied at the psychosocial level, this pattern is also known as

the progression of libido occurring at the system level (Gray, 1996, p. 262), and

corresponds to an emergence or thrust of the masculine principle at the social level. For

more about this, see Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

As mentioned, centration effects a splitting of the systemic totality into two

domains. We turn our attention at this point to the centrated Performance Domain, and

explore it in a bit more detail.

The Performance Domain (PD)

Definition

The model defines the Performance Domain (PD) as the centrated domain of the

systemic totality; i.e., the PD is the portion of the systemic totality that is bracketed,

developed, structured, coordinated and focused in an initial systemic identity and a

systemic grammar of response to the environmental context. To aid the reader in

visualization of this idea, the PD can be roughly equated with the traditional notion of an

organization. There are several provisos, however. More specifically, the Performance

Domain:

36

• Is both conscious and shared (collective) 32

• Provides the medium through which ongoing equilibration of the system can take

place. Obviously this includes:

o Task One: Surviving (and hopefully thriving) within the current context ― both external/environmental and internal/systemic.

o Task Two: Responding effectively to significant changes in context ― either external or internal.

The PD is that portion of the systemic totality through and by which the system

consciously defines and enacts itself as a living, evolving, collective entity with a shared

task responsibility. It serves as the system’s executive function in a manner analogous

to the individual ego (Corlett, 1996; Gray, 1996).

Centration and Consciousness in the Literature

As mentioned earlier, centration can be viewed as the fundamental root of

consciousness. It is possible to suggest that the content of this consciousness in a

human system is the structured systemic response grammar or schema (the PD),

through which the system enacts its adaptive response to the environment. This idea is

explored in greater depth in Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems.

32 The conscious dimension represents the Jungian contribution; the collective dimension represents the adaptive systems contribution. For a more extensive discussion of the contribution of these two literatures to this concept, see Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems.

37

Contents

To put some additional “meat on the bones” of this somewhat abstract concept,

we now describe the actual contents of the Performance Domain. The PD is comprised

of several interpenetrating elements, arranged in table format in Table 3:

Table 3 Structure of the Performance Domain

Element Definition

Task Focus Includes the stated mission or purpose, vision, strategy, and goals of the system.

Task Structure Includes the organizational structure, organizational and job roles, management and work processes or procedures, and management systems (e.g., reward systems, compensation systems, hiring, staffing, promotion, etc., systems).

Culture Includes shared behavioral norms, values, patterns of relationship, ideology, collective notions of systemic identity, shared rules or strategies for success (at both the individual and organizational levels), and a shared symbol system. This set of elements serves as a collective foundation for meaning-making and contextually-appropriate action.

Competencies Refers to the collection of systemic capabilities that are highly differentiated ― i.e., that are collectively and consciously focused on, developed and rewarded.

PD Functionality or Health

The Performance Domain is defined by the model as functional (in colloquial

terms, healthy and effective) to the extent that:

1) The current collectively shared purpose or task fulfills a real need in the system’s

environment

38

2) The contents and configuration of the Performance Domain effectively and

robustly support:

a. Execution of the current shared task (Task One)

b. Ongoing equilibration of the system; i.e., ongoing movement through the

cycle of Death and Rebirth (Task Two).

3) System members are genuinely committed to the shared task/purpose, and to

their individual role in support of that task.

Alignment: Commitment versus Compliance

Using current business language, the Performance Domain is founded on the

alignment of all organizational members with the stated purpose, goals, culture, etc. of

the collective. Lately, leaders and managers have placed great importance on buy-in by

all system members with the mission, vision, strategy, goals, structure, norms, etc. The

emphasis of the third point in the preceding paragraph is that the functionality of the PD

depends on the degree to which this shared alignment or buy-in is built on genuine

personal, individual, whole-hearted commitment to the shared domain, which hinges in

turn on how alignment is achieved. The issue of commitment-based versus compliance-

based alignment will be discussed at greater length in subsequent sections.

Competencies versus Capabilities

The model differentiates between competencies and capabilities. A competency

is defined as a systemic ability or capacity that is differentiated, highly developed and

39

restricted to the Performance Domain. 33 A capability is defined as a latent, undeveloped

systemic capacity for functioning resident within the Adaptation Domain. Any given

system will tend to differentiate ― to bracket, emphasize, develop and reward ― certain

competencies as part of its collective/shared systemic identity and response grammar.

Other capabilities will remain latent ― dormant, so to speak ― in the suppressed

Adaptation Domain. It is quite possible that an ability/capacity might be highly developed

at an individual or subgroup level, but if it is not consciously integrated into the shared

domain, it is classified as an undifferentiated, undeveloped capability within the AD.

Boundary-Making, Suppression and Systemic Splitting

As has been made abundantly clear, the centration (Birth) process enacts a

splitting or polarization of the systemic totality into the centrated (Performance) and the

diffuse domains. Thus, in a human system, Birth inevitably includes a boundary-making

or suppressive activity that defines “what’s in” ― the centrated, collective, shared

domain (the PD) 34 ― and thus, by default, “what’s out.” At this point we turn our

attention to this systemically-diffuse domain, which contains “what’s out.”

The Adaptation Domain (AD)

The Performance Domain is the centrated portion of the systemic totality; the

model provides the term “Adaptation Domain” as a label for the diffuse domain.

33 Because it is collectively viewed as essential or critical.

40

Whereas the PD is defined as systemic content that is both shared and conscious, the

model defines the Adaptation Domain (AD) as systemic content that is either unshared,

35 or unconscious, or both. It contains:

• Conscious differences from the shared focus and norms (in the PD) at both individual and subgroup levels

• Unconscious contents, at either the individual, subgroup or system level, which by nature differ from the conscious, shared content and orientation of the PD. 36

The AD contains a vast reservoir of systemic content that is undifferentiated ―

that is, which is not collectively recognized, focused on, developed, included, or

rewarded. 37 At the system level, this content is latent, unacknowledged, possibly

unperceived, and certainly not constructively utilized. It might include, for instance,

latent artistic talent resident within members of an accounting firm.

One simple way of conceptualizing or imaging this information is to look at the

Adaptation Domain as the region of unaligned differences. The Performance Domain

(the “organization,” roughly) is founded on shared alignment among system members.

34 I.e., Birth determines what is explicitly shared among all members. It is partially a process of deciding what defines “us” ― “our identity” ― as a collective entity. By default, this must include a decision regarding what is not “us.” There is an inescapable process of distinction involved. 35 Unshared materials originate in, and are limited to, subgroups or individuals. 36 They differ by nature from the conscious orientation of the PD because they are unconscious; i.e., contents are suppressed from consciousness precisely because they differ from the orientation of the conscious domain. 37 A capability might be highly developed within individuals or subgroups (formal or informal), but if, at the level of the total system, it is not explicitly recognized, embraced and consciously utilized within the PD, it is classified as systemically undifferentiated.

41

That is, any focused, coordinated, collective effort requires some degree of shared

vision, understanding, or buy-in (willingness to participate) across the entire system.

This is the basic meaning of alignment. It also requires a system to focus on, develop

and utilize only a portion of the wide spectrum of talents, abilities, skills, behaviors,

attitudes, perceptions, etc. ― conscious and unconscious ― resident within its

membership. This realm of bracketed, aligned, focused and coordinated action,

competency and meaning-making is what we are calling the Performance Domain. In

forming a systemic identity, the Performance Domain is “what’s in.”

The Adaptation Domain is everything else. The AD is “what’s out.” It is that

portion of the system that differs from ― that is, is not aligned, and not bracketed,

focused (or focused on), developed, or utilized by ― its current response grammar

(PD).

In general, constellation (centration) of a Performance Domain ― i.e., a systemic

identity, structure, behavioral norms and culture ― is a selective process. In general,

membership in a system is predicated on the willingness of system members to bracket,

suppress or repress aspects of their full individual identity that do not “fit” (are not

aligned with) the shared domain. Examples of this might include expression of behavior

conditioned by racial, national, cultural or religious background; being introverted in a

highly extraverted systemic culture (or vice versa), openly expressing emotion in a

highly rational culture (or vice versa), being right-brained in a left-brained culture (or

vice versa), etc. The Adaptation Domain contains everything ― conscious and/or

unconscious, individual or subgroup) that doesn’t fit with the current orientation of the

42

Performance Domain.

A more detailed description of the Adaptation Domain, including a review of

various perspectives from the relevant literature, is provided in Appendix C:

The Structure of Human Systems.

Death and Rebirth: an Adaptive Response

The PD expresses a relational exchange of value between the system and its

context; it is contextually embedded and contingent. As such, it is inescapably temporary

― contexts, external as well as internal, have a way of changing dynamically, and thus

so must the relational construct linking the system to its context. This creates the second

fundamental task of equilibration in human systems ― to re-focus or re-centrate, in

response to a shifting survival task, external context or internal need ― Task Two. In a

human system, the model defines the execution of Task Two as an Adaptive Response.

It has two parts: Death and Rebirth.

Death

As the systemic context continues to change, the Performance Domain begins to

fail to effectively address or assimilate either dynamic shifts in the external environment

or internal contents within the Adaptation Domain seeking expression and integration. 38

The current response schema in the PD becomes increasingly difficult to maintain and

inevitably degrades, decays, or loosens. It signals a shift toward a primarily

38 See the section Dialectic and Equilibration (below) for a discussion of the issue of contents within the Adaptation Domain seeking expression and integration.

43

accommodative strategy, and the beginning of a phase of passage through chaos ― a

period of instability which ultimately yields up a qualitatively new evolutionary system-

context relational grammar and balance (Stacey, 1996), (Kegan, 1982, p. 44).

This decomposition or melting process corresponds to the archetypal image of

“Death.” In psychosocial terms, it is also known as the regression of libido occurring at

the system level (Gray, 1996, p. 262), marked by a flow of systemic energy in the

direction of the feminine principle. During such periods, the Performance Domain is

confronted with the challenge of integrating difficult materials from within the Adaptation

Domain seeking expression and integration ― e.g., unaddressed diversity issues, and

systemic shadow and complexes, which were formerly suppressed (or repressed) by

PD. At the same time, the PD is potentially enriched through the willingness to access,

develop and integrate positive, supportive content from within the AD such as

undeveloped systemic task capabilities and adaptive capabilities, 39 and perhaps even

archetypal materials from the collective unconscious.

Rebirth

The system must rebuild and restructure its system-context relational grammar in

the PD ― and if it is successful, there is successful re-adaptation to the environment.

Difficult, suppressed systemic contents/issues/differences/conflicts are consciously

faced, addressed and integrated. The system begins to differentiate ― to focus on,

39 See Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities for a discussion of adaptive capabilities.

44

develop and integrate into its conscious shared repertoire ― formerly undifferentiated

capabilities in the AD. The PD can reconnect with ― and possibly update or re-imagine

― the original core of purpose and meaning upon which it was founded. The PD at this

point has open to it the possibility of deepening its connection to its numinous, spiritually-

charged foundation in the archetype of Conscious Community.40

The discussion above carries an implication of a developmental gradient to the

Rebirth process, which we shall now make explicit. Differentiation and integration of

latent or suppressed contents ― both capabilities and shadow ― into the Performance

Domain (PD) is at the heart of the Rebirth process. If the challenges and opportunities

of Death and Rebirth are faced head-on and successfully addressed, the PD is reborn: it

re-emerges ― reinvigorated, renewed, broadened, reconnected with meaning and

purpose, and increasingly capable and resilient.

This process of reconnection, rebuilding and reemergence is expressed

symbolically in the archetypal image of Rebirth. In psychosocial terms, it is also known

as the progression of libido occurring at the system level (Gray, 1996, p. 262), marked

by a flow of systemic energy once again in the direction of the masculine principle. In

Piagetian terms, it signals a shift back toward an assimilative response strategy.

Dialectic and Equilibration

Once again, equilibration is the outcome of a living, ongoing dialectic ― a

40 See Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems for a detailed exploration of the archetype of Conscious Community.

45

creative tension ― between the systemic poles. The PD naturally tends to maintain an

assimilative strategy ― asserting its current identity/structure, achieving its immediate

goals and gratifications (related to Task One), and defending against conscious

awareness of inner incoherence, fragmentation and wounds caused via systemic

suppression/repression.

The AD on the other hand, via the autonomous energy and movement of its

central archetypal foundation ‘Conscious Community,’ 41 is indifferent to the PD’s

immediate and narrow concerns. Its energy and activity is focused on slowly but

inexorably moving toward conscious realization of the systemic totality and for its

individual members, toward building increased adaptive capacity within the shared,

conscious domain of the PD, and toward systemic coherence, integration and healing.

The Role of the Community Archetype

The model proposes that the archetype of Conscious Community (at the

foundation of the Adaptation Domain), like the Self-archetype at the individual level, is

largely indifferent to the immediate task focus and conscious orientation of the

Performance Domain. The Community archetype operates autonomously from the

conscious, shared orientation of the Performance Domain, and with a mysterious

purposefulness of its own. Like the Self, it is an autonomous force to be reckoned with,

rather than an inert container to be mined at the leisure of the Performance Domain.

41 See Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems, for more detail regarding the archetype of Conscious Community, including the focus of its energy and activity within a human collective.

46

Its energy and activity is directed toward the conscious realization of the full

potential of the system and of its members. Its object is the realization of a conscious

community, supported by a task responsibility. Systemic equilibration ― like that of

individuals ― is a process of collecting, integrating and transcending inner multiplicity, in

a progressive movement toward wholeness. At a systemic level, inner multiplicity refers

to the wide spectrum of unaligned differences ― at the individual or subgroup levels,

and either conscious or unconscious ― from the conscious, shared orientation of the

PD, resident within the suppressed Adaptation Domain. Thus, equilibration (ongoing

development) represents a movement from unconscious systemic internal

fragmentation, incoherence and wounding (splitting) to conscious systemic wholeness,

coherence and healing. This is achieved through the progressive differentiation and

conscious integration of unaligned and suppressed/repressed differences ― both

individual and subgroup, conscious and unconscious ― contained within the system.

The Importance of the Community Archetype

Introduction of the archetype of Conscious Community as the foundation of

human systems brings with it some important theoretical considerations as well.

Jungian theory has been criticized as viewing individual development as a somewhat

isolated, de-contextualized, relationally-barren phenomenon ― i.e., the individual as the

lonely hero among the (undifferentiated) crowd. It has also been criticized for its

Eurocentric flavor. When the information in the preceding sections (and in Appendix C)

is thoroughly digested, it becomes clear that the notion being emphasized here ― of

human systems equilibration as realization of a co-individuating, conscious community

47

― overcomes those objections. How?

The model strongly emphasizes self-realization and system-realization

(development) as utterly intertwined and interdependent (See Section Four: The

Interdependence of Individual and Human System Equilibration for a detailed exploration

of this idea) – as two sides of a single coin. The notion of the lonely hero is as far from

this conception as it is possible to be. A co-individuating, conscious community is a

qualitatively-new beast. The idea is explored in greater depth below, but briefly, it is a

collective which takes on the responsibility both for performance (Task One) and for

collective and individual realization (via Task Two). It views itself as a vehicle for the

development of collective systemic capability, as well as for the individual development

of all its members. Indeed, it views individual development as deeply embedded in a

matrix of relationships among system members, who serve as developmental mirrors

and supports for each other.

Further, the notion of collecting, integrating and transcending inner multiplicity, in

a progressive movement toward wholeness can be illuminated further by describing

some aspects of it in more concrete terms. It means moving toward greater and greater

inclusiveness of the entire spectrum of humanity within the collective domain. It means

consciously working to transcend (to accept and include, rather than suppress or attempt

to obliterate) individual and subgroup differences, racial, cultural, and national

differences, style differences, etc., within a context of developing increasingly healthier

relationships and individuals. This notion overcomes any concerns about Eurocentricity:

it is explicitly transpersonal, transnational, trans-cultural, and trans-anything-else.

48

In my experience to date, I have noticed that conventional thinking tends to view

individuals and groups/human systems as inherently and inescapably conflicting at the

core, and that the best we can hope for is a series of ongoing compromises of one at the

expense of the other. The model transcends either/or thinking, and regards it as a

“thinking trap.” The notion of conscious community is paradoxical (if looked at from

within conventional, analytical, either/or thought frameworks): It radically and fully

includes the individual as such42, yet transcends the individual in that all members are in

touch, not only with their own and each other’s essential individuality, but with their own

and each other’s common humanity as well:

The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind. Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of humanity. (Jung, 1954/1966, p.# 227). (emphasis added)

Critical Characteristics of Human Systems Equilibration

Birth and Rebirth: Development of the Masculine Principle in Human Systems

The model proposes that both Birth and Rebirth43 enact a differentiation of social-

psychological energies related to, or constellated by, the masculine principle (as

described in traditional Jungian thought). This idea, although important to note here, is

42 Including all facets of that individual identity – i.e., racial, sexual, cultural, national, personality, etc., characteristics. 43 I.e., initial centration (organizing), or a Performance Response – movement into an assimilative strategy.

49

explained in greater detail in Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

Death, or Passage Through Chaos: Development of the Feminine Principle in Human Systems

It is obviously ironic (and sadly, potentially controversial) in many circles to

suggest that the feminine principle would be associated with the archetypal image of

Death. Yet, in Jungian thought, the feminine principle signals a return to the womb: a

withdrawal from the heroic struggles of the ego (masculine) domain ― extraverted

activity, action, achievement, autonomy, performance, rationality ― and a descent into a

“zone of depth” ― reflection, introversion, reconnection with deep meaning and

emotions, and social interconnection and nurturance ― as a critical precursor to being

reborn and returning to the ego- and masculine-principle-centered world of striving on

the social field. This process can be imaged as a death of the ego and a return to the

nurturing realm of the feminine womb. This idea is pursued in greater depth and detail in

Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

50

Section Four: The Interdependence of Individual and Human System Equilibration

A core assumption of the model is that ongoing equilibration (or development) of

individuals and of human systems is an integrated gestalt ― the two processes are

inescapably interdependent and intertwined. If this assumption is true, then

comprehensive management of the equilibration cycle (Birth, Death, Rebirth) requires

that a human system must consciously address both sides of the equilibration coin. We

discuss three aspects of this mutuality:

1. The correspondence of inner (psychological) & outer (social) multiplicity. 2. The Performance Domain, contingent on internal conditions, is threatened by internal development; i.e., by emergence of suppressed contents from within the AD. 3. Individual identities are, to a greater or lesser extent, embedded in the social construct of the PD; as a result, potential change to the PD is threatening to system individual members.

The Correspondence of Inner (Psychic) and Outer (Social) Multiplicity

Recall that, from the Jungian perspective, ongoing equilibration for individuals44 is

a process of collecting, integrating and transcending inner psychic multiplicity ― of

realizing a pre-existent unity. The model proposes a direct correspondence between

psychic and social multiplicity. Before delving into this possibly enigmatic proposal, let us

begin with some quotes that are right on point:

Seen from within,…[multiplicity] is a state of inner fragmentation involving a number of relatively autonomous complexes [within the unconscious]

44A.k.a., individuation.

51

which, when touched by the ego,…make the individual realize that he is not one but many. From the external standpoint, multiplicity is manifested by the exteriorization or projection of parts of the individual psyche into the outer world. In this condition one finds his friends and his enemies, his hopes and his fears, his sources of support and his threats of failure, concretized in outer persons, objects, and events. In such a state of dispersal there can be no experience of essential individuality. One is in thrall to the “ten thousand things.” (Edinger, 1992, p. 174) (emphasis added) The present day shows with appalling clarity how little able people are to let the other man’s argument count, although this capacity is a fundamental and indispensable condition for any human community. …For, to the degree that he does not admit the validity of the other person, he denies the “other” within himself the right to exist ― and vice versa. The capacity for inner dialogue is a touchstone for outer objectivity. (Jung, 1960/1969). (emphasis added) Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity. (Jung, 1954/1966, p.# 227)

Inner multiplicity is a two-sided coin: One side faces inward toward one’s own

psyche; the other side faces outward into one’s environment. Its two-sidedness is rooted

in difficulties in subject-object differentiation, and in the characteristics of unconscious

identity, noted above, which attend a poorly-differentiated/individuated ego. Inner

multiplicity is projected into the social context, together with the hurt and pain that

attended initial formation of such inner fragmentation.

This idea is supported by Jung’s perception of the archetypes as “sets of

relations, not content-filled categories” (Gray, 1996, p. 28). In other words, the psyche

can be viewed as sets of relations among psychic contents, and between the domains of

ego and unconscious. Inner multiplicity or inner fragmentation is a way of expressing the

idea of poor (hostile, adversarial) intra-psychic relations ― a lack of inner coherence and

wholeness. If this idea is conjoined with Jung’s observation that “to the degree that he

52

does not admit the validity of the other person, he denies the ‘other’ within himself the

right to exist ― and vice versa. The capacity for inner dialogue is a touchstone for outer

objectivity” (Jung, 1960/1969), then you have a strong basis for the proposal that there is

a very deep correspondence between intra-psychic relations and interpersonal (social)

relations. Indeed, they may be mirrors of each other.

If this correspondence holds, then development of individuals and human

systems are not independent and distinct phenomena; rather, they must be viewed as

intimately linked and intertwined. Perhaps collecting, integrating and transcending inner

multiplicity ― both individually and systemically ― are two facets of a single gestalt.

Perhaps this gestalt is the realization of a pre-existent unity that has been apprehended

― and noted ― by only a relative handful of individuals over the entire course of human

existence. 45

The Performance Domain as Contingent on Internal Conditions

Recall that “every pattern of adaptation…is maintained in essentially the same

unaltered form and anxiously defended against change until an equally strong or

stronger impulse is able to displace it.” (Whitmont, 1969) In other words, apart from a

conscious commitment to behave otherwise, the PD has an inherent tendency to be

45 This vision of a pre-existent unity in both the psychological and social spheres – simultaneously – is the essence of the archetype of Conscious Community. It is discussed in greater depth in Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems. The “handful of individuals” reference is an allusion to the few historically noted luminaries of spiritual development such as Jesus, Buddha, etc., for whom such a vision was integral to their awareness, words and actions; indeed, it was the essence of their very being. So, while the model pursues a notion that may be considered controversial, it is hardly new.

53

suppressive of differences within the AD, and to over-emphasize maintenance of its

assimilative stance and the status quo. Emergence of suppressed contents from the AD,

which by definition differ from the collective consciousness of the system (the PD), calls

into question its boundary, contents and configuration. Emergence of suppressed

differences calls for a renegotiation of what’s in versus what’s out (of the collective,

conscious domain).

As individual members or sub-groups of the system naturally develop ―

differentiate ― through their own ongoing process of equilibration, they access and

integrate suppressed contents from within their own “adaptive domains.” Their self-

object or system-context relational grammar (within the ego) expands accordingly. In

short, they grow. That much is clear. What is not clear however, is whether the impact

of such internal development is good news or bad news, and for whom. Or why. As we

shall see shortly, it all depends on whether the system chooses to remain vital and open

to growth, or whether it chooses to protect itself ― that is, on whether it embraces or

denies the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle.

Recall that the relational grammar of the differentiating individual or sub-group is

contextually embedded ― the context being the current PD of the larger system of which

they are a part. As differentiation proceeds, a corresponding disjunction emerges

between the emergent identity (relational grammar) of the individual or sub-group, and

the larger system (context) in which they are embedded. In simple terms, the individual

or sub-group begins to outgrow their perceived role, as defined within and by the extant

PD. The larger system is faced with a critical decision at this point. It must decide

54

whether to suppress, or repress, the emerging internal difference, or to consciously

integrate it into a reconfigured PD. It must decide whether to preserve the status quo, or

to change and grow ― it must decide whether to “save the life” of the PD, or to let it (or a

small piece of it) “die and be reborn.”

For as long as formal organizations and institutions have existed, the default

setting for human systems has been to repress internally emergent change ―

sometimes ruthlessly ― rather than to consciously and willingly face it and integrate it

into a renegotiated, reconfigured Performance Domain. If the emergent change stems

from an individual, the individual is often scapegoated or ejected. The felt need to

preserve the status quo ― to maintain the system’s current assimilative stance -

completely overwhelms any possibility of systemic development.

The model’s position is that this protectionist, conservative and repressive

tendency has severe negative consequences ― for the system ― as well as for the

individuals and subgroups being repressed. For some odd reason, these negative

systemic consequences are not often noted. A couple of authors, however, have noted

them:

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. - Luke 17:34 (Barker, 1985, p. 1574) This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom. (Bertalanffy, 1969, pg. 53)

As mentioned earlier, the larger system’s PD is also context-sensitive, where

context was purposely defined to include both external and internal conditions.

55

Traditional organizational theory tends to focus more or less exclusively on change to

the external context as the sole trigger for organizational development, but Jungian

thought gives equal weight to both the environment and the inner world as motivators for

development.

A cornerstone of Jungian thought is that as an essential condition for continuing

functioning and health, a conscious, living system must develop in response to internal

sources of energy and motivation, or face distinctly undesirable consequences. 46 This

requires that the PD remain open to development as the result of emergent activity ―

energy, voices, activity, needs and wants ― from within the AD. In this example, that

would mean looking at changes emerging ― or clamoring for emergence ― from within

individuals or sub-groups, and examining how those changes might call for the PD itself

to change!

While this notion is somewhat new and is considered to be somewhat radical ―

or even anathematic ― within the dominant strain of current scientific, leadership and

management thinking, it is hardly new or original. This dynamic was captured over 1900

years ago (!) in a startling aphorism attributed to Jesus: “If you bring forth what is within

you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what

you do not bring forth will destroy you (Pagels, 1989).” 47 The model proposes that this

46 The consequence of internal repression is internal decay: e.g., increasing rigidity, defensiveness, decreased capacity for functioning, stagnation, loss of creativity, energy and passion, psychological or social-psychological dysfunction, complexes, neurosis, psychosis, and perhaps early death. 47 From the Gospel of Thomas, an early Gnostic Christian text, included in the codices found at Nag Hammadi in 1945.

56

dynamic is as true for human systems as it is for individuals. This assumption is based

on two other assumptions: 1) an intimate correspondence between psychological and

social multiplicity and coherence, and 2) the existence and functioning of the central

archetypes. 48

The Individual Ego as Embedded in the PD

As the price of inclusion and social and economic reward, compliant system

members often begin to unconsciously identify with the Performance Domain and with

their role in it, trading (to a greater or lesser extent) an independent, self-determined,

essential individuality for a socially-conferred pseudo-identity linked to position, power,

status and economic reward. Aspects of self that do not fit well with the current

configuration of the Performance Domain are repressed. Compliant members also trade

intrinsic personal power and autonomy, stemming from one’s essential individuality and

arising from the activity of the Self, for extrinsic, socially constructed, positional (role)

power. This dynamic of identity formation is well captured in Kegan’s notion of the

“Institutional Self” (Kegan, 1982). Individual identity, self-esteem, security and power

become embedded in socially constructed externals (elements of the Performance

Domain).

48 This dynamic – at both individual and social levels – is absolutely foundational to the model being developed here; hence the emphasis on central archetypes, which are purposive in their activity, directing systemic energy (at an unconscious level) toward the ultimate goal of explicit realization of the totality of implicit systemic potential.

57

This situation is deeply problematic in connection with the need for ongoing

equilibration, both for individual members of the system and for the system itself. As

mentioned before, the PD is inescapably temporary, contingent and insecure because it

expresses a relationship between a human system and a dynamically changing

environment. For the relationship between the two to remain alive and vital, the

relationship must remain open to continual updating ― thus the PD (the medium of

relationship) must remain alive, vital, and open to continual change and development.

This creates a very real problem for individuals whose ego and identity structures

are deeply embedded in the PD. Because the potential for change always looms, a

subjective sense of threat, fear and possible exposure to shame and loss become

constants. Maintenance of the status quo and of one’s position in it becomes paramount

to protect identity, worth, power and money. This requires covert and overt attempts to

exert unilateral power and control over others to maintain the status quo and/or position.

Certain elements of the Performance Domain must remain undiscussible as a protective

strategy. Interpersonal exchanges must remain role-bound because authentic, intimate

interpersonal exchanges, while they create the possibility for deep change, also expose

the vulnerability hidden behind the role-embedded self-construct.

All of these dynamics are strategies to maintain the systemic status quo as a

means to protect the individual’s systemically-embedded identity. Paradoxically, the PD

becomes deeply embedded in the social-psychological embeddedness of system

members! Both the system and its members are paralyzed, or at least crippled, by

mutual and interpenetrating social-psychological embeddedness.

58

My experience has been that human systems rarely if ever recognize the

interdependence of individual and system development, and traditionally do not support

individual members in discovering their own non-contingent, non-socially-embedded,

essential individuality and personal power. The system does nothing to help its

members escape from being “in thrall to the “ten thousand things” ― i.e., the elements of

the collectively-conscious, socially-constructed Performance Domain.

Systemic supports to individual equilibration, however, would aid tremendously in

freeing up the PD from the social-psychological gridlock of mutual embeddedness, and

would grease the wheels for ongoing systemic equilibration. A human system that is

genuinely interested in becoming fully alive, vibrant, adaptive and change-friendly might

want to re-think the traditional position on this issue.

59

Section Five: Resistance and Repression

Introduction

Section Three examined equilibration as an ongoing process of ― depending on

your preferred terminology and point of view ― recentration, a dance between

assimilation and accommodation, the cycle of libido, or the archetypal Birth ! Death !

Rebirth Cycle. When presented in academic terms, it all seems quite elegant, clean,

and positive: ongoing movement through the cycle yields continuous, incremental

increases in consciousness, capability, creativity, adaptability ― i.e., in resilience. How

beautiful, wonderful and beneficial!

Would that it were so easy, simple, elegant or desirable! Both for individuals

and human systems, ongoing equilibration is, in practice, inescapably messy, chaotic

and painful (to a lesser or greater extent), because of one small problem: It requires

recurrent movements into, and through, death and shadow. And no matter how you

slice it, death is not clean; it is not elegant; and most of all, it is not fun. Death is painful.

It involves dissolution and decay. It requires a deep letting go: of control, competence,

comfort, and certainty; of direction and meaning; of old perceptions of identity; of old,

deeply embedded beliefs, perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes; and possibly of old,

familiar relationships, jobs, position, status, locales, economic rewards, etc. As if that

were not enough, during the death phase of equilibration, the protective defenses of both

the ego and Performance Domain (PD) loosen or decay, and the ego/PD are confronted

with shadow materials and complexes formerly suppressed (or repressed) into the

unconscious/AD. Such materials are (again, to some extent) inescapably disconfirming

60

and uncomfortable, and very often painful and anxiety-provoking to confront and

experientially integrate.

Given this, it is little wonder that ongoing equilibration ― growth and

development ― is resisted, often quite heavily. Whitmont’s admonition that “every

pattern of adaptation…is maintained in essentially the same unaltered form and

anxiously defended against change until an equally strong or stronger impulse is able to

displace it (Whitmont, 1969)” takes on a new world of meaning in the present context.

Rebirth and renewal may be wonderful and reinvigorating, but death ― which precedes

rebirth ― is not.

Apart from a conscious awareness of this tendency and a conscious, intentional

choice to actively manage it, both individuals and human systems will consistently

display an innate tendency to resist ongoing equilibration; they will tend to build a

fortress around the current equilibrium state and attempt to live there forever, regardless

of its growing dysfunctionality. They will tend to stay put and decay slowly, from the

inside-out, rather than consciously and directly face a current and real need for a small

death ― now ― in service of even greater growth and vitality, on the other side of that

death, during the phase of rebirth.

Structure of Section Five

The first part of this section addresses several manifestations of this natural

tendency to resist ongoing change and development ― first for individuals, and then for

systems.

The second part of this section discusses two different responses toward the

61

challenges and difficulties of ongoing equilibration discussed in the first section. The first

response is repression, which is regarded as a fundamentally unhealthy and

dysfunctional attempt to block the flow of ongoing equilibration; the second is

suppression, which is regarded as a healthy and functional acceptance of, and response

to, the ongoing flow of life.

The phenomenon of repression is explored in some depth in this section. The

phenomenon of suppression is explored in greater depth later on, in the middle of the

following section (Section Six: Resilient Human Systems), which also explores the link

between suppression and resilience in individuals and human systems.

Resistance ― Individual Level

The process of ongoing individual equilibration is generally resisted, for various

reasons, at every turn of the wheel. Some reasons for this resistance are described in

detail in Appendix E: Resistance to Equilibration ― Individual Level, and are

summarized briefly here. During the process of initial ego formation (birth), the ego

tends to resist the process of its relativization ― its deflation, or dis-identification with the

Self. The germinal ego is invested in the god-like sense of omnipotence that comes with

its identification with the Self. The experience of deflation is generally resisted. After all,

who wants to give up the throne? During later stages of development (ongoing death

and rebirth), the ego tends to resist the intrusion of unconscious contents, which have

the potential to confront it with:

• The need to let go of illusions of centrality, complete autonomy and hegemony within

the psychic economy, and to acknowledge the existence, autonomy and power of the

62

unconscious.

• The need to consciously experience the pain associated with the wounding of the

psyche caused via the suppression/repression of some aspect of the psychic totality,

or associated with a repressed traumatic experience (the nucleus of a complex).

• The need to deal with shadow material, which can bring one face-to-face with

aspects of one’s personality that are shameful, embarrassing or guilt-ridden, or

simply do not fit in within the currently existing life-world.

• The need to bring to the fore undeveloped, undifferentiated potentialities, which can

often bring up feelings of shame, embarrassment and pain, due to the awkwardness

of developing new capabilities that have been latent, and to the wounding associated

with the original suppression of those potentialities.

• A potential need to re-order (or re-centrate) one’s conscious personality, and

possibly one’s life-world, to a greater or lesser extent.

• A sense of loss of control ― of potential or actual chaos, because the current order

(self-world grammar and adaptive equilibrium) is threatened. This can feel like a

small death at times, and threatens to throw one’s world into temporary chaos as

new materials are integrated, and a new life arrangement is developed. It represents

passage through a period of instability, the edge of chaos, or the space for novelty.

• The need to deal with, or hold, the anxiety, pain, fear and grieving attendant with

the above.

No wonder that development is generally resisted at every step, and that non-

egoic, complementary potential is classified (by the ego) as oppositional!

63

Resistance ― Human Systems Level

Ongoing systemic equilibration (dealing with an ongoing death-rebirth process) is

also resisted. There is a long list of reasons for this, some of which are listed here in

brief. They are described in detail in Appendix F: Resistance to Equilibration ― Human

Systems Level. These include:

o Protection of the vested interests of the dominant coalition.

o Structural inequalities and diversity issues.

o Institutionalization: The PD becomes a fixed, unchallengeable systemic identity.

o Bureaucratization: a rigid, socially constructed, unconscious reification of psychic defense systems via depersonalizing, controlling social structures.

o Group merger phenomena: A group-level, social-psychological enactment of non-

differentiation or unconscious identity, which tends to block expression of individual

differences within a social context.

o The embeddedness of the Performance Domain in the psychological embeddedness

of system members (see The Interdependence of Individual and Human System

Equilibration).

o Projection of unconscious, unacknowledged systemic issues via processes of

scapegoating, blaming, and enemy creation.

o The performance trap.

o The culture trap (e.g., excessive scientism/rationalism).

Cultural Factors

The two sections immediately preceding deal with resistance factors that are

64

intrinsic to individuals and human systems. This section focuses on what I view as a

deeply embedded (and largely unconscious) bias in western culture in general, which

presents a significant block to ongoing equilibration. The issue is complex, but can be

imaged simply: It amounts to a culturally pervasive, overweening exaltation of Birth

(Task One: responding effectively to a context), combined with equally pervasive fear,

shame, revulsion and denial surrounding nearly every aspect of the Death and Rebirth

portion of the equilibration cycle (Task Two: responding effectively to a change in

context). Each side of the equilibration coin requires distinctly different and

complementary attitudes and capabilities, but if societal behavior is any indication,

western culture appears to love one side and hate the other.

The archetype of Birth constellates an entire world of interrelated and intertwining

phenomena, all of which are associated with ego gratification and identity enactment (an

assimilative stance in the world) at the individual level and with a Performance

Response at the system level: goal achievement, mastery, autonomy, independence,

power, action, persuasion, defense, rationality, intellect, logic, analysis, science,

structure, planning and control. I could go on, but hopefully, the thrust of this line of

thought is clear. All of the items on this list are also facets of the Jungian concept of the

masculine principle (Logos) in the psyche.

The archetype of ‘Death and Rebirth’ constellates an entirely different,

complementary, and equally important world of interpenetrating phenomena: humility,

reflection, the capacity to learn, introspection, emotional competence, building and

nurturing relationships, vulnerability, authenticity, intimacy, listening, connection with

65

purpose and meaning, the capacity to let go and to let things develop and emerge (i.e.,

gestation), intuition, imagination, creativity, play, vision, spirituality. All of these qualities

and capabilities support deep change ― the capacity to die to an existing identity, life-

strategy and life-world, and to be reborn to new ones ― and are associated with the

feminine principle (Eros), and with an accommodative response strategy.

Our culture, I believe, gives lip service to the second list, but rewards only the

first. This suggests a radical denial of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth cycle as a living

personal and social reality, and a deep aversion toward the feminine principle (Eros).

Until western culture - or at least human systems committed to building the capacity to

effectively embrace ongoing equilibration - accept and integrate both sides of the coin,

and embrace the feminine principle, our enormous problems with change will not budge

significantly, I believe. This issue is covered in more depth in Appendix D: The

Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

Repression versus Suppression

The model proposes that equilibration proceeds with ― or without ― conscious

awareness and cooperation. If it proceeds without awareness or cooperation, the

relationship between the centrated and diffuse domains will tend to be polarized and

antagonistic, significant levels of resistance and unhealthy, destructive conflict will

characterize the developmental process, healthy development will tend to be subverted,

systemic dysfunction or disease will be enacted, and the ultimate result will be

stagnation and perhaps early death. This is the essence of repression.

If it is done intentionally ― that is, with awareness and founded on a relationship

66

of open, communicative, cooperative partnership between the two domains ― it will

unfold with more grace, fluidity and resilience, with less resistance and destructiveness,

and the total system will develop an increasingly robust, well-adapted, resilient

relationship to the world. This is the essence of suppression.

The distinction being drawn here, between cooperation and antagonism,

between dialogue and polarization, between resistance and acceptance of change,

hinges on the nature of the boundary maintenance activities (deciding what’s in and

what is out) of the centrated domain (ego and Performance Domain). This requires us to

draw a sharp distinction between suppression and repression.

We begin with an extensive discussion of repression and its consequences.

Repression in Individuals

Suppression amounts to a conscious moral choice, but repression is a rather immoral “penchant” for getting rid of disagreeable decisions. Suppression may cause worry, conflict, and suffering, but it never causes a neurosis. Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering. (Jung, 1938) [emphasis added.]

Repression is a rejection from consciousness of painful or disagreeable psychic

contents: ideas, memories, feelings, situations, conflicts, capabilities, and behaviors. It is

characterized by denial, delusion, rigidity, rationalization, and control. In Jungian

thought, psychic energy repressed into the unconscious activates its contents

(archetypes, complexes, shadow, etc.) so that they begin to have a life of their own.

This is due to the extreme autonomy and creativity of the unconscious. Over time, these

unconscious contents make themselves known through dreams, vague longings, or a

sense of inner restlessness or unease. If the repression is not overcome, if the inner

67

needs seeking expression are ignored, neuroses begin to manifest. If the repression is

sufficiently powerful and rigid, psychosis may result. Repression yields a degree of

psychic incoherence ― intra-psychic fragmentation and opposition.

Repression in Human Systems

Definition

All the systemic defenses against development noted above result in a general

tendency of the Performance Domain toward a repressive relation with the Adaptation

Domain. Repression in a human system manifests as a nearly impermeable boundary

between the Performance and Adaptation Domains. In plain language, it manifests as a

steadfast refusal to change, even in the face of evidence of its need, together with a

refusal to consciously, openly and honestly deal with intra-system issues and differences

(resident in the Adaptation Domain). It is an overarching investment in maintenance of

the status quo by all or some system members in an attempt to protect themselves from

potential loss and from the anxiety and pain of development. This investment can be

conscious and/or unconscious. Like the individual level, systemic repression is often

characterized by denial, delusion, rigidity, rationalization, and control.

Conscious systemic repression represents an intentional attempt by a subgroup

of system members to exploit, manipulate or control other members to protect their

personal investment (social, political, economic, or psychological) in the current

Performance Domain, over the needs of the community-at-large. Unconscious

repression generally reflects an overly-rigid defense against the pain and challenge of

68

development.

Repression: Alignment via Compliance

As you will recall, the foundation of the Performance Domain is system-wide

shared alignment with its current configuration and contents. A crucial issue is how

alignment ― or collective focus ― is achieved. In a repressive system, differences and

alternatives within the system are repressed, denied and projected ― indeed they must,

since they call into question the boundary and configuration of the Performance Domain.

But, since those differences exist even if they are not openly acknowledged and dealt

with, alignment must achieved primarily via compliance. 49 Compliance is achieved and

maintained through systems of reward and punishment and through processes, subtle

and not so subtle, conscious and unconscious, of coercion, control and intimidation.

A critical problem with alignment through compliance is that alignment is

achieved only at the behavioral level. Its product is behavioral conformity, rather than

whole-person engagement or commitment to the collective domain (PD). In everyday

language, hands may be focused on the collective project, but heads, hearts and spirits

are focused elsewhere. System members are internally conflicted (regarding their

participation in the collective domain) and have divided loyalties and motivations. This

internal conflict yields intra-psychic incoherence at an individual level.

Compliance-based alignment also yields systemic incoherence, or intra-systemic

49 Compliance: the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding (Stein, 1988).

69

multiplicity50 ― i.e., a house divided. Repressed intra-systemic energies and internal

conflicts (within individuals and subgroups) are split off within the Adaptation Domain.

Systemic repression unleashes complementary ― now oppositional ― forces, tainted by

shadow and complexes, in the Adaptation Domain. A key assumption of the model is

that in human systems, like individuals, repressed systemic issues, needs, differences,

etc. do not disappear. They are merely displaced into the Adaptation Domain, with its

autonomous and compensatory archetypal foundation. 51 Repression activates energies

in the AD, conscious and unconscious, that work in a compensatory, potentially

subversive manner, often provoking disruptive or dangerous irruptions connected with

systemic shadow or complexes. Paradoxically, strong attempts to control energies

through repression actually result in a loss of control over them.

An Example of Subversive Compensation for Systemic Repression

I recently viewed a television documentary that traced the rise and near-

institutionalization of the Mafia in American society. A key point made was that

Prohibition was a primary factor in the Mafia’s rapid expansion and increase in power. In

a grandly controlling maneuver, the dominant political coalition attempted to eradicate

(repress) the production and consumption of alcohol out of American society, and it

attempted to achieve alignment with this vision through compliance. The result was

50 This concept stems from the concept, noted above, that there is an intimate correspondence between psychic and social coherence. Systemic incoherence is “the quality of being without unity or harmony of elements or parts.” (Stein, 1988) 51 A fundamental tenet of Jungian thought.

70

complete loss of control over those activities, together with activation of powerful,

underground, and rather extreme shadow elements related to them, which plague

American society to this day. Another key point made in this documentary was that if

Prohibition had never happened, the Mafia would most likely not have expanded as

dramatically or as powerfully as it did.

The Formation, Dynamics and Products of Repressive Systems

Traditionally, once the initial Performance Domain is centrated, institutionalization

processes generally take root and spread. The Performance Domain (or organization)

comes to be regarded as an end-in-itself ― an immutable identity requiring zealous

protection and maintenance. The system becomes identified with its task and with the

current contents of the Performance Domain, and becomes an institution.52 As a

necessary by-product, system members come to be regarded as a means toward

preservation of the institution, rather than as ends-in-themselves. 53

Alignment and boundary-making activity (inclusion or exclusion) must be

maintained through compliance, since intra-system differences threaten the inviolability

of the Performance Domain. As mentioned earlier, compliant system members

52 I view this as a fundamental limitation of organization theory, which tends to limit itself to the study of “task organizations.” Thus, its scope is limited almost solely to what the model defines as the Performance Domain. The model views the organization as only the tip of the iceberg – the centrated or focused portion – of the total system. And, as focus needs to change, so does the system’s domain of centration, which is simply a temporary servant of the system’s current needs and challenges. In terms of the model, the system is not completely identified by or with the task; the system simply has a task. There is a world of difference between those two conceptions and the social worlds they engender. 53 This dynamic is the very root meaning of institution.

71

unconsciously trade their essential individuality and personal power (autonomy) for a

socially constructed (and socially embedded) identity and role power. Protection of the

PD as a means of protecting individual (pseudo-) identity becomes paramount. Thus,

system members become active participants in the repression of threatening differences

and alternatives.

This cycle of repressive control enacts and maintains the counter-dynamic of

internal systemic incoherence, fragmentation and opposition that leads to stagnation,

dysfunction, decay and potentially to early death. It is quite a paradox: treating the

organization as an end-in-itself sets up a chain of events that practically guarantee its

undermining! It represents a system-level enactment of the negative aspect of Jesus’

aphorism noted previously. 54 A fundamental flaw in the traditional model of task

organization has been a systemic reversal of ends and means, noted by Kegan, which

sets up the deadly cycle of repression:

As many researchers and theorists of organizations suggest, work places…tend to organize themselves in a fashion that…amounts to a rigid defense of the institutional balance. Even learning-oriented or mission-oriented organizations have a tendency to suffer this kind of “displacement of value,” in which the organization rather quickly moves from existing for the purpose of expressing or promoting the founding ideal, to existing for the purpose of maintaining the organization. (Kegan, 1982, p. 244)

This reversal of ends and means is a collective analogue to an immature stage of

individual development, where the initially formed ego regards itself as the sole locus of

54 “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.” (Pagels, 1989)

72

power in the psychic economy, and represses the contents and activity of the

unconscious, or even denies its existence. The ego comes to see itself and its narrow

purposes and agenda as the ultimate be-and-end-all; it forgets that its ultimate purpose

is to serve, i.e., to become a finely tuned, highly competent instrument of the Self’s

purposes of psychic integration, healing and realization of potential. And as we have

seen, repression has a deadly price.

This, I believe, is also the current state of development of our organized social

entities (corporations, business entities and institutions), which may be a collective

product of how our culture views the purpose and goal of individual development. For

the most part, our organizations see themselves as ends-in-themselves, 55 rather than as

the collectively conscious, focused servant of a larger and deeper system. They focus

more-or-less exclusively on their immediate goals and gratifications, and on preservation

of the system (the PD). They deny, repress, and turn a blind eye (and a deaf ear) to any

and all other goals or ends, internal developmental needs, and internal differences that

threaten the overarching goal of PD preservation. They are social-psychologically

immature and have forgotten the human collectivity they serve. And again, repression

exacts its deadly price: systemic rigidity, brittleness, stagnation, morbidity, decay,

dysfunction and toxicity, conformity, oppression, lack of creativity or original thought,

internal wars, infighting, poisonous levels of conflict…the list could go on and on.

Albert Einstein once said, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational

55 I.e., as institutions.

73

mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has

forgotten the gift" (Einstein, A., n.d.). The first sentence of this quote might be rephrased

in Jungian terms as, "The unconscious is a sacred gift and the ego is a faithful servant.”

In terms of a Jungian systems theory it might be phrased as, "The Adaptation Domain is

a sacred gift and the Performance Domain is a faithful servant.” No matter the

perspective or level of analysis, my question remains: How can we create human

systems that remember, honor and serve the sacred gift?

74

Section Six: Resilient Human Systems Introduction

The preceding section explored the processes, dynamics and products of

repression ― an attempt to block ongoing equilibration or development (Task Two) ―

for individuals and human systems. This section explores the processes, dynamics,

enablers and products of individuals and human systems that accept, embrace and

manage ongoing equilibration ― in other words, that honor and serve the gift.

What the model envisions as the foundation of a resilient, adaptive human

system is (as usual) a gestalt. 56 As such, it must be apprehended as a whole. It is quite

difficult to build up to it in a linear, incremental, deductive, additive argument. It cannot

be fully described as a whole, because descriptions are spun out linearly and can focus

only on one facet at a time. We are envisioning a conceptual jump between qualitatively

different social worlds ― a movement from repressive, institutional social systems to

resilient, living social systems. The purpose of this section is to attempt to describe, or

at least evoke, this new social gestalt, to explore several of its critical interpenetrating

and intertwining facets, as I perceive them, and to note certain critical distinctions

between the new and old worlds.

56 A structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, psychological and social-psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts.

75

The Foundational Image

It is a bit ironic that, regardless of the complexities involved in accurately

describing this new world, it’s essence or soul is captured rather simply and well by a

core image, or symbol: A resilient, adaptive, evolving human system is a co-

individuating community with a co-owned task responsibility. This image, a tiny bit more

amplified: the model envisions human systems in which the totality of the PD57 is an

object of ongoing reflection, mutability and expansion by a community of co-individuating

persons who are committed to a common purpose or task.

An organized, co-individuating collective would provide a response to

Bertalanffy’s earlier warning that “the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the

individual without sealing its own inevitable doom.” (Bertalanffy, 1969, p. 53) Since

individuation is a process of ongoing change and development, such a collective would

also heed Darwin’s admonition that “It is not the strongest, nor the most intelligent, that

will survive, but those most responsive to change.” Since it would be devoted to the

explicit realization of its total implicit potential as well as to fulfillment of its shared task,

such a collective would heed the ancient admonition that “If you bring forth what is within

you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what

you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

Finally, such a collective would not fulfill the fears of many people who mistake

individuation for individualism, believing that it can lead only to social anarchy, to the

57 PD elements: the shared purpose/task focus, task structure, culture and competencies.

76

death of shared collectivity. Individuation and individualism may sound similar but are

worlds apart. Individualism is an egocentric proposition, in which a person sets their own

self-centered needs and goals over against the needs of the group, and often disowns

their responsibilities to the community in which they participate. This kind of process

does indeed have the potential for social breakdown.

Individuation, on the other hand, is the fulfillment of one’s individual nature and

the reclamation of lost, repressed or forgotten dimensions of the self in relation to the

whole. This requires self-awareness, self-responsibility, and conscious, responsible

participation in the life of the community. Individuation is a paradox: “[It is] an at-one-

ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of

humanity” (Jung, 1954/1966, p. 227). Individuation does not destroy community.

Individuation is the very process through which healthy community can manifest!

An Elaboration of the Foundational Image

The model explores the properties of human systems that restore an appropriate

relation of ends and means. As opposed to the traditional model of task organization,

the proposed model is one of community, supported by a task responsibility. The

community is not rigidly identified with the current task, or with the Performance Domain

in general. Rather, it is served by it. Because the community is not completely

embedded in the task, it is also not subject to the task (Kegan, 1982); i.e., the

community does not unconsciously labor under its ultimate dominion. The Performance

Domain is expressly not an end in itself, nor does it confer a socially constructed identity

on its members.

77

Rather, the community identifies itself with its shared humanity and with its

shared human needs for survival, community, individuality, achievement, contribution,

service, fulfillment and growth. In a resilient human system, the Performance Domain’s

sole purpose is to serve as a medium through which these shared community needs can

be met. Under this model, the Performance Domain is a servant to the unfolding of the

Community archetype, akin to the proper function of the ego as servant to the unfolding

of the Self. 58

Every element of the Performance Domain remains continuously subject to

revision by the community to ensure its utility in these regards. That is, the PD is an

object of conscious reflection by the community59 (Kegan, 1982), and is continuously co-

constructed and managed by the community it serves. Its boundary is permeable and its

configuration changeable. Thus, the PD remains alive ― capable of adaptation and

creative self-renewal. This is the essence of a resilient human system.

The energies and activities of the Adaptation Domain provide a balancing

corrective to the one-sidedness of the PD, 60 with its tendency toward a limited focus on

immediate survival needs, achieved by satisfying environmental needs, and with its

tendency toward repression in order to preserve the institutional balance. You will recall

that the Community archetype is indifferent to immediate, externally-focused survival

58 I.e., it serves as a medium for unfolding of potential – collectively and individually. 59 In other words, the community is not embedded in the PD; the community has the PD, rather than defining itself as the PD. 60 In a manner akin to the corrective functioning of the unconscious vis-à-vis the narrow awareness and focus of the ego.

78

issues; rather, it operates with a mysterious purposefulness of its own, directed toward

realization of systemic wholeness ― inclusion, healing of social fragmentation,

integration of shadow, and realization of undeveloped community and individual

potentials.

The PD is the medium through which these environmental and community needs

are satisfied and integrated. Meeting immediate environmental needs through successful

accomplishment of the shared task ensures the survival and potential economic growth

of the system. This is the essence of Task One. But in such a system, simple survival

― maintenance of the system’s existence and structure ― is not the beginning and the

end of its purpose. 61 Acknowledging and consciously working to meet internal

community needs beyond simple systemic survival,62 as opposed to repressing them to

maintain the institutional balance, mitigates the dynamic of internal fragmentation and

incoherence that yield stagnation, dysfunction, oppression, and long-term decay. Thus,

in ongoing co-construction of the PD, the community must continually re-balance and re-

integrate satisfaction of environmental needs with needs and issues emergent from

within the community.

In ongoing co-construction of the PD, the community must also maintain the

functional stability of the system, which requires balancing between maintenance of the

61 Which is the case with the model of task organization – i.e., creation and maintenance of the institutional balance (Kegan, 1982). 62 These needs include community (belonging), individuality, achievement, contribution, fulfillment and growth. The model equates simple survival with Task One – responding effectively to a context.

79

status quo (maintaining an assimilative strategy ― Task One), and passage through a

cycle of Death and Rebirth (Task Two). That is, the community must reflectively decide

whether to save its life ― and possibly lose it thereby ― or to consciously and

intentionally lose its life in order to save it.

The Vision is Not the Goal

This utopian vision is expressly not intended to establish a required end state; its

sole purpose is to orient the direction of development. 63 Jung himself insisted that

complete conscious realization of the individual Self-archetype, a utopian goal, was an

absolutely impossible psychological feat, because the roots of the unconscious and the

Self are infinite and inexhaustible. He was equally insistent, however, on the urgent

need for continuing movement in that direction. The vision drawn is of one possible

realization of the collective archetype of Conscious Community. The ultimate

achievability or realism of the vision is quite beside the point; what matters is

a continuous, conscious, committed effort to pursue it. 64

63 In our culture, and especially in the academic world, there is a cynical, automatic tendency to sneer at and dismiss anything that even hints of the utopian, without further thought or inquiry. That would be a mistake, here, because my stance is absolutely not utopian or absolutistic – on this point I insist. 64 Years ago, I read a book about psychological differentiation and its beneficial effect on relationships. I was overwhelmed initially by the scope of demands for my growth implied by it. I was later relieved to read the author’s view that tiny increments of growth in personal differentiation would yield significant improvements in interpersonal relationships (Roberta M. Gilbert, 1992). This is my stance in connection with this model.

80

Foundations of a Resilient Human System

We are envisioning a human system in which system-level and individual-level

development are embraced and regarded as co-equal and inseparable. In such a

context, all system member’s job descriptions might include a statement of duties that

reads effective management and execution of the ongoing Birth ! Death ! Rebirth

Cycle. To effectively manage equilibration as a living, ongoing reality, the centrated

domain (both the collective PD and individual egos) must:

• Acknowledge that the other center of energy and activity exists - i.e., both the

individual unconscious and the systemic AD65

• Acknowledge its own ultimate limitedness. 66 In other words, it must develop the

quality of humility.

• Mediate or manage the dialectic between the two domains. This includes:

o Developing an active, ongoing dialogue with the diffuse domain

o Acknowledging the validity of the argument emerging from the other

energy center

o Balancing and integrating environmental (survival) issues with internal

(developmental) issues (as opposed to repressing internal needs and issues).

o Managing emergent voices, differences and activity from the diffuse domain

65 This is a major hurdle all by itself. Both western society and modern science are largely pro-ego and pro-material-positivist, and anti-Jung, anti-unconscious and anti-depth. 66 That is, it must acknowledge and accept its limits in terms of control of its own destiny, and in terms of the onesidedness of its focused awareness and agenda.

81

suppressively (as opposed to repressing them).

o Consciously and actively working to integrate and transcend differences into a

qualitatively new order within the PD. 67

• Embrace, rather than deny or avoid, the reality of ongoing Death and Rebirth.

• Accept, and build supports to help move through, passage through chaos.

• Active, conscious management of defensive and repressive processes and

tendencies.

Ongoing system-level equilibration pursues the goal of a continuously mutable

Performance Domain, combined with an effort toward ongoing development and

integration of the full spectrum of capacities within the systemic totality into the PD.

Based on the principles just listed plus material covered in previous sections, this implies

movement toward the following:

• Systemic supports to social-psychological disembedding of the community from its

primary (conscious and unconscious) identification with the PD, so that the PD can

become an object of community reflection. 68

• Gaining systemic alignment around the PD through practices that foster whole-

person commitment. Such practices might include:

o Ever-greater degrees of inclusion in ongoing co-construction of the PD

o Ever-greater degrees of acceptance of group and individual differences 67 This capability represents a systemic analogue to the Jungian concept of the Transcendent Function (Olson, 1995). 68 As an unconscious facet of identity, the PD is immutable and must be maintained through repression; the system is subject to it, is held captive by it.

82

o Conscious, active management of defensive and repressive processes and

tendencies, which block whole-system and whole-person engagement in PD

co-construction. 69

• Development of an ever-broader spectrum of differentiated competencies within

the PD.

• Development of the capacity to access emergent system-level archetypal information

seeking expression and integration.

• Development of practical and emotional support to an ongoing cycle of attachment

and loss. This is clearly related to the issue of passage through chaos which occurs

during Task Two (Death and Rebirth).

Effective system-level development, however, can happen only in a context that

provides parallel and equal support to individual psychological development

(individuation) for the entire community. 70 Systemic supports to individual-level

development might include:

• Supports for a psychological disembedding of individual identity, self-worth and locus

of power from the socially constructed PD.

• Supports to system members to utilize change to the PD as a means to foster their

own process of movement toward psychic wholeness and discovery of their own

essential individuality.

69 See Appendix F: Resistance to Equilibration – Human Systems Level, for more information regarding these defensive, repressive processes and tendencies. 70 Equal emphasis on both levels of equilibration reflects the mutual gridlock, or mutual embeddedness, of the PD and individual identities (noted earlier).

83

• Co-Individuation: Conscious utilization of interpersonal and inter-group differences

as a means to mirror, discover and integrate unconscious, split-off and projected

intra-psychic and intra-group contents.

Enabling Practices and Conditions

Equilibration Requires a Healthy Centrated Domain

Systemic health requires system members to recognize that they must mediate

or manage the dialectic between the two centers of systemic energy and activity, both as

individuals and as a collective. System members must develop a living, conscious

dialogue with the diffuse domain (the individual ego and the collective PD), and respect

it’s power, energy, autonomy, purposes, needs and voices. The diffuse domain must be

recognized as a living, full partner in the personal and collective life-project. At the same

time, system members must be in the world and deal with its immediate and practical

concerns, and not become crippled or overwhelmed by irruptions from the diffuse

domains.

As mentioned earlier, the power of the diffuse domain (unconscious or AD)

should not be underestimated. When confronted with a powerful irruption of

diffuse/unconscious contents, a weak or unhealthy centrated domain (ego or PD), rather

than undergoing the healthy process of loosening or melting of centrated structure, 71

may experience something more akin to a meltdown. Within individuals, a meltdown

71 In a temporary abaissement du niveau mental (Jung, 1960/1969).

84

could result in psychosis. In human systems, a meltdown would be social chaos. This

possibility is one of the reasons for repression and denial of the need for Death and

Rebirth. However, what is really called for is prior work on building the strength and

‘health’ (effective functioning) of the ego and PD. Because of the paradoxes and

challenges involved, Death and Rebirth requires a strong, healthy centrated domain ―

whether ego or PD ― as a starting point.

Suppression

One of the primary functions of the centrated domain, whether the individual ego

or the collective Performance Domain, is the maintenance of the functional stability of

the system. That is, the centrated domain must maintain a balance between

maintenance of the status quo in terms of day-to-day functioning in the external world

(Task One: maintaining an assimilative strategy), or shifting to Task Two (Death and

Rebirth).

In a repressive system, this balancing activity does not occur in a truly functional

manner. The scales are tipped heavily toward meeting immediate survival needs and

maintaining the status quo. Repression amounts to a near-total blockage by the

centrated domain (the ego or PD) of emergent information, messages, alternatives and

activity from within the diffuse domain, which differ by nature from the conscious

orientation of the centrated domain, and which have the capacity to trigger change to the

PD.

There is an alternative to repression, however. While difficult to achieve, the

balancing, boundary-making and self-constitutive activities of the centrated domain can

85

be achieved through the process of suppression:

Suppression amounts to a conscious moral choice. …Suppression may cause worry, conflict, and suffering, but it never causes a neurosis. (Jung, 1938)

In a nutshell, the basic difference between suppression and repression is the

difference between accepting responsibility and evading it. Suppression is characterized

by acknowledgement of the ultimate worth and validity of contents, issues and

differences emergent from within the diffuse domain, together with a conscious moral

choice either to deal with them immediately and forthrightly, or to postpone dealing with

them for the time being in deference to other, more immediately pressing issues.

If the decision is made to deal with them, the contents are wrestled with, made

explicit, slowly integrated into the centrated domain, and whatever changes called for

are made. If the decision is made to postpone it, the tension and conflict are borne until

the time seems right to deal with it, and/or until a transcending resolution emerges.

Postponement, however, cannot serve to mask covert motivations of avoidance, denial

and evasion.

Commitment

In a suppressive context, community alignment with the boundary, contents and

configuration of the shared PD is achieved through relational contexts and

communications practices which foster commitment (as opposed to compliance). In

terms of the model, commitment represents, at a minimum, conscious, whole-person

engagement with the shared systemic purpose/task, and with the individual’s role in

supporting that task. At best, commitment is fostered through ongoing community-wide,

86

whole person participation in ongoing co-construction of all elements of the PD.

Commitment, or whole-person engagement in the determination of the

community’s aims, purposes, tasks and processes, aids in overcoming the subversive,

dysfunctional dynamics that accompany the systemic fragmentation and incoherence

produced by compliance-based repressive systems. The degree to which the whole

person is aligned with the system’s PD is a reflection of the degree to which individual

intra-psychic coherence is achieved; the degree to which the community as a totality is

whole-heartedly aligned with the PD is the degree to which systemic coherence is

achieved.

Active Management of Defenses and Repressive Processes

Community-wide participation in PD co-construction is critical; however, it is not

enough. Many whole-system organization development interventions are based on this

premise. What is generally overlooked, however, is the operation of powerful repressive

mechanisms and processes, in and out of awareness, that support compliance-based

alignment and effectively block whole person engagement of all individuals and

subgroups in PD co-construction. It is often the case in whole system interventions that

all members are included physically, yet needed change (especially of the

transformational variety) does not occur due to systemic repression.

Co-Individuation and Unconscious Group Merger

Genuine whole person and whole community involvement in PD co-construction

requires the system to consciously face and address repressive processes. Other

87

literatures have focused on issues of bureaucratization, institutionalization and structural

inequalities, but the issue of unconscious group merger is often overlooked. The issue of

group merger is central to the model:

Only the man who can consciously assent to the power of the inner voice becomes a personality (Jung, 1954) Only a personality can find a proper place in the collectivity; only personalities have the power to create a community, that is, to become integral parts of a human group and not merely a number in the mass (Jacobi, 1973)

The individual must be complete and must have substance, otherwise nothing has substance, for any number of zeros still do not amount to more than zero.…A state composed of nothing but sheep is never anything else but a herd of sheep. (Jung, letter to H.A Illing, January 26, 1955, taken from Donlevy, 1996, p.103) Group merger represents a social-psychological manifestation of the

phenomenon of non-differentiation or unconscious identity. In this state, “one person

presupposes in the other a psychological structure similar to his own” (Jung, 1954, p._

330). Group merger has the effect of exerting tremendous, although generally

unconscious, repressive social pressure on individual members to conform to group

norms, and to not differentiate or individuate.

Group merger hinders the system’s ability to differentiate and integrate inner

multiplicity ― individual and subgroup differences from the dominant norms of the total

system ― because inner multiplicity is denied and repressed. Individual- and subgroup-

level unconscious (repressed) functions or capabilities, personal shadow, and

complexes are projected onto others within the system or outside the system.

88

A method for addressing this phenomenon would be to institute practices that

foster co-individuation. By co-individuation, I mean:

• Adoption of communication practices that foster differentiated relationships and

communications through enactment of accurate interpersonal boundaries, and

through withdrawal of projection at the individual level (Rosenberg, 1999; Short,

1998).

• Conscious utilization of interpersonal, intra-group and inter-group differences as a

means to mirror, discover and integrate unconscious, split-off and projected intra-

psychic and intra-group contents (Segal, 1997, pg. 81).

• Utilization of symbol and image as a means for introducing unconscious/archetypal

content into the collectively conscious domain. 72

Developmental Challenges Associated With Sub-Domains of the AD

The preceding subsections discuss, in broad terms, conditions and practices that

foster ongoing equilibration/development. This subsection probes a bit more deeply into

some specific, problematic challenges to ongoing equilibration, which depend on a more

probing examination of the structure of the Adaptation Domain. As you will recall, the

Adaptation Domain (AD) consists of that portion of the systemic totality that is either

unshared, unconscious, or both.

72 In Jungian psychology, the symbol, in the form of an actual physical image, is viewed as a bridge or conduit between the conscious and unconscious domains, and serves as a means for making unconscious materials conscious, since the image or symbol inevitably constellates and carries unconscious information within its purview (Jacobi, 1973).

89

By implication, the AD contains sub-domains defined by the combinations of

those two attributes (unshared and unconscious).73 Table 4 below summarizes these AD

sub-domains, and the specific developmental challenges associated with them.

Table 4 Developmental Challenges by AD Sub-domain

Sub-Domain Challenges and Emphases

Conscious-Unshared • Resolution of issues of structural inequality and diversity

• Embracing of conscious, individual and sub-group psychological and cultural differences.

Unconscious-Unshared • Mitigation of group merger phenomena through enactment of accurate interpersonal boundaries and individual differentiation, and through withdrawal of projection at the individual level ― i.e., co-individuation.

• Individuation:

o Integration of individual shadow and complexes via withdrawal of projection

o Differentiation and integration of unconscious, undifferentiated capabilities and psychic functions

o Access to and integration of individual archetypal information emerging from the Self.

• Withdrawal of inter-group projections, blame, scapegoating and enemy-creation processes

Unconscious-Shared • Integration of systemic shadow and complexes

• Differentiation and integration of undifferentiated systemic capabilities

• Access to emergent system-level archetypal information seeking expression and integration

73 These sub-domains are explored in detail in Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems.

90

Postscript

These ideas may be controversial in their “psycho-lization” of organizations; in

their acknowledgement and even privileging of complementary unconscious contents,

energies and motivations; in their insistence that development (Task Two) must carry as

much weight as performance (Task One); in their insistence on the need to take

responsibility for the psychological maturity of our organizations and their individual

members; in their emphasis on conscious community as the ultimate expression of our

collective, organized humanity; and most of all, in their implications for organizational

forms and practice, especially among leadership. All of these ideas deeply challenge

the status quo, in both the practical, hard-bitten, cynical world of business, and in the

rarefied, Apollonian, hyper-rational, cynical world of organization theory. Because of

this, I am sure that these ideas will be criticized and dismissed by many as utopian,

unfounded, unrealistic and impractical.

My response is: What is the alternative? The alternative is what we labor under

right now: for the most part, fortresses of institutionalization, bureaucratization,

conformity and oppression, designed to reward executives and stockholders and to look

good to outside stakeholders, but which ― on the inside ― are often stifling and

stultifying for employees; which struggle terribly and often unsuccessfully with creativity,

innovation, change and development; and which are hothouses for the growth of

collective and individual fragmentation, incoherence, stagnation, dysfunction, decay and

early death.

Someone once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and

91

expecting different results.” Albert Einstein once said "The problems that exist in the

world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them" (Einstein, A.,

n.d.). If these statements are true, then perhaps what is utterly unrealistic and

impractical is the belief that we can create vibrant, creative, adaptable, growth-oriented

organizations while maintaining the current mode of organizing.

92

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study uses a variant of action research methodology to create double-loop

organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996). The fundamental research question is

“How do participants and facilitator describe the strengths and limitations of the

performance-adaptive model assumptions74 that guided collective action within the cycle

of action research?”

The Method as a Variant of Traditional Action Research

Action research (AR) is a label for a broad spectrum of approaches, all of which

have subtly different purposes and approaches. For the immediate purpose, the

following definition is helpful:

AR is social research carried out by a team encompassing a professional action researcher and members of an organization or community seeking to improve their situation.…Together, the professional researcher and the stakeholders define the problems to be examined, co-generate relevant knowledge about them, learn and execute social research techniques, take actions, and interpret the results of actions based on what they have learned. (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 4) Knowledge emerges and is evaluated through acting or as a consequence of actions. (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 79) Running through the variety of AR approaches is a shared emphasis on

generation of knowledge through action. Co-researchers study an organization or

organizational phenomenon, generate a picture, understanding or assessment of it,

74 Developed in the Review of the Literature.

93

develop and implement an action plan for organizational change and improvement,

and then reflect on outcomes as a means of knowledge ― i.e., model or theory ―

generation.

A potential limitation of traditional AR approaches is the seeming lack of

acknowledgment of the existence of an a priori framework of assumptions ― a theory-of-

action ― informing the pre-learning phases of study, assessment, interpretation, action

planning and action. The assumption made here is that all action is informed by prior

assumptions. These assumptions may be conscious, explicit and coherent, or they may

be implicit, unconscious, fragmentary or contradictory, but they are there.

So this study makes an interesting twist to the basic AR approach by making the

a priori theory-of-action explicit ― prior to engagement in the AR cycle ― and by

consciously utilizing it to inform the pre-learning phases. The study makes two

assumptions in support of this approach:

1. Making the a priori theory-of-action (Argyris & Schon, 1996) conscious and explicit up-front makes reflection on its utility possible. 2. Reflection on one’s theory-of-action is a good thing to do. It yields better theory, better practice, and possibly better organizations.

Figure 4 below conveys the AR approach adopted in this study as a flow of

praxis that is informed by an a priori theory-of-action, i.e., the human systems model

developed in the literature review. Assessment uses the model as a lens through which

to examine, understand and assess the organization. Action consists of development

and implementation of coordinated actions consistent with the assumptions of the model,

which are intended to improve the functioning and dynamics of the organization.

94

Reflection is the point at which double-loop organizational learning, or knowledge

creation, occurs.

Loop One Learning: Improved Practice and Organizational Change

Loop One reflection inquires into the effectiveness of the change actions in

realizing their intended practical goal(s). It yields an amended/improved set of practical

actions, which can then feed into another cycle of action research. Loop One learning is

instrumental.

95

Loop Two Learning: The Research Question and an Improved Assumption Set

Loop Two reflection is the primary focus of the dissertation research. It consists

of reflection on the model informing collective action, based on a qualitative analysis of

the transcripts of individual interviews with willing participants in the AR cycle, combined

with insights and learning captured in the journal I kept during the AR process. Loop

Two learning is primarily theoretical; it is a form of complex learning, or meta-learning,

focused on improvements to the underlying framework of thought, belief and value that

informed action. The fundamental research question investigated in Loop Two is “How

do participants and facilitator describe the strengths and limitations of the performance-

adaptive model assumptions that guided collective action within the cycle of action

research?”

Inquiry into the strengths and weaknesses of those assumptions is done from

two perspectives. First, in terms of their accuracy; i.e., the degree of alignment between

the model assumptions and the organizational phenomena observed during the action

research cycle; second, in terms of their efficacy ― the strengths and weaknesses of the

assumptions in shaping and guiding an effective change program.

A Practical Constraint on Loop Two Learning

It is possible, of course, that all arrows in the AR diagram above could be two-

way; that is, reflection upon the model could take place at every step of the AR cycle. As

a practical matter, however, I chose to reserve Loop Two reflection for the end of the

cycle. The model is complex, the real-world organizational issues and dynamics are

complex, and the distinction between levels of reflection (between loops) is difficult to

96

maintain. Based upon knowledge of the co-researchers, I judged that intermingling all of

this for the duration of the project would generate a great deal of confusion and angst for

the researchers, would cause significant problems for the practical management of the

research process, and would have a negative impact on the integrity of the findings. In

plain English, it would just be too much. So, I decided to limit Loop Two reflections to the

end of the AR cycle, after the Loop One cycle is over, or nearly so.

Research Settings, Timing and Duration:

The project began in May 2002 and was completed in February 2003. I

negotiated an agreement with two organizations to engage in this program of action

research:

• A state governmental department’s organizational development and training group.

This organization will be referred to as “ST-ODT” throughout the remainder of this

study.

• A small, growing company that provides paper and Internet-based learning and development products to support individuals moving through major life-transitions. This organization will be referred to as “Life Transitions” throughout the remainder of this study. Loop Two Methods

We will begin, oddly enough, with Loop Two. There are three reasons for this:

1) Loop Two is the primary focus of the dissertation, 2) Loop Two methods are simpler to

describe than Loop One methods, and 3) Loop Two methods do not differ by research

setting (Loop One methods do).

97

Loop Two Participants

Participants in Loop Two research were drawn on a voluntary basis, and

following strict ethical research guidelines, from among the co-researchers involved in

Loop One. The only requirement for inclusion in the research was direct participation in

the AR cycle, and involvement in the initial training in the model. Loop Two interviews

were completed during January and February of 2003.

Loop Two Research Procedures

Loop Two procedures were aimed at inquiry into the accuracy and efficacy of the

model as a framework for understanding and intervening in human systems. Here are

the steps that were followed:

1. Solicitation of Involvement: After the action research was close to finishing,

solicitation of participant involvement began. All AR team members were eligible

to participate; however, participation was strictly voluntary.

2. Interviewing: After gaining willing participants, private interviews were scheduled,

which were held in a closed conference room or in participant’s offices or homes.

The interview format was loosely structured and was tape-recorded. Interviews

lasted from 60 - 90 minutes. An interview guide is provided in Appendix H.

3. Transcription: A transcriptionist, who signed a confidentiality agreement that

bars them from any use whatsoever of the interviews transcribed, listened to the

recorded tapes and transcribed their contents. To ensure confidentiality, each

participant was given an alphabetical letter or pseudonym at the beginning of the

98

tape, which was the only reference made available to the transcriptionist.

Following transcription, only the pseudonym was attached to the file. No other

personal identifying information were collected.

4. Data Analysis: The transcribed interviews were analyzed using general

qualitative analysis procedures to discover emergent themes in connection with

the questions listed in Appendix H. Details of this process are presented below.

5. Learning: The learning gained in the analysis was applied to the model

developed in the Review of the Literature and summarized in Appendix G.

Loop Two Data Collection

The dissertation research (Loop Two) was based on two data sets. The first data

set was qualitative data collected via interviews with willing participants in the Loop One

AR cycle, regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the model that guided the cycle of

action research. The initial interview protocol is provided in Appendix H. The second

data set was the journal I maintained during the life of the project, which contains details

of the research process and personal reflections on the research process together with

interesting and/or relevant issues, experiences, group dynamics, and learning gained

through the process. No names were referenced in this journal. Based on my journal

and on the unfolding of the action research process, my intent was to remain open to the

possibility that additional items might emerge for inclusion in the interviewing protocol, or

the need might become apparent to re-word or restructure the interview protocol.

99

Loop Two Data Analysis

The interview transcripts were analyzed via general qualitative methods in a

search for themes in connection with those strengths and weaknesses. It was

anticipated that the findings might include, potentially, confirmations, disconfirmations,

and revisions to key model assumptions, and perhaps even brand-new concepts. This

analysis was then combined with my own perspective, as drawn from my journal. I

regarded my journal as equal in status to that of each individual interview ― not more

important, and not less important.

In analyzing the interview transcripts, I read each one carefully and highlighted

blocks of data that dealt with a single coherent thread of meaning. I then labeled each

block with a name/code that reflected, or attempted to reflect, the essence of the

meaning of that block. Quite often, the code chosen was drawn directly from some facet

of the model. This only makes sense, in that the interviewee and I were discussing

various facets of the model quite explicitly. During the coding process, I attempted to

maintain a bifurcated mindset: while looking for themes related to the questions asked,

which were rooted in the model, I also kept a weather-eye out for anomalies, departures,

the unexpected, the disconfirming ― i.e., concepts or meaning threads that were not

embedded in or reflective of the model. I found some of these, too.

As this process continued, many codes began to develop (in the neighborhood of

250 or more). I began to notice that I could label multiple data blocks among multiple

transcripts with the same code, so that certain codes began to “fill up” with data. I went

through all the transcripts several times. As I did, I began to refine the labels, and I

100

began to find smaller blocks of meaning embedded within previously-existing ones, and I

began to code those smaller data blocks.

I began to notice that many labels were close in meaning, or upon closer

inspection, identical in meaning, and that many of them were related, or reflected only

slight variations on a similar theme. I merged codes that were identical in meaning. I also

began to group related codes into meta-codes (a label for a group of related codes), and

to group codes that reflected only slight variations of meaning into meta-codes.

This process of refining, editing and organizing continued. Gradually, I began to

perceive a meta-pattern ― an overall, semi-hierarchical structure of codes and meta-

codes ― an overall meaning structure. It is from that meta-pattern that the findings were

developed and presented.

Loop One Methods

This section focuses on Loop One of the AR cycle. We will begin with some

general information germane to both settings and follow with setting-specific information,

since Loop Two methods were much more sensitive to differences in the two research

settings.

Loop One Procedural Overview

Loop One of the AR cycle focused on achieving group or organizational goals,

and on enhancing the resiliency of the group or organization, using the model as the

explicit, a priori basis for assessment and action. As mentioned, since the AR process is

highly collaborative and dynamically unfolds according to the needs of the group in the

moment, procedures could not be specified in detail, or inflexibly fixed, in advance.

101

Following is the basic framework initially anticipated to guide the AR process:

1. Initial Training: Participants would receive initial training in the model that would

inform subsequent assessment and intervention activity in the larger

organization.

2. Assessment: The team would then assess the functioning of the client group or

organization: its strengths and weaknesses in terms of the model. I anticipated

that this would include some form of data collection and/or discussion,

information sharing and group interpretation of member perspectives.

3. Intervention Design and Planning: Based on this, the team, led by the facilitator

and lead researcher, would then develop a set of interventions aimed at

bolstering the functioning of the client group or organization in terms of the

model. This set of interventions would either be determined in advance, or would

evolve and emerge as the work unfolds.

4. Implementation and Course-Correction: Then, the team would begin working on

implementation of the interventions. As the work unfolds, course corrections

would be made based on emergent needs. Thus, while steps 3 and 4 are

outlined as separate, I anticipated that in practice they might be more

interpenetrating. The process allowed for contingencies, and for the voice of the

“group conscience” to continuously guide and shape the work.

102

As the reader shall see shortly, in practice the steps above were not quite so

discrete or sequential; in fact, all of the steps were happening all the time, throughout the

life of the project. Perhaps most importantly, training and reinforcement in the model

and its assumptions was provided on a continuous basis throughout the life of the

project. In effect, step 1 was a continuous action throughout the AR cycle to ensure that

the model’s assumptions continued to provide guidance for next steps.

Loop One Participants

Loop One of the action research process was focused on helping effect certain

practical outcomes within the organization at large, and on helping the group or

organization enhance capacity for performance and adaptation. All group and

organizational members were eligible to participate in this process. Since the focus of

Loop One activities was an integral part of job role enactment among all group members

in both cases, they all participated as a part of their job responsibilities.

Loop One Data Collection and Analysis

In connection with Loop One, I kept a journal of the activities undertaken by the

teams of co-researchers, of each team’s dynamics and behaviors, and of my own

subjective and behavioral responses to these processes. Also, sometimes the team

documented certain key outputs created during the sessions. For the reader’s

convenience, an overview of Loop One processes is provided for each setting, even

though Loop One is not the primary focus of this dissertation. The description of Loop

103

One processes is based on my journal and the team outputs.

Loop One: Setting-Specific Histories, Participants and Procedures

This section provides setting-specific, relevant details regarding each client

group’s history, AR participants75 and AR procedures, which differed between the two

research sites due to differences in group cultures, emphases, needs, level of

experience with organization development models and processes, and time availability.

First, we will discuss the ST-ODT setting; following that, we will discuss the Life

Transitions setting.

ST-ODT Research Setting: Participants and History

The State government department’s training and organizational development

organization consisted of 9 members: 1 Chief (the leader of the group), 2 administrative

support people, 2 trainers, and 4 people whose job duties included both organization

development (OD) and training. All of them participated in Loop One AR activities as an

integral part of job role fulfillment. In addition, a training and development coordinator

from a satellite location also participated. Thus, the full AR team (for Loop One)

consisted of 10 client participants plus myself (the lead researcher).

The ST-ODT Chief was brought in approximately 3 years prior to the study to

replace the former Chief, who had died suddenly and unexpectedly. At that time, the

group consisted only of the two trainers and two administrative people, who were all

75 The relevance of historical influences and the nature of the participants will become more apparent in the Findings chapter.

104

long-term employees of the state government department, and who had been in the

same job role for many years (10 or more). The new Chief was asked to broaden the

group’s role to include OD as well as training.

Immediately upon being hired, the new Chief “hit the ground running.” In rapid

succession, he hired four new people (all of whom had previous experience in the

corporate sector, but no experience working within a government setting), and launched

a series of successful, high-impact OD interventions and new training offerings. In an

organization and historical culture that had little or no appreciation for the value of OD,

he quickly built credibility and gained solid support both for himself and for the group,

and built strategic alliances at senior levels throughout the organization.

At the same time, however, problems began to develop within the group,

including interpersonal conflict, differences regarding priorities and group focus, lack of

cooperation, individuals isolating within their own sphere of activity, perceived foot-

dragging among some group members, and low morale.

About 2 years ago, the Chief attended a public workshop given by me entitled

“Building Organizational Resilience,” which was founded on the principles of the model

developed in the Literature Review. He expressed interest in the model and in its

potential to help him solve the problems in the group. Over the next year, the Chief and

the lead researcher slowly negotiated a contract for his group to participate in this study,

with the goal of solving these problems and building more teamwork. The AR project

began in July 2002 and was completed in February 2003 (including both Loop One and

Two).

105

ST-ODT: Loop One Procedures

The Loop One AR process took place through a series of 15 team meetings (full

and half days) spread out over the period from July 2002 to January 2003, followed

immediately by interviews with willing participants (Loop Two). Team members were

initially introduced to the key principles and assumptions of the model for several days.

As it turned out, training in the model became an integral part of every meeting. This

ongoing training was either to introduce a new assumption or model concept, or to

review and reinforce previously introduced assumptions for deeper understanding. In

general, every meeting thus consisted of a combination of some training in the model,

group work on group issues, and development of assignments and group work

between meetings.

ST -ODT: Loop One Procedures - Performance Domain

Work on the Performance Domain was initiated first, in accordance with the

model assumption that the ability to work constructively with the Adaptation Domain is

predicated on the existence and functioning of a moderately healthy, shared

Performance Domain.

Over the life of the project, the team developed and built a working consensus

around a series of elements of the Performance Domain, all of which previously did not

exist, were fragmentary, or were not agreed-upon. 76 Descriptions of these elements

76 The actual list of PD elements developed during this process is provided in the Loop One section of the Findings Chapter.

106

were collected and integrated in a documented Mission Statement. This mission

statement represents, in terms of the model, the foundation of the Performance Domain

for the ST-ODT group, and the consensus-building process through which it was built

represents an attempt at working toward whole-person, committed alignment with the

shared domain.

ST-ODT: Loop One Procedures ― Adaptation Domain

Not unexpectedly, as work on the PD unfolded, formerly unexpressed,

unacknowledged differences within the group began to surface regarding the appropriate

shared focus, spectrum of services, priorities and values. As this began to happen,

unexpressed tensions, conflicts, perceptions and negative feelings began to mount and

break into open view.

It became apparent to me and to the group that the ST-ODT group was not a

functioning, integrated team, or perhaps even a group. Rather, it was a collection of

three isolated subgroups with different histories and conflicting perceptions, priorities

and needs. The three subgroups were: 1) the 2 trainers who were long-term employees

within the Department, 2) the newer employees with backgrounds in OD and in the

corporate world, and 3) the administrative support team. When intra-ODT tensions

reached a critical mass, the focus of the work shifted toward addressing un-dealt-with

differences in the Adaptation Domain of the group. It became obvious that intra-ODT

healing (of inner fragmentation and incoherence) was needed.

107

The lead researcher and the group decided to learn about, and begin to adopt,

practices that foster co-individuation. By co-individuation, I mean (as documented in the

Literature Review):

• Adoption of communication practices that foster differentiated relationships and

differentiated communications through enactment of accurate interpersonal

boundaries, and through withdrawal of projection at the individual level (Rosenberg,

1999; Short, 1998).

• Conscious utilization of interpersonal, intra-group and inter-group differences as a

mirror ― i.e., as a means to uncover and integrate unconscious, split-off and

projected intra-psychic and intra-group contents (Segal, 1997, pg. 81).

• Utilization of symbol and image as a means for introducing unconscious/archetypal

content into the collectively conscious domain (Jung, 1960/1969; Jacobi, 1973).

The lead researcher then trained the group in communications processes that

foster and support self-differentiation and differentiated discourse within an interpersonal

or group setting (Short, 1991, 1998). The purpose of this training was to provide an

intellectual framework and practical communication skills that address the issue of group

merger (as a form of repression), and mitigate its negative influence on communication

within the group.

This communications process fosters self-differentiation, self-responsibility, self-

disclosure and interpersonal learning (learning primarily about the self, while also

learning about others), while blunting processes of blame, attribution and scapegoating,

108

and which, if embraced and practiced consistently over time, builds interpersonal trust

and safety within the group (Short, 1998). A summary or distillation of the principles of

this communications process is provided in Appendix I: Principles of Differentiated

Discourse. It is in the form of a list of Ground Rules for a team session, during which the

group began to openly address the issues and differences among subgroups that had

been “lurking” within the Adaptation Domain of the group.

This critical meeting occurred off-site, in the conference suite of a local library

(references to the library are sprinkled throughout the ST-ODT interview transcripts).

Each group member was given an assignment ― a multi-page handout with questions to

answer ― and the 1st hour or 2 was dedicated to silent, individual work providing written

answers to the questions in the handout (see Appendix J: Subgroup Healing Process).

Then, the subgroups were split into three separate conference rooms. Using the

information on the written handouts as raw material, each subgroup was asked to draw

(on flipchart paper) a set of visual pictures or symbolic representations, complemented

by short, pithy written descriptors, of the following items:

1. A representation of how subgroup members collectively see themselves as a

subgroup; i.e., a representation of their collective identity and contribution to the

larger group.

2. A representation of how subgroup members collectively perceive the other two

subgroups.

3. A representation of their collective best guess of how the two other subgroups

perceive them, as a subgroup.

109

Then, all group members were reassembled, and each subgroup mounted their

pictures on the wall and gave a short presentation of each of their pictures and

interpretations. Following this, a group discussion was held, following the ground rules

described in Appendix I, of perceptions, interpretations, stories and old feelings in

connection with subgroup differences. Then, the group began to discuss changes they

would like to make in their relationships.

The purpose of this exercise was to begin moving in the direction of the vision

expressed at the end of the Literature Review: to develop a community of differentiated,

integrated individuals with a shared purpose and task. This included four sub-goals:

1. To foster clear differentiation of subgroup identities from out of the assumed

collective ST-ODT “identity” ― i.e., to break up the influence of group merger.

2. To foster a clear, differentiated discussion of how each subgroup perceived the

other groups and their behavior, and the impact of that behavior on each

subgroup.

3. To foster withdrawal of inter-subgroup projections and shadow materials, and

owning subgroup behaviors and attitudes (i.e., withdrawing blame and taking

responsibility).

4. To enhance and improve inter-group relationships as a by-product of achieving

the first three sub-goals.

Pictorial methods were used in accordance with the model assumption that

symbolic representations will produce richer, multi-dimensional content (as opposed to

purely verbal representations) and thus improve the likelihood that the group discussion

110

would be richer and have greater dimension and impact. In Jungian psychology, the

symbol, in the form of an actual physical image, is viewed as a bridge or conduit

between the conscious and unconscious domains, and serves as a means for making

unconscious materials conscious, since the image or symbol inevitably constellates and

carries unconscious information within its purview. As it turned out, this was a

galvanizing event in the life of the team, as we shall see in the findings chapter.

One more group meeting was held, during which the group reviewed the AR

cycle and assessed its outcomes, strengths and limitations, and continued discussions

aimed at furthering the group healing process. From the perspective of the lead

researcher, the logical next step would be to introduce a process analogous to that used

in the library as a means to improve relationships at the individual level. However, due to

time limitations, this step was not undertaken as a part of this study.

Life Transitions Research Setting: Participants and History

Life Transitions is a small, growing company founded approximately 3 years prior

to the study by its President and Chief Visionary. The original vision for the company, as

determined by its founder, was to support individuals moving through major life-

transitions, such as the transition from high school to college, from college to the working

world, transition to a new job or career after a downsizing, etc. The company was

launched through acquisition (via a large loan) of an existing product targeted at the

downsizing transition. The product was solid technically, but had not been supported

properly by its previous owner from an advertising, marketing or sales perspective, and

so sales were somewhat moribund, which in turn had the effect of lowering its

111

acquisition price. The plan, as communicated to me, was to customize and improve the

product somewhat (from a content/technical perspective), support it properly in the

market, and utilize the proceeds from sales to fund a spectrum of new product launches

― the real business of the company.

From its very inception, as a reflection of its founder, the culture of Life

Transitions has been and remains idealistic and rooted in a deeply felt sense of caring

for people. From the start, the goal has been one of service to humankind, in the belief

that, given active support of the business and judicious stewardship of resources, “the

money will follow.” Coupled with this, there has been a strong interest, investment and

belief in life-long learning and development ― hence the company’s original vision. As a

result, there is a palpable-if-subtle sense of spirituality within the team.

During the April-May 2002 timeframe, the founder became aware of my study

through an advertisement I had created and distributed through my network of contacts

and associations. I was approached and asked to help the company deal with some

developing difficulties and struggles. Sales of the flagship product ― the company’s

cash-flow lifeline ― were down, and were staying down. It was becoming difficult to

meet financial commitments ― payroll and debt repayments ― and anxiety and tension

were mounting.

I asked the five-person executive team to serve as the AR team, and all agreed.

The AR process began in May 2002. So the full AR team was 6 people ― myself and

the 5-member executive committee.

112

Life Transitions: Loop One Procedures

Based on an initial discussion between the AR/Executive Team and the lead

researcher, the team decided that it might be helpful if I somehow helped the team

assess its current degree of resilience, and to help discover what core issues were

preventing the company from achieving the kind of success it sought. In response, I

developed an assessment questionnaire (see Appendix K: Resilience Assessment

Questionnaire), the purpose of which was to generate data, via interviews with all

company employees, regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the Performance and

Adaptation Domains, the degree to which the Executive Team managed in a

suppressive versus repressive manner, and the degree to which alignment was

achieved via compliance versus commitment. I interviewed all organizational members

and performed a general qualitative analysis of the responses.

At the next meeting of the AR/Executive team, I began presenting the basic

precepts (assumptions) of the model, and began to review the analysis findings with the

team. We met as a team on 12 occasions from July 2002 to February 2003. Each

meeting was a combination of training, discussion of issues (drawn from the original

analysis, combined with emerging issues) and decision-making to address those issues

― all in the light of the precepts of the model. Training in differentiated communications

processes was included as a means of improving group discussions and decision-

making. For about three-quarters of the study period, the content of those conversations

focused mostly on issues related to the Performance Domain. The content of those

discussions and the practical decisions and changes that resulted from them are

113

summarized in the Loop One section of the findings chapter.

Life Transitions AR Procedures ― Adaptation Domain

One meeting in particular, however, stood out as transformational. This meeting

happened toward the end of the project, and in a way, it seemed as though the entirety

of our previous work had led up to this meeting. At this meeting, I noticed right away

that the team seemed somewhat lifeless and depressed. As usual, the discussion was

focused on the minutia of operational issues, on the fact that sales of the current/primary

were still down, and on complaints about the onerous debt burden associated with this

product ― in short, about the ongoing financial crisis.

I had been growing increasingly puzzled (and alarmed) that, while during the

initial round of assessment interviews each and every member of the team had

mentioned that the company’s vision was to create an entire spectrum of products

addressing the transitional changes across the life-span; this was never discussed, nor

even mentioned, in team meetings. The only issues that were ever discussed were

operational issues in connection with support for their flagship product. It became clear

to me that, unless something significant changed, that the company was going to

disappear within 6 months to a year (if that). I had (and have) a genuine desire for this

company and these people to succeed and grow.

At that moment, my intuition was to move into a new mode of action. I grabbed

the flipchart and held it across my lap. I interrupted the conversation and asked the team

if they would mind answering a series of simple questions. I asked the team to provide

me with a list of the exact life-transitions that they wanted to create products to support

114

over the next 5 years, assuming they could solve their short-term financial woes. I asked

them to provide me with a list of the market/client groups they wanted to serve. I asked

them to provide me with a list of the media through which they wanted to deliver their

products.

I assembled this information in the form of a matrix, on a single flipchart sheet. In

my mind, this matrix provided a unified visual symbol of their real identity, 77 and I

decided to challenge them ― to own their real identity or consider folding their cards and

going home. I held up this matrix to the group. First, I shared with the team my sense

that if they kept focusing exclusively and intensively on their supposed “cash-cow”

product78 and on attempts to “fix it,” that they would cease to exist within 6 months to a

year. Then I asked, “Is this who you are? This is who each and every one of you told me

you are when I interviewed you. Why do you refuse to be who you are? Are you Life

Transitions, or are you “Career Discovery”? In my mind, this vision had tremendous

potential for economic growth, and the ability to attract much-needed investment capital,

and none of you seem to show any serious interest in making it happen. What is going

on here?” 79 As described in the Findings chapter, this galvanizing event completely

changed the course of the meeting, and of the company itself.

77 The matrix contained in capsule form the vision-related information that had been related to me during my initial round of interviews, i.e., LifeTransitions as a purveyor of products that support individuals moving through major transitions over the life-span. 78 Which was becoming more and more of an economic albatross around their collective necks with each passing month. 79 I had reached a point where the team trusted me deeply, and I sensed that challenging them in this manner would work out just fine. It did.

115

Summary

The research process consisted of application of the model developed in the

literature review80 in two disparate client systems, using a variation of action research

methodology, for two purposes. The first purpose, which we are calling Loop One, was

to create practical results in the client setting and to improve practice in that regard. The

second purpose, which we are calling Loop Two, was to create theoretical learning

aimed at refining or improving the model. The next chapter explores the outcomes of

both of those purposes, with a heavy emphasis on Loop Two: the primary focus of this

study.

80 A distillation of which is provided in Appendix G.

116

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

The findings of the action research (AR) cycle for both Loops One and Two are

presented in this chapter. We will also make an important distinction between findings

and results: Results are defined as the actual organizational outcomes of the Loop One

AR activities, while findings are defined as the product of reflection upon the

effectiveness of the activities and interventions undertaken in the AR cycle, for the

purpose of improving them.

Findings are based on analysis of the interview transcripts. In connection with all

findings (Loops One and Two) relevant, supporting data segment(s) are generally

presented, and include a letter code that is the first letter of the pseudonym given to the

interviewee. Table 5 provides, for both research sites, a list of interviewee pseudonyms

and letter codes:

Although Loop One is not the primary focus of the dissertation, for the sake of

comprehensiveness and as a courtesy to the reader, a short summary of Loop One

results and findings is provided. We begin with Loop One results (i.e., practical

outcomes).

Loop One - Results ST-ODT - Performance Domain

Over the life of the project, the team developed and built a working consensus

117

Table 5 Interviewee Pseudonyms and Letter Codes

Research Site Pseudonym Letter Code

Simon S

Evan E

Nina N

Jill J

Maria M

Karen K

ST-ODT

Cory C

Matt M

Carl C

Hank H

Geri G

Life Transitions

Sally S

around a series of elements of the Performance Domain, all of which previously did not

exist, were fragmentary, or were not agreed-upon. These included:

1. Vision Statement

2. List of Services offered

3. List of Client groups served

4. Priorities for offering services to client groups

5. Key “differentiators” ― i.e., those attributes or competencies that especially

distinguish the group and which clients find most attractive.

6. Criteria for assessing the group’s performance, which will provide the basis for

development of a performance measurement system.

118

7. Core Values and Principles ― i.e., shared group values and principles, which the

group will use as the basis for assessing the quality of their relationships and

behaviors with each other and with client groups.

8. A list of assumptions about current and future trends, dynamics, and changes in

the external environment, which will guide the selection of training and OD

interventions for the next several years.

9. A target organizational structure to be worked toward over the next several

years. This structure included added staff in specialty positions.

These items were collected and integrated in a documented Mission Statement

by the AR team, which represents, in terms of the model, the foundation of the

Performance Domain for the ST-ODT group. A near-complete version of this document

is provided in Appendix L: AR Loop One Output ― ST-ODT.81

Additionally, the Chief (leader) of the ST-ODT group wrote me a letter describing

the primary outcomes of the Loop One AR cycle in relation to the Performance Domain.

Using his exact words: 82

We (ST-ODT) developed a clear, shared basis for organizational performance, which all members had an equal say in developing. This included a shared vision, values, mission, services, customers, and performance assessment criteria. Development of this shared platform was very important, because prior to the project, we had our own agendas and did not share a purpose or vision.

We made significant progress in moving from a set of three independent and

conflicting subgroups into a somewhat more unified team that was committed to the unit's overall good.

81 Edited to protect confidentiality. 82 Excerpted from the letter sent to me by the client.

119

We are learning how to draw on the diverse backgrounds and perspectives

available within the team as a way of improving our project performance. We are continuing to learn more and more about a model of organizational

resilience that we will be adding to our collective toolkit for work with clients within the Department. We believe that this model will provide the Department with a way of moving forward into the future in a more adaptive mode. We believe this model will help us service our customers because of the sound process we can walk them through that will make improvements with their units and divisions. (Simon)

ST-ODT - Adaptation Domain

I would also like to share the Chief’s perspective on the outcomes achieved in

relation to the Adaptation Domain, again using his exact words (taken from the same

letter):

We have begun to enter into a paradoxical state in which we are seeing ourselves more and more as a unified team, but at the same time, we respect and honor the real differences among us, both as individuals and as subgroups.

We are learning to leverage differences and diversity as a source of enrichment,

learning, and change. We are more accepting of one another and have taken the time out to keep

others in our unit in the conversation loop and value what they enjoy contributing to others.

A level of understanding was reached as to our need to continue working on

ourselves to become a more "healthy" team so we can function with integrity when we service others within our organization. (Simon)

Life Transitions ― Performance and Adaptation Domains

Over the life of the project, several concrete changes were made to the

Performance Domain. These include:

o Restructuring the sales strategy toward sale of bulk orders, which significantly

120

lowered order fulfillment costs.

o Restructured order fulfillment to give customers direct access to the order

fulfillment function via toll-free telephone, email and web-site access. In addition,

the order fulfillment process was streamlined and simplified to cut costs.

o Reassessed the competency requirements for the Sales function, and realigned

job responsibilities to better match the new requirements.

o An array of new products linked to the matrix is slated for development and

introduction. These are being proactively discussed with potential customers to

shape the development process and to build support.

As the result of these changes, nearly 50% of production costs were removed

from the business; sales in fourth quarter 2002 increased by 23.6%; and profitability

went from being continuously in the red to moving into the black. A more detailed

description of Loop One results for Life Transitions is provided in Appendix M which

provides much of the content of a letter written to me by the company’s President.

From an Adaptation perspective, probably the most significant shift that occurred

was a recapturing or remembering, by the Executive Team, of the company’s original

vision, purpose and passion, coupled with a corresponding letting go of its neurotic

attachment to an outmoded and dysfunctional survival strategy. This theme is explored

in great depth in the findings and discussion chapters.

121

Loop One Findings

Within the tradition of double-loop organizational learning, Loop One learning

(findings) is the product of reflection upon the strengths and limitations of the actions

taken during the AR cycle, for the purpose of making improvements to those actions.

Loop One learning is thus utilitarian and instrumental in focus. At the end of the Loop

One AR cycle, then, both teams took a half-day to reflect upon the total AR process, for

the purpose of generating such practical improvements. In addition, during the Loop Two

data collection process (i.e., individual interviews) nearly all participants spontaneously

offered additional reflections upon Loop One activities. As it happened, both teams very

much had the same perspective on these strengths and limitations. The list below

provides a summary of Loop One findings, drawn from the work done in the AR team

meetings and from interview data. Following this list, a more detailed description of each

item is provided, including a verbatim comment or two to illustrate the point.

o There is a need for clear goals.

o There is a need for strong, committed leadership.

o There is a need for a clear path to follow, carefully and slowly.

o There is a tension between the need for careful, slow progress and the possibility

of losing the group (by moving too slowly).

o It is important, generally, to work on building the PD first, before delving into

repressed issues within the AD.

o There is a need for the consultant to have internalized the model in some depth.

o There is the potential for resistance to terminology and practice rooted in

122

psychological and social-psychological theory.

o There is some difficulty with use of technical/academic terminology.

o The use of “check-in” as a suggested tool of ongoing group management.

o Resilience is a way of life, not a project.

Need for Clear Goals

One of the difficulties for both groups is that the end-goal was not specified

clearly enough in the very beginning of the project. That is partly, or perhaps largely,

because of the complexity of the model, with its ultimate vision of conscious community.

It is quite difficult to specify with exactitude the nature of an outcome related to the

Adaptation Domain, at least not in terms of the usual day-to-day thinking of business

people. At the beginning of the project, the stated goal was to build performance and

adaptability of the group, but in the minds of most business people, this goal is perceived

as non-specific:

N: If we had known ahead of time what we were going to do, why we were going to do, why we were doing it, and what the object was or the outcome was going to try to be.

D: And if it was much clearer?

K: Yes and then we would have just said that we were going to dedicate X-amount of time and this is what we are going to do and this is why, instead of just scheduling all of these different meetings and having some general sense about what it was for.

D: The goals weren’t specific enough?

K: Not to me, not in the beginning. Maybe if it were clearer in the beginning, then it would have been easier to say that we are going to dedicate the next 2 days a week for the next several weeks, or whatever it is, and work on it.

123

Need for Strong, Committed Leadership

Both groups expressed the need for strong leadership that is committed to the

process to help move a group through the process:

C: I don’t think things were ripe for it, 83 because at that stage of the organization, there was even more stuff that was being repressed because there were more people around the table. To use your model and your language, and take a look at the history before you came into the picture, what went on, we attempted to get to our identity then and it got blocked. We were supposed to get back to some of that stuff we did with that consultant, but it just fizzled out. We didn’t have any buy-in from Matt on it. Matt’s the president….He didn’t buy into this. M: I remember thinking there are families that are dysfunctional, but they are functioning with that dysfunction. They are surviving, everybody is not getting what they need, as much as they want, but they are making it. I think that there are organizations that fall within that same thing. If you say to them that we need to undo what we are doing, we need to look at it, we need to take it apart, and we need to fix it, unless you have some very strong leadership, you could, in fact, have something work far worse than it did. I think there was some feeling about that in this unit. 84

Need for a Careful Path

Comments were also made regarding the need to do the more difficult work ―

generally in the suppressed or repressed Adaptation Domain ― in a very slow, carefully-

guided, safe way:

M: We were asked to do some things we didn’t attend to at the very beginning when we came together as a unit. We were asked to look at how we felt about each other. We were asked to look at how we were working with one another. How do we communicate? How do we live with one another? In doing so,

83 The group had tried perhaps a year or so earlier to do some collective work on vision and mission, but it didn’t get very far at that time. 84 This comment also alludes to the remarks made earlier regarding my decision to work on the Performance Domain first, before moving into the more difficult material.

124

whenever you ask those questions, you better be prepared for the answers. And if the answers are going to cause unrest and hurt feelings, and can not be healed, either through lack of ability to heal them within oneself, or not having the proper tools to do so, then you have to be very careful in moving on that path.

This unit, to some extent, several people, felt that way a lot. I felt that way a little bit. I was cautious; I was thinking that am going to be very, very careful how I frame things, and I am going to hope that others are very careful how they frame things. It may not be the gut-wrenching catharsis we all need to go through, we need to be healthy after having gone through it.

D: We have to maintain our healthiness, yes. I agree with that. I’m a go-slow guy.

M: I am also, even though I get impatient with going slow. I also realize the danger of opening up floodgates if you don’t have a path.

Go Slow and Build Safety versus Losing the Group

There is a tension, however, between the need for slowly building safety and

carefully following an outlined path, and the possibility of having the group “check out”

and losing them altogether:

D: My sense is, and I wanted to get your feeling about this, that we did not spend enough time on the differentiated conversations piece and work that through on test cases, not on live ones. Part of the model is if those things are embraced and work, those modes, they gradually build safety.

M: Really. I agree with that and would have liked spending more time on that. In the future, and I think [that if] we are going to be working together, I would like to see more of that. I think what happened with our group, we certainly were, over a large period of time, and because of our schedules, and because of some reluctance to do it, there was some feeling that “I really don’t want to take on this work right now. I’m busy enough, thank you very much.” This was so to varying degrees with different people, and I felt that way sometimes. Other times I felt 'let’s go for it.'

I think what happened is that people decided they didn’t want to do that work anymore; 85 they wanted to get to the end of the rainbow as fast as possible and

85 “That work” being addressing issues in the PD.

125

may not be willing to put in the time and investment, and, really, the work investment that was necessary.

D: What’s at the end of the rainbow?

M: The end of the rainbow was when we arrive at the place where we all understand one another and we are going to work well together.

D: So it was like a jump in the deep end thing?

M: I think it was.

D: I cautioned against that.

M: I know you did, and I also know, as much as I was with you on wanting to go slow, I also knew you were going to lose a group if you didn’t. That was clear to me, and I’m sure it was clear to you, when Evan and others said let’s just cut into it. There were a couple of times that I also did the same thing.

The issue, I believe, is one of timing, coupled with sensitivity, listening and

observing, on the part of the facilitator and client/group leader. That is, the

facilitator/consultant must have a carefully-thought-out plan going in; however, the

facilitator/consultant must also have the level of expertise and self-trust, coupled with

sensitivity to and trust in the group, to know when it might be appropriate to depart from

that path in deference to the immediate needs of the group.

Work on the PD First, Then Work on the AD

This suggestion, or perhaps observation, is related to the discussion above

regarding the importance of working jointly on issues in the PD (the focus of which is to a

great extent on cognitive issues, such as defining the task focus, task structure, etc.)

prior to working on issues that are more emotion-laden, such as relationships, and on

126

repressed materials within the AD:

D: I’m interested in how ― and it’s paradoxical ― how trying to come to alignment, especially trying to do it through a commitment-based process, led to dealing with differences.

N: I think it pointed out where we didn’t think the same and how we had differences of opinion and why some of us were going into different directions and how did we react to that, and what assumptions did we make about people’s behavior that might have been right or wrong, about why someone is running off in this direction. We think it’s for this reason and it turned out to be for another reason, when we looked at it. That made us look at how we were operating here. I think we still have a lot to do, but it maybe was the first time, if you look at just the history, there were people in the unit, then Simon joined, and then other people joined and then other people joined. Now we are finally all here and we haven’t taken the time now that we’re all here to do any kind of planning or discussing, so this makes us do it and was interesting. I think it pointed out a lot of the issues we were having.

D: That were there all along?

N: Where they were coming from. So it was two things. One was on the informational level, or operational level, but then we took it to the next level by having applied it to what we were doing as a team.

D: What’s the next level you are referring to?

N: The next level is more our relationships.

D: I see what you are saying, now. That’s interesting - that working on the operational level and allowing everyone to have their piece, then…

N: And what we were working on led us into looking at our relationships with each other, at least for me.

D: That’s what my goal was, so I’m glad that happened.

Need for a Consultant to Have Internalized the Model in-Depth

There is an implicit difficulty in implementing the model within a group that is

alluded to in the following conversation. That difficulty is that the model is a complex

127

gestalt, with many layers and facets and interpenetrating complexities. It is not a

“cookie-cutter” solution, nor is it a fixed set of tools to be put into one’s OD toolkit, to be

pulled out and applied as a technique in a particular situation. It is a way of life, a world-

view, and a framework for interpretation and action, much like Jungian theory in general.

It can be decomposed into a set of principles, but those principles can be applied in a

myriad of ways that depend intimately on the context. There is no one right way to apply

it, although there are many ways to misapply it. The point is that the model must be

internalized, at depth, in order to be skillful and appropriate in applying it:

K: I think you did a great job of being objective and being insightful, and being able to be ten steps ahead, because you could see where this was going. …I thought you were very insightful a lot of times. You would say some really key things at key points that needed to be said, but in a very non-threatening way and in a very subtle way. If people weren’t really paying attention, or listening, or internalizing what you were saying, they might have missed it. I tended to listen to everything you said, so I didn’t miss very much.

D: Do you remember any of the incidents, because I don’t? I just say what I say.

K: I couldn’t, at this point, remember a specific. I remember a specific feeling on my part of like, wow, he really is good. I was saying that in my head. That was so timely that you would say things that needed to be said. It was the right time to say it. It was really good. It was almost like you were so busy being ten steps ahead, and that’s probably because you’ve done this before and you understand your model, and you understand the people part of the equation too. I really did feel that. That was one of the benefits of this, what you brought to it.

D: Thank you.

That brings up an issue that might be a limitation of the model, that it’s somewhat person-dependent. You have to really internalize the thing to really be effective. It’s not like a cookie-cutter thing that you just bring in and slap on.

K: No, it’s fluid in that you go where it takes you. With the group itself, I don’t believe you had a preconceived notion about who was this and who was that, and why this was and why that was. You were really trying to have people figure that out and just lead them, get them thinking about certain things and not

128

making any assumptions about it. I don’t think you did. I don’t think you ever had any preconceived notions, right from the get go, when there was some disharmony. Naturally, somebody who was in the lead in that group would have felt a little put off by that, 86 but you didn’t; you immediately tried to accept and understand and just say, hey, there’s something going on here and it’s not about me.

K: That’s why that emotional competency piece is big, and having differentiated conversations, because that’s what I was having.

K: Right, you didn’t get sucked into it at all. You stayed…

D: Over on my side.

K: And I thought that lent a lot to the process, too, because I can see how it would be easy to personalize it. Why are they sitting here laughing? Why are they sitting here having a sidebar conversation? Why am I getting this body language? It would have been easy to personalize it, but you knew it wasn’t about you. You knew your role and your job and you stayed there. Having your model and your blueprint kept you focused on what you were trying to do, too.

D: That’s for sure.

K: But at the same time, you were fluid. You knew where to pull from as you went along. It’s here, it’s all laid out, there’s a piece here, a piece there. You knew the right time to introduce the pieces.

D: Thanks.

The above conversation is not meant to be self-serving; the point is that I have

spent the last 6 years developing and internalizing the model and its principles; it has

become a part of my being rather than a set of tools. This is a strength of mine, and also

a potential limitation to practice for others.

86 “That” being conflict, covertly subversive comments, resistance, side conversations, etc. within the group.

129

Resistance to Use of (Social)-Psychological Terminology and Practice

Some participants expressed concern over the potential for resistance, within a

business and/or institutional setting, to the use of terminology and practices that stem

from the fields of psychology and social psychology. The following snippet of

conversation is representative:

M: We have to be careful to balance how we approach using the model. There is reluctance here in this unit and here in the organization for anyone to dwell into psychological counseling. If people feel that that is where you are taking them, it seems there is a tendency to pull back. So we may have to figure out a way to approach that where it isn’t seen as that, as much as it probably is. Certainly none of us are psychologists, but having an understanding to some degree of psychology and of what is important…I guess we have to go further.

D: Yes; that is the bottom line.

Difficulties with Academic/Technical Terminology

Almost to a person, participants expressed concern over difficulties with the use

of terminology that was viewed as overly technical or overly academic. The concern is

that such language will be a “turn-off” in general business and institutional settings. The

following conversation is quite illustrative:

S: Based on what I understand, I don’t see limitations within the model. The only limitations in my mind might be words. You use difficult language. D: I agree with that, too technical. S: Yes, but if that were to loosen up some, thinking that you are, say in front of 20 executives… D: Yes, maybe you guys can help me with that. S: Yes, I would be delighted to help with it. How I would put this in real world [language] from where I come from, and I don’t mean that derogatorily. But if you sit in front of a group of 25 execs of GE or AT&T or you name it, to take their

130

language and put it in… D: So it’s about language. S: Yes. D: The concept underneath it, though, do you see anything that’s there [needing change]? S: No, I do not, definitely not. D: It’s powerful in terms of its… S: It is, yes. D: That’s good to hear.

Use of “Check-In” as an Institutionalized Group Management Tool

An interesting suggestion for improvement was to adopt and institutionalize a

well-known OD tool ― the “Check-In” ― as an ongoing part of all team meetings. The

purpose of this tool, within the context of the suggestion, would be to open up a space to

introduce issues, events and concerns, which might otherwise be repressed or

overlooked, into the team to be addressed openly and consciously:

C: Some of the other dynamics that have gone on are… [pause]… really the only two full-time people, other than Bill and Bob, are Geri and Matt. Hank just expanded his accounting practice to Anytown, USA. I don’t even know what impact that has. I’m about to take another [part-time] position, which will take some time and attention away from here, so those issues need to be addressed.

D: Openly, right on the table.

C: How does this impact us? How does this impact you, Hank, what’s your life going to be like? How do we need to adjust and reconfigure because of the dynamics that are going on? I don’t know if that’s being spoken to. I haven’t seen or talked to Robert in a while; I don’t know what’s going on with him. And a lot of what we talk about… [long pause]

131

D: Those are opportunities for repression to come right back in.

C: It’s almost like we have to remind ourselves to bring issues up, like a check-in. You did Fellows, right? 87 Check-in: Where are you? What’s going on with you? Here are the areas of your life, all the domains in your life, what’s going on.

D: What are the issues we’re avoiding today?

C: And then how can we help?

D: Let’s bring that up as the next step, to institute that as a regular part of your group meetings. The piece that’s critical is: what are we avoiding? What do we need to deal with that we’re kind of afraid to, or what’s the unspoken thing for the day? …Do you think that would be useful on a going forward basis?

C: Definitely.

Resilience: A Way of Life ― Not a “Project”

I received numerous comments that all revolve around a core issue: the practical,

instrumental activities required to build resilience; and at the group and organizational

levels, that require an ongoing, deliberate commitment of time, energy and action. That

is, building resilient human systems is not a “one-off” project. It requires embracing a

new world-view: that organizations are not performance machines, requiring the

occasional tune-up or swap-out of damaged parts; rather, they are a developmental

context, both for individuals and for the system as a whole, which must survive and do

well88 in order to ensure continuation of that developmental context and developmental

87 This is a reference to a post-graduate certificate program offered for several years at Johns Hopkins University, called Fellows in the Management of Change, which this participant and I both completed, although at different times. The use of “Check-In” was a regular feature of the program, which was based on a cohort group. 88 The focus of the PD.

132

process. 89 Here are some representative conversations:

Conversation One: Need for Ongoing Reinforcement and Institutionalization

C: If this is a model and a process that we want to live by, at least for a certain time like you said, we need to keep getting reminded of using this.

D: It can’t be an intervention; it has to be a way of life.

C: Or it at least has to be reinforced enough that we get a longer-term value out of it, not a one-time hit. That’s the only limitation, is that when you presented this model to us, and we talked about repression, and we talked about suppression, and we talked about our fears and anxieties and we voiced them, we haven’t done that since. That’s the only limitation. In your mind, maybe in every interaction with us, you’ve got the model going on in your head and you know how you are behaving in relationship to the model. You observe certain components of the model.

D: What would be helpful in making that more of a reality?

C: Posting of the model or certain ones of these90 that people agree [on], let’s try to remind ourselves of how we operate in this model, and then be reminded of it every once in a while.

D: Maybe we need to have one more meeting where the team would talk about how to make it continual and stay alive. What are some methods for the team, reminders and artifacts? That would be helpful.

C: I agree. It’s so encouraging in terms of what’s worked. That would be the only limitation I see.

Conversation Two: Need to Internalize the Model at the System Level

D: I wanted to ask you what happened, in your view, in light of the model, at the library? M: As you said, in light of the model, the differentiation process, I think we were trying to do that. I’m not sure it was accomplished. We went as far as we went, and I know there is a lot unsaid still. I find that a difficult one to answer, and, I think, is not finished.

89 The focus of the AD. 90 “These” being elements of the model.

133

D: I don’t think it is finished either. I think we just cracked a door-open, which was sealed shut. M: I agree. There has definitely been progress; I just feel that it’s not finished. I’m also a little concerned that we’re sustaining now and everyone is making the effort, but I don’t know how long that can continue if we don’t continue on in the process. D: Yes that is another piece, how do we build this into the fabric rather than have it be a one-shot. M: I almost think that in order for it to continue that a step toward it continuing would be the certification that we’re talking about. I have in my own mind what certification means, but I’m not sure I’m really clear on what that certification is going to look like, and what it’s going to mean. If it means that those of us who were interested have a better understanding of your model, of using them and using them in interventions, hopefully that would mean then that we would be able to apply that here too. D: Yes that is what it means. M: Okay, having said that, to some degree, we may be a little more successful in carrying that further than you would.

Loop Two Findings

Opening Remarks

The fundamental research question investigated in Loop Two reflection is “How

do participants and facilitator describe the strengths and limitations of the performance-

adaptive model assumptions that guided collective action within the cycle of action

research?” The basic interview protocol used to investigate this fundamental question is

presented in Appendix H.

This chapter presents the findings in connection with participants’ answers to that

basic question, based on a general qualitative analysis of interview transcripts. This

134

analysis generated a set of themes and sub-themes (a meaning structure) through which

the data can be characterized. That meaning structure is presented here.

In some cases, the meaning of a particular data segment could be assigned fairly

easily and neatly to a single, narrowly-defined meaning unit (theme or sub-theme). In

many cases, however, analysis of a data segment would not yield to such a simple

meaning-structure without violating the integrity of the overall focus and meaning of the

segment. The transcripts contain many such segments of dialogue that clearly form a

unified, integrated meaning-unit revolving around a major theme; however, the structure

of that meaning unit is complex, containing several interpenetrating, interrelated sub-

themes. In such cases, the analysis has yielded what might be termed “theme

complexes” ― units of meaning that reflect several interrelated sub-themes, all of which

relate to a central major theme. The occurrence of a theme complex is easy to spot by

the way in which it is named. For instance, “Differentiation and Boundary Enforcement,

Power, Vulnerability and Strength” is a theme complex. Another instance is

“Commitment, Compliance, Differentiation, Interdependence and Cohesion.” The

existence of such theme complexes is a reflection of the fact that the model is a gestalt:

its assumptions are interpenetrating and interdependent. Perhaps they can be likened to

nodes on a net ― when one node is pulled, several or all nodes move slightly with it.

The story that introduces this chapter is a case in point.

In other cases, a single data segment was analyzed from two or more points of

view, each of which yielded a simple thematic meaning structure. In such cases, a data

segment may be repeated in different sections of the findings chapter, analyzed from a

135

different perspective in each section. In such cases, the different themes that emerged

from a single data segment might be likened to differing facets on a single gem.

Also, please note that when data segments are presented below, italics are used

to capture verbal emphases made in the interview that do not show up in a straight

transcript.

136

Thematic Structure

As mentioned, the thematic structure of the Findings is semi-hierarchical: it consists of a

set of themes, or theme complexes, which are further broken down into a set of sub-

themes. Table 6 presents this thematic structure, which also represents the organization

of the remainder of the findings chapter.

Table 6 Thematic Structure of Findings

Major Theme or Theme Complex Sub-Themes

Resilience as the Integration of Polarities

o The PD and AD as Distinct, Complementary and Necessary

o The Integration of Performance and Adaptation, Stability and Creativity

o The Integration of the Masculine and the Feminine Principles

Key Facets of the Performance Domain

o The utility of the concept of the PD

o The importance of development of a functioning PD, prior to addressing contents within the AD

o The importance of alignment of differentiated competencies (in the PD) with the system’s primary task and strategy

o The importance of well-structured, well-defined processes and systems in the PD

o The impact of an embedded, Performance-oriented culture

o The importance of dis-identification with the Performance Domain.

137

Table 6

Thematic Structure of Findings (cont’d.) Major Theme or Theme Complex Sub-Themes

Key Facets of the Adaptation Domain

o Pain and Healing

o The Shadow

o Relationship-Building as an Adaptive Competency

o “Empowered Creativity” as an Adaptive Competency

o Complexity and Non-Linearity

Managing Alignment: Commitment and Compliance

o Managing Alignment: Commitment and Compliance

o Whole-Person Commitment, and Service to the Greater Good

o Commitment, Intimacy, and the Resilient Organization

o Commitment and Compliance: Differentiation, Interdependence and Cohesion

o Alignment as a Complex Phenomenon

o Compliance: A Lower Level of Development?

o Commitment: Trans-Organizational, Self-Motivated, and Rooted in Community

o System-Wide Commitment: An Unreachable Goal?

Splitting: Compliance versus Commitment, and Performance versus Adaptation

No sub-themes

138

Table 6


Managing the Adaptation Domain: Repression and Suppression

Repression o Systemic Repression ― An Example

o Repression and Avoidance of Dealing With Difficult Personalities

o Repression, and Fear and Anxiety

o Repression and Triangulation

o Repression and Unhealed Wounds

o Repression and “Undiscussables”

o Repression, Dominance and Deference

o Repression and Unexpressed, Unacknowledged Conflict

o Subversive Compensation for Repression

Suppression o Suppression, Vulnerability and Fear

o Suppression as Reality-Based

o Suppression and Crisis

o Suppression and Claiming/Enacting Identity

o Suppression and No Hidden Agendas

o Suppression and Group Ownership of Group Issues

o Suppression and Putting Things On Hold

o Suppression and Acceptance of Differences

o Suppression as an Active Willingness to Learn

o From Repression to Suppression: Differentiation, Liberation, Bubbling-Up, and Energy Shifts

139

Table 6


Differentiation Within a Group/ Organizational Setting

o The Problem of Group Merger in a Business Setting

o The Importance of Awareness of Group Merger

o Differentiation and Alignment, Group Synergy and Community

o Differentiation and Boundary Enforcement, Power, Vulnerability and Strength

o The Role of the Self

o Self-Differentiation as a Tool for Effecting Organizational Change

Macro Conditions That Foster Differentiation, Alignment and Integration

o Differentiated Communications and Relationships Practices

o Acknowledge Differences First, Then Move Toward Commonality and Alignment

o The Need to Maintain Dialogue and Relationship Across Differences

The Birth - Death - Rebirth Cycle o Birth, Death and Rebirth in a Business Setting

o Integration of Death as the Necessary Antecedent of Continuous Rebirth

o Death As Letting Go of a Dysfunctional Survival Strategy

o Rebirth, and the Emergence of a Uniting Symbol

o Rebirth and Taking Responsibility

o Rebirth, and Claiming True Identity

o Claiming True Identity and Empowerment

140

Table 6


Symbol and Image: Capturing Identity and Complexity

No Sub-themes

Further Dimensions of the Resilient Organization

o Further Dimensions of the Resilient Organization

o Paradox and Paradigm Shift

o The Link Between Individual and Group Development

o Alignment with the Self, Security, and Resilience

o Community versus “One Big Happy Family”

o Synchronicity

A Short Story of Organizational Resilience

Before delving into the themes, I would like to begin with a story related to me by

a participant during our interview, which focuses on the model’s perspective on human

systems as a union of the Performance and Adaptation Domains. While this story does

not reflect every facet of the model or of the ultimate vision of conscious community

presented in the Literature Review, it does provide a marvelous illustration of several key

properties of a resilient organization, as envisioned by the model. The interviewee

describes his/her anomalous management style inside a repressive bureaucracy: it

consisted of acknowledgement and acceptance of individuals as such, combined with a

141

non-controlling supervisory stance. This style was quite opposed to the organization’s

“cog in the machine” norm of regarding employees as interchangeable role performers,

and of forcing them to uniformly comply with a set of pre-determined task behaviors, and

supervising them very closely, with a high level of control.

K: Previous to this job, I was in a management position for 17 years, and I tended to be high, high on the adaptive side with my staff, versus the performance side, and I can see that now. In other words, I would look at what they brought to the table, and try to understand who they were, and how they functioned. Some of them were totally the opposite of me, but I learned that that’s who they were, and that they were never going to let me down, and I let them know that. They would always deliver. Whatever their responsibility, or their goal, or their product was, even though I couldn’t understand how they could work the way that they did, if they were last-minute people or whatever, they always delivered. But I came to know the people and understand what their strengths and talents were, and let them do it, let them be it. For me, it was somewhat validating, but it also said that I still needed to focus a little more on the other side. D: What was missing at that time on the performance side? K: This was a totally different organization, but most of that was in place, the vision, the mission, the focus. All that stuff was very much in place. D: You said you were tilted highly toward the adaptive side. Are you evaluating that as a positive or a negative? K: I’m looking upon it as a reason why it worked so well. I never really understood why the department worked so well. It was interesting, and I never really understood what they were saying, is that other departments outside of our department, would stand amongst themselves and say, “How does he/she get them to do that stuff? How does he/she get them to be so creative?” Other supervisors would be asking one another that question; they would never ask me. I couldn’t answer them if they had. At the time, I was in the muck. D: Could you now? K: Yes. D: What would you say if they asked you?

142

K: Basically, what I already said to you, that I get to know each individual, the strengths they have and what skills, what their level of creativity is, and how they function. I try to accept that, conform to that, give them some boundaries and guidelines. You can’t go too far; these are the guidelines. And let them go. I don’t micro-manage, I don’t demand, I don’t stand over top of them. They should have all the information. These are the performance goals, and these are the timelines. D: So the goals and performance requirements were clear, though. K: Yeah, I think it pretty much was. We had real strong performance appraisals and goals. D: So the performance system was there. 91 K: Yes, and everybody else in the organization was solely functioning there. …They forgot that, oh, these are real people here that bring something to the table. D: So what would they try to do? K: Just conform and meet those goals. Do it my way. Punch in at 8:00, punch out at 4:30. Make sure in that span of time you have served 65 telephone calls and you did it this way and this way. There was never room for the person, very little room; let’s put it that way. D: They were treated all like cogs in a machine? K: Yes, and you’d hear that. You’d hear that out of the employee’s mouths. ‘They think I’m a robot. They think I’m a piece of machinery.’ You would actually hear that. D: So you were an anomaly in that group. K: Yes, and at the time, I was just doing what felt right to me. It wasn’t always rosy. Believe me, I had my days and nights. You always have an employee, you always have somebody who is going to push you to the limit, who is dysfunctional and brings their dysfunction with them. It wasn’t always fun, but for

91 Please note that participant training materials referred to the Performance Domain as the Performance System ― a less-academic term that is more familiar to business people. The Adaptation Domain was also referred to as the Adaptation System.

143

the most part, when you look at the whole big picture… What this did is, it helped me to better understand why it functioned the way that it did.

This participant was a member of an organization that had a well-defined

Performance Domain. However, in the participant’s group, as opposed to the larger

organization, the Adaptation Domain was enabled, in the sense that individual

differences were not repressed. Rather, differences were acknowledged, accepted and

integrated into the fabric and texture of this participant’s group’s unique variant of the

PD. This participant’s leadership approach set the tone: individuals were treated as

such, rather than as interchangeable “job performers.” The paradoxical outcome was

that, while room was made for each group member’s unique needs and styles in

connection with role enactment (part of the PD), group performance exceeded that of the

larger organization as a whole.

Resilience as the Integration of Polarities

During the analysis, certain sub-themes emerged that are variants on a central

theme: the resilient organization as a paradoxical union of opposites or complements,

which also might be conceived of as energy polarities. Three sub-themes emerged,

explored in some depth below, which are all variants of this major theme:

o The PD and AD as Distinct, Complementary and Necessary

o The Integration of Performance and Adaptation, Stability and Creativity

o The Integration of the Masculine and the Feminine Principles

144

PD and AD as Distinct, Complementary and Necessary

This section focuses on participant’s perceptions of the utility of the model’s

notions of a Performance Domain (PD) and an Adaptation Domain (AD) as fundamental

sub-domains of a human system with a task responsibility. In particular, the finding is

that participants believe that the PD and AD both exist, that they are distinct, that they

are complementary, and that they are both necessary to a high-performing, highly

adaptive (i.e., resilient) human system.

E: What really struck me is going back to the adaptive system ― on page 4 in your handout. It struck me that it is like an iceberg. That’s why I drew the iceberg. What we see on the surface is all the performance-driven stuff, the things that make us click ― the things that make us do what we do, day-in and day-out. Underneath all of that, the adaptive system ― I think it’s untapped. I think it is there, and most of us want to do new things. Most of us want to function better than what we are doing now, and that is a vehicle by which we can. It is like this [the PD] is occurring on the surface, but underneath, there are a lot of other things that, if they aren’t going on, they could be. D: There is a lot of stuff that could be activated? E: Right, and that’s why I love the drawing of the iceberg because it’s not. It’s just there. D: Yes. K: I like the way that you have the performance-driven and adaptive-driven half-and-half, so you get to separate it out and see what the differences are. I think that we all get engrained and tend to only look at the performance side, and forget that there’s all this other stuff. It depends on who you are, but initially, a lot of people realize there’s more to it than just the performance stuff. However, I don’t think anyone really knew what to call it, or that they’re working either with each other or against each other basically. I really liked the way you separated that out. J: When you can connect things in conversations and you have relationships with

145

people that extend a couple of years now, you’re able to piece things together and kind of understand why they behave as they do. This allowed that, looking at some of the adaptive…I don’t know if you call them competencies or subsets. 92 You can see what’s missing, and when you get many missing, missing, missing pieces, there’s a problem at all levels. D: This shed light on the full spectrum of humanity and you’re seeing that there are big chunks missing? J: Absolutely.

The Integration of Performance and Adaptation, Stability and Creativity

This sub-theme may be only a subtle variation on the previous one, but I believe

it is important nonetheless, because it emphasizes the integration of the various

polarities explicated in the model, rather than the usefulness of the distinction between

them, or the need for simple awareness of them both.

J: I’ve always had trouble with the performance side, in the sense that I don’t buy into it wholeheartedly. … [That is,] the traditional concept …which would be defined as very task oriented, very fixed on production, efficiency, automation, kind of a rote, continual stream of performance. …It doesn’t take into account the human factor, and that’s what can derail, sabotage, or make something excel. That’s why I’ve always had difficulty with the performance side, but I think you defined it beautifully. D: But by itself… J: By itself. …And that’s why adding the adaptive piece, which is often overlooked and you’ve defined well, is the key to make both succeed. D: So you have to integrate the two? J: Absolutely, and you’ve done that.

92 See Appendix D:The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

146

G: In my opinion, there has to be what you described as this balance between stability and innovation, because if you don’t have some things that are moving on autopilot.... They don’t have to have everything institutionalized or bureaucratized, but we could use a few things. I thought this [the model] was good because it acknowledges all the stuff that is flying around,93 and it works toward taking the best from the widget system, the industrial revolution kind of stuff. …You are taking the best of that, because if there is anything, there is value in having stability. It’s like a family unit. …I think the model comes from raising children. Children need stability. They need to know that they get up at 7:00 in the morning and go to bed at night, and they have lunch and they have dinner. And we all know that when there is not a certain amount of love and stability in a child’s life, that it causes lots of therapists to become rich later [laughter]. D: Yes, so it sort of brings that piece in, but it’s not limited to it? G: No, it’s not limited to it. Of course, it allows for the thing that is so incredible in today’s world, which is diversity in people, and that becomes diversity of personalities.

The Integration of the Masculine and the Feminine Principles

This finding was unexpected, and rather startling. The notion of a

correspondence between the PD-AD polarity and the Jungian notion of a polarity

between the masculine and feminine principles was not covered during training, and

never mentioned during the action research (AR) cycle. In the following data segment,

however, the interviewee likens the integration of the Performance and Adaptation

Domains to a marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, the model is based

93 “All the stuff that is flying around” is a reference by the interviewee of chaos and complexity theory, which this interviewee believed was implicitly included in the model. See Appendix N for an unedited version of this data block.

147

explicitly on Jung’s notion of the polarity between the masculine and feminine poles of

the psyche; furthermore, the model, like this individual, explicitly links the notion of

resilience with Jung’s notion of a coniunctio oppositorum ― a higher or transcendent

union or marriage between the masculine and feminine psychic poles, both at the

individual and collective levels (Jung, 1978).

The following segment of conversation reflects this correspondence quite

beautifully through the use of a metaphorical illustration, which was spontaneously

generated by the interviewee:

D: It’s a very strange paradox that my work is based on. I want to talk to you about that, and you just got right to it. It is alignment within a group that allows for differences, which is usually… E: That’s right, you would think it’s the opposite. But what happens when you become aligned, and it’s understood by each and every member, is we become more accepting of the differences. It’s not so much the differences, it’s the fact that we are aligned. I think that is the key issue - that we are all moving and serving for the same purpose of what we want to bring to the organization. It’s like a marriage: You have the husband, who can be a driven person, always wanting to go, go, go, get this and that done, but work and be very driven. That could be your performance [domain]. Then you have the wife, who is more adaptive, more innovative in bringing balance to the other person, who wants to move forward and wants to continue to go and not really taking time to think of consequences, not taking time to look at the big picture. But the wife is more adaptive because she brings a balance. She says, ‘slow down,’ and ‘have you looked at the big picture.’ Together, what you have is a balance, and that allows, if you are looking at the husband in my example, it allows the husband to be different and it’s okay to be different. It allows the wife to say, “You are moving fast, so just slow down,” and its okay for her to say that. But together it works. The whole point is they are they aligned; they are both together, and when you bring them together they see the same vision and the same purpose. …If you have that, if you have that alignment, then it’s okay to be different.

148

Key Facets of the Performance Domain

During the analysis, several sub-themes emerged which highlight various facets

or elements of the Performance Domain. The key idea for each of these themes is listed

immediately below, and followed by a descriptive analysis of each one:

o The utility of the concept of the PD

o The importance of development of a functioning PD, prior to addressing contents within the AD

o The importance of alignment of differentiated competencies (in the PD) with the system’s primary task and strategy

o The importance of well-structured, well-defined processes and systems in the PD

o The impact of an embedded, Performance-oriented culture

o The importance of dis-identification with the Performance Domain.

The Utility of the Concept of the Performance Domain

Following is a single data segment that is reasonably representative of the data

as a whole. The individual being interviewed expresses his/her perception that the PD is

an important concept, and that it is important to spend time and effort to clearly define its

contents for an organization and its members to function effectively.

K: The performance side, where we spent time on vision, mission and focus, is really important if there is no clarity about that, because I’ve found it extremely helpful to me now that I have a better understanding of what this organization up here is about, and therefore, I’m an arm of that and that’s what I should be about. …For me it was important because… there was no real defined, clear focus [for my job]. …When I was hired …I was sat at a desk and basically I created the job because there was no map, there was no blueprint, there was no predecessor. …No one said, “Here’s the job.” I was rooting and digging and trying to figure it out because I didn’t want to do

149

anything wrong. I spent probably the first year-and-a-half of my career here learning, trying to understand, trying to understand the people, trying to understand the culture, trying to understand what is my role really, here? …What am I doing here? Had I had that document94 when I started, it would have been so much easier. I could have said, “This is what my focus is, this is what my vision is, this is who my customers are, this is what’s of high-level importance”… so to me, that would have been just terrific.

The Importance of a Well-Functioning PD Before Dealing With the AD

The model proposes that the PD functions as an organizational analogue to the

individual conscious ego. In connection with that, it proposes that the capacity for

healthy, functioning, ongoing development is predicated on the existence of a healthy,

functioning ego (Jung, 1954) and Performance Domain. Lacking that, development ―

i.e., opening up the channel to the diffuse domain (unconscious or AD) ― might be more

like opening the floodgates, with the potential to overwhelm and perhaps even destroy

the ego or PD. In the case of the individual, this might manifest as deep neurosis or even

psychosis; in the collective case, it would manifest as social breakdown and chaos. The

data segments below all support, and reflect on in varying ways, this central

phenomenon.

E: The way we went through this process is good in order to lay it out on the table, and you really do have to come from a point of alignment. You have to come back and ask: what is our vision, what is our objective, and what is the mission of this unit? That is common ground and is kind of safe. Then from there you can move on, but it comes down to each and everyone of us individually. I don’t think there are any limits. I don’t right now. I think we had established a common ground when we discussed the division,

94 See Appendix L:ST-ODT Loop One Results: Performance Domain to see a copy of the document being referred to in this interview.

150

the mission and what we were about for the performance system. We were on common ground. I felt that through application. It was a little bit longer, but I think we were ready, this group. …We were ready to start really getting into some issues.95 K: You started off in a safe place, where you talked about the model, and then you went into the performance side of it. That was pretty safe. D: Yeah, that was intentional. K: And then later on, we got into the other stuff, the communication stuff. You tried to get us there a lot of times, and I think you sensed an unreadiness and you would go back to some of this, like trying to tie up loose ends with the performance side. But at a certain point, you had to get this done because you only had so much time.

Alignment of PD Competencies With Task and Strategy

The Literature Review defined the contents of the PD as the task focus, the task

structure, the culture and the differentiated competencies of the system. Further, it

proposed that the PD is healthy and functional to the degree that its contents and

configuration effectively and robustly support execution of the current task (Task One).

During the AR cycle, the Life Transitions AR team examined the relationship, or

alignment, between the company’s evolving sales strategy, and the competencies

currently focused on execution of that strategy. The following data segment reflects on

the importance, no, the criticality, of a tight alignment between them:

C: There are two different meetings that stand out to me. One was the meeting where we were in the kitchen. We came up with some distinctive competencies around different functions within the company, but particularly sales, and you, as I recall, were the first to speak to the fact that perhaps we had the wrong person

95 “Getting into some issues” refers to the work of dealing with unaddressed, unacknowledged, difficult issues and differences repressed into the AD.

151

or personality in the sales room. D: What I asked was, is this the competencies you have right now? C: Exactly, and then I think we ‘fessed up to the fact that no, we don’t. I experienced it as, “Wow, we’re going to have to really address this.” This might mean Mary’s got to go. So that reality, to speak that for the first time, was a key breakthrough. D: When you were looking at the sales competencies. C: Yes, that was a key breakthrough, at least for me.

The Importance of a Well-Defined Task Structure

This section is a variant on the one immediately preceding, this time focusing on

the importance of a well-defined, aligned task structure within the PD, rather than on

differentiated competencies.

G: Maybe I should give an example. …48 hours went by, and 48 hours in our company is a crucial time period. Every minute is very important. I couldn’t get on the phone for a couple of days until 6:00 PM, and there is a client who ordered this [the primary product], and nobody remembered to restock, and there is nobody picking up restocking. I keep adding detail things to my life, which I don’t care because I want to get it done and turn the company around, but at the same time, the other building blocks for the company that I know need to be done get diminished. D: How does this relate to high performance and high adaptability? G: There is no automatic system. D: Everything is a one-off, so you don’t really have a solid performance system? G: Right. Over and above we all know that the invoices have to go out and all that kind of stuff, but how they happen is not enforced, or there’s not a commitment to it. D: I get it. There’s really no process. G: No process.

152

D: It’s pure run after the rapids wherever it goes. G: Right, exactly. D: Remember we had a discussion around the competencies needed, particularly in sales, but no discussion around structures. We didn’t have that. That would be the next. G: Yeah, absolutely - structures. It’s going to be an important conversation, otherwise.

The Impact of an Embedded, Performance-Oriented Culture

The findings here relate to an interesting dilemma faced by the Chief of the ODT

group. As mentioned earlier, he was hired into a long-existing training group, was asked

to add organization development into his group’s repertoire, and then hired four new OD

consultants, all of whom shared a vision of dynamic change and development for the

total Department. This finding focuses on the difficulties of integrating the previously-

existing subgroup (The Foundation) with the new hires (The Newbies).

An interesting observation is made in the first data segment below, namely, that

the Foundation subgroup functioned as a microcosm, or mirror, of the Department as a

whole. Problems of subgroup integration, then, might provide a mirror of the difficulty

facing the ODT group in implementing its emerging vision of dynamic change into the

larger organization.

Further, this finding supports the notion that deep changes in culture, thought

and practice are required for organizations to overcome their present overwhelming

obsession with preservation of the “Institutional Balance” and the status quo.

153

E: If you ask how that applies to OD&T, I think the reason why we are in this place where there is an imbalance towards performance, now you take it outside of the unit, it’s the way the organization [at large] is structured, the way the organization functions. We are just a mirror of the organization, so when you bring in a new way of thinking and functioning, and say “Folks, I need you to be more innovative, and to be more creative in programs,” then there will be a tension because there is the natural resistance to do that. D: What was the other focus, the older culture? S: I really don’t know. It’s hard for me to say what that was. I do come across a mentality working for the state that people who have been here more than 8 or 10 years start to develop a real sense of longevity. I mean they start to take longevity as almost a right… that “I don’t have to work but so hard. It is what it is.96 I’m here and I’m going to make the best of it.”

The Importance of Dis-Identification With the Performance Domain

The model stresses the importance of viewing the PD as a socially-co-

constructed medium of exchange, which remains an object of collective reflection, rather

than as a reified, embedded social artifact that determines or prescribes a fixed and

delimited collective identity. Change to the PD, then, requires that system members dis-

identify, to a certain extent, with the PD. The following data segment supports this idea:

E: It’s okay to have some structure, and you need the internal structures, but what happened is the group tended to identify with task, with jobs, and stay there, in terms of the performance system ― …As opposed to moving into a more adaptive thing: the fact that we say it’s okay to be different, we are in the adaptive. We’re saying it’s okay to bring about change. It’s okay to bring about something different. It’s okay; we can be different, and your ideas are of value, and not just because you are saying them, but it’s a value to the group. We need to listen more to what you have to say and what you bring to the table.

96 The expression “It is what it is” is a shorthand way of expressing the notion that the organization, or the system, is a given; it is fixed and unchangeable.

154

The picture I get ― and this is why I like the iceberg image ― is we think that that little piece we see on the top ― which is performance-driven ― we think that is the way to function, day-in and day-out. I see the organization as a unit, and underneath that, some of us can do much better than what we are doing. …Some us can be creative, can be innovative.

Key Facets of the Adaptation Domain

This section explores the findings related to various facets of the Adaptation

Domain, including the following sub-themes:

o Pain and Healing

o The Shadow

o Relationship-Building as an Adaptive Competency

o Creativity as an Adaptive Competency

o Complexity and Non-Linearity

Pain and Healing

This finding reflects briefly on the nature of the pain latent within a human

system, on resistance to addressing it, and on the adaptive competencies97 and

relational practices that can aid in healing it, if they are embraced and developed.

The interviewee in the data segment below observed that some group members

were uncomfortable with the differentiated conversations process, and with the subgroup

healing process followed at the Library. This sort of discourse and action provides the

context for a new kind of learning ― not instrumental, practical, rational, objective

learning, but learning based on self-awareness and interpersonal awareness.

155

For many, self-awareness and interpersonal awareness are frightening and

uncomfortable, because they have the potential to open the door onto awareness of

shadow materials and projections that have been repressed from awareness. As

mentioned earlier, repressed/projected materials are repressed for a reason: they are

painful or uncomfortable for the conscious, ego-based identity construction to “let in.”

At the same time, however, differentiated discourse and integration of repressed

adaptive competencies (See Appendix D) also bring the potential for healing of that pain,

through integration of essential parts of the self that have been rejected or abandoned

through a gathering of inner multiplicity, an incremental increase in wholeness, a small

step forward in the path of individuation.

J: And from [the] adaptive [side], some people just don’t want to go there, have no interest at all, and even listening to you was painful. On some levels, it was just very uncomfortable. D: What do you think the pain was? J: I think its self-awareness, and moving, and having this expectation that there’s a different way to do things. D: Just coming out of the fog? J: Maybe, and their comfort zone. Perhaps hanging out, and having been allowed to do so. …Like waiting to retire and putting your time in. D: My piece impacted that and dented it? J: Absolutely, particularly if we ever got down to the guiding principles and the [behavioral] expectations, and were given permission [to hold each other accountable for interpersonal behaviors]. I don’t feel I have to ask, but some people do.

97 See Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

156

A lot of people I see are in pain and they don’t have the emotional competence, or the adaptive [competence]98… same thing really: how to get out of it, how to deal with it, how to regulate it, how to motivate it. I just think that’s unfortunate. The model, the adaptive piece, can get you out of that pain. D: How? J: By being cognizant of those components. It’s like emotional intelligence, being cognizant of the competencies …and try to get some mastery; self-awareness is the root of it all. Trial and error, that’s how we learn ― experiment.

The Shadow

This finding reflects on another necessary facet of healing and increased

resilience: integration of the group or system-level shadow. The discussion below

reflects on the somewhat ironic or paradoxical phenomenon that a strength, when over-

emphasized, taken for granted, or used reflexively, can become tainted with shadow and

eventually become a weakness.

M: We, as a group, one of our strengths, that is also one of our weaknesses, is that we perceive ourselves to be very sensitive, together, compassionate people. I would not deny that that’s true; I think it is true. However, I also don’t think we work very hard at maintaining it. D: It gets taken for granted? M: It gets taken for granted, and we as a group get away from it, and we don’t even know we’re away from it. We behave in other ways, and then we write it off because, after all, we are compassionate, sensitive, hip people. Certainly we can explain away anything we do. D: It sort of falls into the shadow? M: It does.

98 The interviewee is referring to the adaptive capabilities listed in Appendix D.

157

D: Because you’re very consciously aware of your goodness, which is legitimate to a degree, but it also then becomes a default stance for not having to look at shadow materials. I think that’s what I’m hearing you say. M: Yes.

Relationship-Building as a Performance and Adaptive Competency

This finding reflects on the importance of developing deep, authentic, trusting

relationships with others as a foundation both for high performance (i.e., for effectively

enacting one’s job role) and for opening the door to creative change and creative

solutions, which are more aligned with the functioning of the Adaptation Domain (AD). A

central theme here is the importance of moving past role-bound, posturing (inauthentic)

interactions into a more authentic, vulnerable posture as a critically-important foundation

for to the ability to provide truly meaningful service to others. Related themes are the

importance of maintaining a non-controlling stance with others, and the importance of

creating relational transactions that meet the needs of both parties (i.e., creating win-win

solutions).

S: In this environment, the resources aren’t there if you look at the traditional way that I got things done when I was in the corporate sector. But if you’re going to be creative about it and get to partner with people and develop relations it’s very rich, but it takes time. It takes time to maintain those relationships. It takes take to develop those relationships. You can’t walk in, in any instance, and demand anything, because it just doesn’t work that way. You have to figure out what it is that they need from you and you have to deliver. I used a strategy where I’d give services away for another agency. Then they get what they need from me, and it’s about creating a win-win scenario. It’s finding two parties that have a common need. …This is such a rich laboratory. It’s incredible what I see everyday, especially when you get people to trust you with assistance, and what they actually tell you is incredible. D: Like what?

158

S: When you work with a manager that you really respect a lot, and the manager says to you, “How do I need to do this?” Not that something is wrong with asking somebody for help, but when people put their guard down, then you can provide a service that is really meaningful and helpful. It also says to me, too, that we need to make sure that we don’t make assumptions that people know what to do. It’s made my work environment a very rich environment because when I go somewhere, especially where people know me ― when I go somewhere they know me already and I don’t have to build a relationship. If I’m going in with an established relationship, we can get to the core very quickly. D: Is that what you were getting at with “getting to the core,” when you say, “It’s rich?” S: Yes. You can work with managers at an authentic level and provide assistance for them.

“Empowered Creativity” as a Performance and Adaptive Competency

This finding reflects on the importance of Empowered Creativity as a critical

competency both for performance and adaptation. The term “empowered creativity” is

used here to capture a thread of meaning in the data segment below; namely, that it is

critically important not to tumble to an over-determined perception of limitation to one’s

power and creativity in a context of constraints:

S: We see the world changing everyday, and the expectation of government is that government will do a lot more than it has done. … But one of the dilemmas that looms within government is that when you take away discretionary budget, so they can do other things with it other than just pay salaries, many people believe they can’t do what they need to do now. Then I think the next step is the place of acceptance, just accept your station in life and deal with it and make the best of it and keep moving. But what we’ve been asked to do now is to not accept your station in life, but to say ‘I can still get this done with what I have before me; I just need to be more creative about it.’ That’s the approach that I’ve taken because I’ve never had an extensive budget. My budgets have grown every year since I’ve been here, but it started with selling the first consultant that did work with. I sold the idea to the

159

head administrator that funds would be well spent, that there would be a return on investment, and a benefit to the organization. D: Interesting… so it’s more a creative approach? S: It’s the only way to do it in government, as least what I’ve experienced. It’s having all the staff that you need, having all the money that you need, having the facilities to operate in is just not there, no matter how you cut it. The idea expressed above, of accepting one’s station in life and getting on with it,

is actually more aligned with the essential meaning of resignation. Resignation reflects a

sense of powerlessness, of lying down, of submission to fate or inevitability ― without

any counterbalancing, empowering sense of creativity, of a search for other sorts of

solutions that acknowledge constraints, but which do not surrender to their perceived

limitations.

Complexity, Non-Linearity and Non-Egoic Energies

This finding reflects on the non-linear, non-egoic facets of the model ― namely,

the Adaptation Domain. As far as I am aware, only complexity theory and Jungian theory

explicitly acknowledge ― and integrate ― the notion that life is not fundamentally linear

and not under the complete control of the rational, analytical, conscious ego. There is a

whole other realm ― or domain ― of activity that is more aligned with notions of

emergence, non-consciousness, generativity, and creativity.

D: I can’t find any linear linkage, but shortly after that image popped out, it was like Life Transitions was reborn as Life Transitions, instead of Life Transitions doing business as Career Discovery, or Career Discovery doing business as Life Transitions. G: Exactly. Exactly. And to think there is a linear way that it happened would be contrary to your whole model [laughter].

160

D: Right, although dissertations love linearity. G: They love linear connections. [Laughter] …This won’t fit in, because I don’t think things ― or people ― happen in a linear fashion in reality. They perceive they get up in the morning and brush our teeth and all this stuff, but there is all this other stuff that is going on. …I thought this [the model] was good because it acknowledges all the stuff that is flying around.

Managing Alignment: Commitment and Compliance

As you will recall, the model proposes that the foundation of the Performance

Domain is shared alignment, and that there are two, fundamentally different bases for

gaining alignment: either compliance or commitment. The sub-themes in this section

reflect on several facets or dimensions of commitment- and compliance-based

alignment. These include:

o Whole-Person Commitment, and Service to the Greater Good

o Commitment, Intimacy, and the Resilient Organization

o Commitment and Compliance: Differentiation, Interdependence and Cohesion

o Alignment as a Complex Phenomenon

o Compliance: A Lower Level of Development?

o Commitment: Trans-Organizational, Self-Motivated, and Rooted in Community

o System-Wide Commitment: An Unreachable Goal?

Whole-Person Commitment and Service to the Greater Good

This finding explores how systemic purpose and meaning affect the level of

commitment system members have toward that shared purpose. In particular, it focuses

on where systemic purpose and meaning are located: either in a narrow, exclusive focus

161

on the immediate survival concerns and the immediate economic rewards associated

with Task One alone, or in a more holistic and integrated foundation that combines

Tasks One and Two into an integrated gestalt, and which integrates immediate

survival/gratification needs with long-term development needs and service to the greater

whole.99 The finding, in a nutshell, is that achieving whole-person committed alignment

in a pure Task-One-based system is going to be more difficult than in a system with a

more integrated and holistic purpose and meaning foundation. The finding also alludes

to the possibility that as individuals individuate and become more integrated in their own

purpose and meaning structure, they may tend to leave conventional, pure Task-One-

based systems.

The interviewee below expresses: 1) his/her need for deep, whole-hearted

engagement in the focus, energies and activities of the organization (the Performance

Domain); and 2) that that sort of engagement comes from a true, whole-person

alignment between the service-oriented purpose of the organization and his/her own

need to be of genuine service to the world.

The interviewee also mentions that his/her need to be of service was a later

stage of his/her personal developmental process. At an earlier stage of development, the

interviewee was able to sustain significant levels of engagement in the PD of a previous

company solely on the basis of the immediate satisfactions and rewards of successful

role enactment within the circumscribed domain of its PD, which (in her perception) was

not particularly or specifically rooted in service to the larger world. Rather, the purpose

99 The focus of the archetype of Conscious Community.

162

and meaning structure of the PD of the former company was rooted more-or-less

exclusively in the immediate gratifications of pure economic reward.

D: The assumption of the model I’d like to test [is] that engagement comes from a genuine alignment between the organizational vision and where it’s going, and what is your own personal… M: I would agree, the engagement does come through that alignment. If I didn’t agree with, and buy into, and totally support the vision of this organization, and I’m talking about the Department as a whole, what it feels it must do, and what it feels its role is in serving the public. I always think of the tremendous consequences of what we do. People’s lives hang in the balance, people’s happiness. … I used to have that kind of commitment …for a personal products company. At one point I realized … that there was a cost involved, and I started thinking about it, weighing it with ‘what is the value of what I’m doing.’ Yes, I’m valuable to the company, and yes, I’m making sure that employees get what they need, and I’m doing my best to be leader in an organization. But in the end, if it comes down to what this company is supplying is personal products, [and] my commitment and my dedication require more than that. …When I came to work for the Department, I thought immediately that this is something I can commit to, put all the time in and feel good about it. This makes a difference. We have day five of [new employee] orientation, which is called “How We Make a Difference.” …We charge them up, and there’s an exercise to do that… It’s really tapping into that person, saying …”We’ve given you a good picture of what you need and what we need, so half a year from now, what difference have you made?” …We have them put it in on a form, and then I have them write their name with a short statement summarizing what they said, and it’s amazing. D: It potentially sounds like …there is a deep well of commitment. But there are a lot of blocks that are in the way of actualizing it…as opposed to the personal products company where it may be that getting it in the first place is the tough job. M: Right, so “How Do I Make a Difference” probably is born from me wanting to give myself to something that does make a difference. …It has to be bigger than me. It has to be bigger than just me. D: I hear you saying that it’s about service to humans?

163

M: Yes, to the public and to society.

Commitment, Intimacy, and the Resilient Organization

Intimacy is an expression of mutuality ― mutual give-and-take around

perceptions, needs, desires, intentions, and actions. It is a mutual, dynamic dance of

assimilation and accommodation, where neither party is rigidly locked into either

adaptive strategy.

The first data segment below sheds light onto the potential nature of intimate

human systems, which is one of the foundational elements of the resilient human system

envisioned in this document, and onto the relationship between such intimacy and the

generation of commitment. The basic meaning expressed is that there is a direct

relationship between the capacity of a human system to acknowledge and integrate

individual-level needs into its operating modality, and the generation of commitment

among individual system members to the organization (the PD).

The second data segment also acknowledges this need, but tempers it with

questions about how the size of an organization might affect its capacity for such

intimacy with respect to individual needs.

G: I personally believe that you have to find the individual’s wants, desires, whatever you want to call them, that allows them to bring commitment. So it isn’t just about the big vision; it’s not just about the future stocks. …I only know how to do it [build commitment] on a one-to-one basis. D: What I hear you saying is that the commitment is achieved through involving with a person’s whole being, in the process, and their needs and where they are coming from, versus, like, shoving the vision on them. G: That’s my approach…in my own mind it was like, that’s really a good thing.

164

D: That’s what I’m trying to envision is a community of differentiated persons, who are mutually engaged in some sense, their whole being is. G: Right. D: Do you think that has happened with the executives? G: Absolutely, I think that has happened in the executive team. I am sure no one did that with Mary. First of all, you have to get through the challenge of her personality. …There is a tremendous amount of effort that goes into building those kinds of relationships that build to commitment. D: Yes ― that’s why people don’t do it. G: It’s huge. D: But there is tension there, in that if you are integrating an individual into an organization and trying to genuinely align them, on a gut, spirit level ― that’s a two-way dialogue. Maybe their needs are so different from the organization that they don’t belong there. But the issue is, the moral to point out is, is that that’s the default setting for most organizations: If you don’t buy in, you are out of here, period. This is opposed to a dialogue where the organization becomes malleable around the needs of the individual. That is what I’m trying to engage in, is mutuality, so the organization is open to being influenced by that person. G: Yes. What worked for me is understanding some of those needs that Phil might have that don’t quite fit. …some of the things that might disturb him or wouldn’t work for him. I’ve kind of been able to do that, and sometimes do that with Billy, like we just had the conversation this morning. … Billy opened a dialog about “I don’t know if I have enough money to go to Columbia.” I tried to have a conversation with Matt that, if we can’t pay him, we’ll add in a gas differential. In other words, because he is a single dad, and so we don’t move into some bureaucratic mold about “You can’t pay that job more”, but how about, since it’s more mileage, just like the companies that give stocks. D: That’s what I’m alluding to - that the organization is bendable. G: Right. …What I don’t know is: what is my span of ability to do that, and how many people can you run in that way.

165

D: That’s a challenge of the model itself and a possible limitation. Maybe you could talk a little about that. G: In a theoretical sense, I believe that if you can create more empowered individuals, you get that stage. It’s like this idea that if you help 20, then 20 will help another 40, and you get this natural expansion and you are able to get an organization going so that there is kind of comfort place that allows for this. S: If you’re not aligned, then that’s a whole issue, which means that if you are not aligned, and that is what your organization is about, then you (assuming it is me), then “You, Sally, need to move on to a place where you can, in your gut, feel aligned.” D: By the same token, I see in the team the possibility of bringing out what’s in your gut onto the table to see if there is possibly room for that. …Instead of just assuming that I’m not aligned, because in my gut I feel as if something is missing, and [so] I move on. I can bring it onto the table the group, and maybe the group will accommodate me. S: That is true, right. D: That’s like the other side of the coin. S: Exactly, in a smaller environment, i.e., numbers, yes. D: I see it in Life Transitions. S: Yes. That’s much more realistic. When I made that statement, I was really thinking about the big entity, but absolutely in a smaller number (and therefore everything would be smaller) and [that’s] the only reason that is.

Commitment and Compliance; Differentiation, Interdependence and Cohesion

This subsection deals with a “theme complex.” The following conversation

circumambulates around, among and through an interweaving set of interrelated

themes, all of which revolve around a significant change in functioning in the Life

Transitions executive team. The data segment cannot easily be broken into neat sub-

segments, because new themes are continually introduced as related to and impacting

on the previous thread of meaning; i.e., they are not separate, and cannot be separately

166

analyzed outside of the embedding context.

The basic meaning structure discussed by the interviewee is the nature of, and

reasons for, a fundamental shift in functioning within the executive team during the life of

the AR cycle. This shift has two parallel and interpenetrating facets: The first is a shift

from a compliance-based to a commitment-based operating modality; the second is a

shift from a repressive (issue and difference-avoidant) stance toward a more

suppressive (direct management of issues and differences) stance.

As part of the shift toward a suppressive stance, there is a shift from a

repressive, frozen (group-merger-influenced) relational pattern to one of significantly

increased individual-level differentiation and empowerment, paradoxically combined with

an increase in group-level cohesion and interdependence. This shift in turn is connected

with a shift from a communications process that was rooted primarily on one-on-one

communications, outside the context of the full group, into more of a truly group-based

communications process.

As part of this latter paradox, the interviewee also notes an increase in

appreciation and respect for individual differences; indeed, the interviewee notes that the

group is now able to tap into those (formerly repressed) differences, and leverage them

toward an increased contribution to the effective functioning of the business.

D: I want you to talk about over the past 6 months who, over the issue of alignment and whether it was commitment-based or compliance-based and whether that has changed. S: A fair amount of it was compliance based; that is, I better run this …I want to move that, and make sure that I’m walking in the steps. D: All right [i.e., correct] behavior.

167

S: Yes, and in my mind it’s complying. Matt wants me to do A, then I want to make sure that I comply with exactly what that is. Even if I don’t necessarily agree, or would prefer to do B, I’m not going to bring that up. If he says do A, then I’ll just walk in his footsteps. Once again, I think we’ve made some significant progress, from, in effect, saluting, complying (that’s the word in your model), to being more resilient and so forth. I think we have made some significant progress. I really do. D: It seems as though people are more committed than ever. S: Yes. I would attribute a couple of things to that. One is that, yes, we have been dealing with some unpleasant kinds of things. We have all had to pull together and make sure we were all communicating with each other and reference that unpleasantness, because there were deliverables. … The communication, which I think is critical, became…more effective and more frequent. … We made sure that everybody was in the loop, from the standpoint of communication. If I was dealing with unpleasant task A, and I sent an e-mail out, or we were in our executive committee meeting, make sure everybody knew where we were. D: There is more interdependence? S: Exactly. Before, it was like a one-on-one kind of thing versus the group. D: It’s a much deeper discussion? S: Yes. D: Part of that is that people seem freer to speak up? S: Yes; now what contributed to that I don’t know. I certainly think that sitting with you has helped that … but I think there must be other things that also contribute to that. … We have made some changes in personnel …and my assessment is: definitely for the better. We’ve had some changes in the operation, which is… D: For the better? S: Absolutely, and we’ve had some changes in sales, from the standpoint of the personnel and the health of the overall organization – much improved. D: Would it be fair to say that some of that is attributable to …a series of very difficult issues, even possible crises, that in the sessions we worked on as a group? To that pressure cooker, I think something grew out of that.

168

S: Yes, I agree. D: And it was two things. One is more interdependence as a group, but also, paradoxically, a greater level of individual empowerment. People were freer to say what they really felt and wanted and they take on their role more, instead of “walking along.” S: Definitely. There isn’t any doubt but that that was extremely helpful. …Like you said, going through this, and discussing ― getting some of those issues out on the table, and maybe you said this, but it also helped the group, the team, appreciate and understand and respect each other more, which made us, and is making us, more cohesive. D: Appreciation of individual personalities, differences? S: Right ― personalities and their contribution to the team. We all have different skill sets. D: Appreciation of individual differences has led to greater cohesion? S: Exactly. D: Very paradoxical. S: But as I think about it, it makes a lot of sense, because you realize that, gee, I didn’t realize that (whomever) had that kind of input to this issue, and so you begin to realize that, right. D: There’s more to this person? S: Yes, and more that that person contributes to the team. D: That’s getting at that untapped …capabilities. S: That’s right ― exactly. D: I see that myself. It’s beautiful. S: It is. It clears that untapped…

169

D: That big blocked line there ― that’s repression.100 You’re holding everything down, so you are blocking all that untapped potential. S: Yes, that’s right.

Alignment as a Complex Phenomenon

The finding here addresses the concept of alignment ― the assumed foundation

of the Performance Domain ― as a complex admixture of varying degrees of individual

commitment, co-existing with compliance. The inference is that categorizing entire

systems as either compliance-based or commitment-based is simplistic and does not

reflect the complex realities of organizational life. The finding also reflects on compliance

as the unilateral exercise of raw power over other human beings.

D: I wondered if you could speak to the contrast between commitment-based alignment and compliance-based alignment, for Life Transitions. H: That’s a little more of a difficult situation. We are aligning now around everything that is going on, the positive aspects of everything. Before, I don’t know that there was compliance necessarily going on. D: It’s too limited of a concept? H: Yeah, I think really what’s happened is the level of commitment has been different … versus an alignment versus compliance issue. D: What made it limited and then move more fully to one direction? H: Maybe from the compliance standpoint, it is the people that tried to force other people… to comply to their will and their wants. D: That’s what it is about.

100 Both the interviewer and interviewee were looking at a graphic in the training materials which represented repression as a thick, black, impenetrable barrier between the Performance Domain and the Adaptation Domain.

170

H: Yes, we had some of that, but the only instance I can think of … is related to Mary, because that was the way she got things done. She was forceful and forced other people to comply with her way of doing things. D: You are touching on a piece that is not in here [explicitly], but compliance is power-based, power over, trying to will, and there are a thousand ways to do that. …And commitment is a free, responsible, adult choice between two free, independent adults. H: I think we had both of those things at the same time. Mary was trying to force this compliance angle, and there were the rest of us who…worked in another manner. I think what has happened is that by removing the person trying to make everyone else comply to their world, it gives everyone else even more freedom to verbalize their commitment. Mary would force her decision on Geri, and it got Geri to the point where her commitment level was very low …because she felt beat up all the time. So, when you subtract Mary from Geri’s environment, that is when you see the possessiveness [of the vision and purpose] that Geri has right now. …This in turn is why we are pursuing some of the bigger deals with SmithCo that we are pursuing. … When you subtract the decision for Mary to take a step back, and Geri reassert herself with the client, things are moving much faster with them because Geri has a very good relationship with the corporate folks up there. D: So there was a repression if she [Mary] was there. H: Yes, and at the time, I didn’t necessarily see that, but now looking back, and hindsight is always 20-20.

Compliance: A Lower Level of Development?

This finding is rather tentative and perhaps a bit speculative, since there is not

much data to support it. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note, at least, in connection with

its possible implications. Its emphasis is on the possibility that operating in the

compliance mode is a reflection of a lower level of development ― individually and

perhaps systemically ― than relationships that operate based on commitment.

M: On a personal level, I never wanted to be part of anything where I had to dwell on the compliance area.

171

D: Why? M: I see that as a lower level function. I’m not saying that you don’t have mandatory requirements in the unit, but if you look at compliance, you must come to work and you must do this and that. There are certain rules you must operate with, but commitment means I can come to work and actually be here with my mind and body and soul. Compliance means I’m here physically, and I’m here as much as I have to be with the other things to get by, and I will not put myself in that position.

Commitment: Trans-Organizational, Self-Motivated, and Rooted in Community

The model proposes that commitment within and to a human system is rooted in

a genuine, whole-person alignment between the systemic purpose and vision (as part of

the Performance Domain) and the genuine needs, purposes and vision of the individual.

The data segment below points to the possibility that, in some cases, the basis for

commitment might bypass the organization altogether, and be rooted more in our

integrity as human beings (as individuals and as members of the human community)

than to limited organizational (social) constructs. However, the participant also alludes to

the fact that such commitment is given despite the problematic nature and functioning of

the organization, rather than as supported and facilitated by it.

D: That is what I would call – when you moved into the commitment realm – a deeper, truer and almost spiritual connection with what the organization is about and what you are about. E: Right. I’m not sure that it’s all commitment, either, because I have seen some work from folks and thought, “My goodness, this is good stuff.” And they did it almost grudgingly. They didn’t want to do it, but when they did the work it was excellent. … I think it is out of self-motivation. In other words, I can do this, and I may not like what is going on around me, but personally, in terms of personal pride in work and commitment to self to produce a good product. D: So it is a deeper level of commitment and more rooted in the self than in alignment with the organization?

172

E: Yes; and the result was an excellent product, which I was shocked to see. [Generally,] I see that when you have to tell someone to complete a task they do it. The level of commitment isn’t there; it’s more compliance. D: For …those that at times produce, in a wholehearted commitment way, even when they are not generally in alignment with the group, what would make them produce that way [almost] all the time? E: A level of commitment to each other. I’m not sure we will get a level of commitment towards the organization. I just don’t see it at this point, but I think to each other. … If we expect that I’m going to give you the best that I can give you in a product, and I’m going to do it because that is what you expect of me and that is what I expect of you. That is what will get us to produce work at that level, consistently. But I don’t think it’s with the organization in mind. The organization will benefit, but what it comes down to is the level of commitment and alignment we have in the unit, to each other, … based on respect and trust, and … on the … desire to individually give my best. Now, I will align that with the organization. We want the organization to represent something that is a positive. We want the organization to be very consistent with a lot of the programs that we present, as a team. D: [Trust] and respect are sort of trans-organizational. They don’t depend on any particular organizational construct. They are more purely at the level of healthy community. E: Right, and I think for us, in this unit, that is where we see the most benefit. All of us have found issues with the organization in how the organization is structured. In some respects, some of the mindset of the old leadership is still in place, so we know that. It is almost like you remove yourself from the organization, and we are going to do a good job because I respect you, you respect me, and we’re capable of doing a good job. I don’t want to give you less, give the organization less, than I know I’m capable of dealing with.

System-Wide Commitment: An Unreachable Goal?

This finding reflects on the possibility that achieving complete commitment

across an entire human system (achieved via whole-person alignment with the PD) may

be an unreachable, and possibly unnecessary, goal in practical terms.

173

J: I guess what I learned out of this is we’re not, meaning OD&T, we’re not all in the same place, nor do we want to be, yet I don’t ever see us getting there. But maybe that’s OK. D: What do you mean by being in the same place? J: As far as having the same desire and intensity to do good for the organization and service our customers and be cutting edge, branching out into other arenas of coaching and intervention. E: …I’m not sure we will get a level of commitment towards the organization. I just don’t see it at this point, but I think to each other. D: As human beings? E: Yes, and if we expect that I’m going to give you the best that I can give you in a product, and I’m going to do it because that is what you expect of me and that is what I expect of you. That is what will get us to produce work at that level, consistently.

Splitting: Compliance Versus Commitment, and Performance Versus Adaptation

As you will recall, the model views resilient human systems as a union of

polarities. This finding focuses on an interesting phenomenon: organizational splitting

with respect to some of these polarities. In the first data segment, the interviewee

characterizes the ST-ODT group as split into subgroups: one subgroup operates out of a

compliance mode, while the other operates out of a commitment mode. The interviewee

characterizes the commitment-based subgroup as self-motivated and higher in energy,

while the compliance-based subgroup’s motivation must be provided externally, and has

a lower energy level.

The second data segment explores the idea that these same subgroups are also

split with respect to the performance–adaptive polarity. That is, the compliant subgroup

174

is characterized as seeking to stay within a comfort zone of repetitive execution of the

current task (i.e., as rigidly aligned with Task One and maintaining the status quo), while

the commitment-based subgroup is characterized as seeking to broaden itself by

learning new capabilities and seeking out new areas of focus, which is more aligned with

Task Two and with the energies and focus of the Adaptation Domain.

C: I think we might be divided, as far as the unit is concerned and the people involved. There’s some compliance and then there’s some commitment. Some are more committed than others. There are some that are just compliant. I’m here; this is my job; I’m supposed to do a, b, c, d, and that’s what I do. The energy people put into their work. … I hate to keep referencing the new and old, but the older ones that have been here are set in their ways. They have their projects that they’ve been running for years and years, and that’s where they want to stay. They’re close to retirement ... “Don’t rock my boat. I have my projects; this is what I’m responsible for; this is what I want to do when I come in.” Granted, they will jump in with another project and assist however they can assist, but I think you have to really pull or tug at them. D: As opposed to coming from within? C: Yeah. …I think that there is a division ― some do not have that internal motivation, and it could be because they’ve been here so long. …You burn out. Or they get bored with their jobs; it just becomes a routine for them. …The energy level is down with the compliant ones. With the committed, they are bursting with energy, bursting with new ideas, want to try new things; want to take the challenge. They’re not always saying, ‘oh no, in the past we didn’t do it that way.’ They’re always negative [the compliance-based subgroup]. E: We are just a mirror of the organization, so when you bring in a new way of thinking and functioning, and say ‘folks, I need you to be more innovative, and to be more creative in programs,’ then there will be a tension because there is the natural resistance to do that. The …group we call the Foundation group, it has been harder for them to adapt. That group is still performance-driven, and they are making attempts to merge a little with our group, the Newbie's. But I still see that tension, and it may take some time. That’s why I say we need to start by talking about performance

175

versus adaptation because that’s the essence of the battle that goes on here. You have one group that is coming in saying its okay to introduce some changes. It’s okay to come up with some new ideas. It’s okay to do that. The younger group is more restricted. With the Foundation group it may not happen, you’re not going to get the support, and those kinds of issues come up.

Managing the Adaptation Domain: Repression and Suppression

This major sub-section deals with a group of findings and themes related either

to repression or suppression, which as you will recall, the model proposes are the two

modes of managing unintegrated differences and issues within the Adaptation Domain

(AD). First, the topic of repression is addressed, followed by the topic of suppression.

Repression

As you will recall from the Literature Review, repression in a human system

manifests as a nearly impermeable boundary between the Performance and Adaptation

Domains. In plain language, it manifests as a steadfast refusal to change, even in the

face of evidence of its need, together with a refusal to consciously, openly and honestly

deal with intra-system issues and differences (resident in the Adaptation Domain). It is

an overarching investment in maintenance of the status quo by all or some system

members in an attempt to protect themselves from potential loss and from the anxiety

and pain of development. Repression is an avoidant stance toward the difficulties and

pain of dealing with differences and issues that call for individual and/or organizational

development.

This subsection explores findings that can be viewed as interrelated facets or

176

dimensions of repression within human systems. As will become clear, all of them are

simply different manifestations of avoidance. Immediately below is a list of these facets

or dimensions, followed by a more in-depth exploration of each one.

o Systemic Repression ― An Example o Repression and Avoidance of Dealing With Difficult Personalities o Repression, and Fear and Anxiety o Repression and Triangulation o Repression and Unhealed Wounds o Repression and “Undiscussables” o Repression, Dominance and Deference o Repression and Unexpressed, Unacknowledged Conflict o Subversive Compensation for Repression Systemic Repression – An Example

In the data segment below, the interviewee describes his/her experience as a

member of two repressive organizations ― a previous one, and the current one. Both

organizations are characterized as duplicitous: i.e., by a mismatch between stated

intentions and needs, and actual observed behavior. Both organizations overtly invite

individual-level differentiation from the norm through the offering-up of independent

ideas, innovations and creativity; however, their covert behavior is that individual-level

differentiation is uniformly punished and repressed. Differentiating individuals are

quickly, if covertly, reeducated to guarantee their conformance to organizational norms.

177

The interviewee also associates repressive organizations with compliance-based

alignment; in fact, according to the model’s perspective they are two sides of a single

coin.

K: I think the Departmental organization, as a whole ― not just our unit ― operates to a large extent out of repression. As I think about it, the new employer orientation is asking employees to differentiate. … It’s planting these themes, saying ‘Your ideas are important. I want you to continue to have such ideas. I want you to continue to be there, to commit to the idea,’ [then] sending them out into sort of a repressive organization. D: A lot of companies naively think that they will get innovation and creativity and resilience from [simply] asking people to do it: in other words, to differentiate in a context that is highly repressive. That’s what is there: the fly and the flyswatter. It’s usually the flyswatter that wins. What I’m trying to do is get people to look at systemic repression as a problem that, once you remove it, differentiation tends to happen naturally. You don’t have to do anything. M: Yes, and I think your model is true. …I link repression with compliance. …An analogy in my mind is what we talk about with managers: that it’s important to have an open-door policy. The manager I was under for 15 years …would tell me all the time, “I have an open-door policy.” …Yes, the door was physically open, but if you walked in here, you better be prepared to not waste his time. Wasting his time was coming to him with anything he didn’t want to hear about. You learned very quickly that mostly he didn’t want to hear about much of anything. So that open-door policy was saying one thing, but it certainly was quite the opposite. A manager will say, “Yes, I want to hear your ideas, yes, you learn a lot, and, yes, I’ll get your input.” Then it’s very clear to an employee that he really doesn’t want it. Nobody has to be beaten over the head much to get the fact that you are asking for it, but you don’t want it. We had a team meeting and are supposed to talk about new ideas, and somebody brings one up, and everybody ribs you a little, and the manager or team leader does nothing about that. It’s pretty obvious that I’m not bringing up any more ideas. You ask a question and someone says to you, “Stupid, this is how it goes.” Even if these are not the words they use, it’s pretty clear that I’m going to be careful to ask the questions I ask. Our mission statement says we want participating management; we want teamwork; and we want consensus decisions … but, ultimately, it’s pretty autocratic. … It’s the standard answer: we do it this way because we’ve always done it this way, and this is the only way that we’re going to do it, and we’re really

178

not going to look at other things that much. Repression and Avoidance of Dealing With Difficult Personalities

The following data segment addresses the issue of repression as a means to

avoid dealing with difficult, problematic personalities. The interviewee draws attention to

the fact that the group was avoiding dealing with certain repressed issues, because to

do so might provide these problematic personalities with the opportunity to act out.

C: Everything was on the table, but also you have to pay attention to the fact that some people and personalities [two people], who had been having something to do with the repression, were not in the room, and almost at that point, no longer needed to be dealt with. …Without those two personalities in the picture, new possibilities were available to us also. New possibilities were available to us also then because then we didn’t have to deal with these problem children. D: If they’d been there, it would have been repression? C: Yeah, I believe so. D: The way I saw it is that you were into suppression then; you were dealing with the issues. C: We were dealing with the issues, but had they been present, I think there might have been less willingness to deal with the issues, and we would have repressed things so that, almost like, your problem children aren’t going to act out. So it’s like you don’t even want to see that stuff. You don’t want to deal with that, because you might have to slap them in the face, and if you slap them in the face, you might get arrested for child abuse. You know what I mean? You might find yourself in more stuff than you wanted to be in.

Repression, Fear and Anxiety

Both of the following data segments discuss repression as a mechanism to avoid

confronting and directly expressing fear, especially in a group setting. The first data

segment deals with the reluctance of Life Transition executive team members to openly

179

express their concerns and anxieties over the tenuous position of the company within

the setting of executive team meetings, and with the negative effects of such reluctance

on creativity and on the capability to respond to or create business opportunities. The

second data segment addresses the cancellation and rescheduling of the meeting at the

Library; the interviewee interprets this as a fear-driven strategy to avoid dealing with the

difficult, lurking repressed issues and differences within the group.

C: When we first had our group meeting, one of the things that distinctly resonated with me was addressing fear, that we were repressing the fear or anxiety of the uncertainty of where the company was going. We …weren’t speaking to it and acknowledging that we felt it, how we felt it, how it might have differed for each of us. …We were being silent about it, although people observed that everybody was concerned. Everybody was anxious. …[But] we weren’t speaking to it in the sense of, ‘I’m anxious; are you anxious? How’s your anxiety compared to my anxiety?’ D: That started to come out in the group when we were together. C: Yeah, that initial meeting might have even spoken directly to fear and anxiousness, and how each of us felt it and dealt with it. Actually, we haven’t addressed it so directly since then, so I could be under the delusion that it’s not there any more …fear and anxiety. It’s got to be there. Some people have to be feeling it. D: You might need to continue training in those [differentiated] communications practices. C: Yes, to address that more directly and frequently, as a check in to see where everyone is on that. It stifles creativity; it stifles the ability to respond to opportunity, to create opportunity. J: I think it’s fascinating - the library situation was canceled once, and that’s because of our staff college. People did not want to ruin the team togetherness as we unified to get this retreat conference underway by talking. I just thought, talk about typical repression. …There was a big-time fear shared by many, many people … [of] telling the truth. D: What would happen if you did that?

180

J: Maybe not being esteemed, maybe backlash. I don’t know, because I try to operate really differently. Interpretations, too, are just so, so different. D: Within the group? J: Yes, and maybe having a sense that it was rushed, or not explaining it fully or something. Or not having a second session to get clarification after some reflection. … I know that a couple of people just don’t want to go there.

Repression and Triangulation

Interpersonal relationships are naturally difficult at times, and bring with them an

inescapable load of conflict, problematic issues, and anxiety. One naturally occurring

(indeed, pervasive) means to repress and avoid direct confrontation and solving of such

problems and difficulties is known as triangulation. Triangling means bringing into focus

a third (or fourth) party, rather than directly solving the relationship problem(s) of the

original twosome (Roberta M. Gilbert, 1992). Both of the following two data segments

address the phenomenon of triangulation as a mechanism of repression:

C: Part of the reason I was being brought on board was out of some degree of avoidance by Matt of that friction and that confrontation. One of the skills that I think I have is diplomacy skills. … I think what happened in the diplomacy I attempted, [is] I never addressed a way to bring those two individuals together face-to-face to deal with their differences. It was more of a mediation. M: Mary’s bullying techniques were well known to all of us, but we never discussed them with Mary. We discussed them with each other plenty. We talked about, and characterized, and consoled each other, and gave ideas and suggestions, but at no point did we intervene. … I repressed that issue for the sake of sales. … I didn’t want to chance upsetting the person we were hoping was the rainmaker. … That’s an issue in a small company like this that needed to be addressed. I knew it. I dreamt about what it would be like to... I talked to my therapist about it. …Everybody except Mary, and, of course, that’s what the therapist pointed out.

181

Repression and Unhealed Wounds

The following data segments explore the relationship between repression and

unhealed wounds within a group (here, the ST-ODT group). In both data segments, the

interviewees express their perception that a significant portion of the subgroup difficulties

and conflict can be traced back to unhealed, unexpressed, historical wounds.

D: If nobody’s talking about anything and it’s just a feeling like there’s a whole bunch of stuff that’s under the rug, the rug is getting bumpy and hard to walk on ― that’s repression. C: We’ve got a lot of that. D: Why do you think that’s true? C: Just from the way things started out when people came aboard. If you recall the discussions between the Newbies and the Oldies, they’re not working together. I think a lot of that started from there. D: It’s historical? Like old wounds? C: Right, that never healed. No one ever expressed how they were feeling. We’re bringing out all that stuff now. D: It’s starting to come out. C: I think that all came right from the beginning. K: I did see, call it hardheadedness, if you will. I did see that in parts of the group. I don’t know that it was necessarily that. I think that they just felt misunderstood and not valued. D: So you think the hardheartedness came from being wounded or misunderstood? K: [They] had a history with a previous leader, who they felt very strongly and warmly about. …What happened with that leader was tragic. D: The old leader?

182

K: Yes. He passed away right when he was about to retire. … He had leukemia. It was real quick. He was very respected and loved and all that kind of stuff. And then I think there was a sense that they didn’t have time to grieve that, so to speak. And then new leadership came in [the current Chief, who led the AR project from the client perspective], and there may have been some resentment. My sense is that the change in itself … started things out with perceived … barriers before anything even got started. And then as it got started, I think that there were maybe some misunderstandings, miscommunications, misperceptions, in the leadership’s zest and zeal to make things happen and get things done…. They …were focused on that goal, versus worrying about who was on board, feelings, building the relationships, understanding people’s strengths, what they had to bring to the table. I don’t think any of it was intentional on either part; I think it was just what happened. There was repression because ‘I don’t have time to deal with it now. I’ve got my eye on the ball, I’ve got to get going, and I’ve got to get this done. If you’re not willing to come along, then I’m just going to leave you in the dust.’ Then at a certain point, it began to become suppressive in that, ‘OK; now I have to deal with it. Now I really have to deal with it because this is not working this way. It’s creating other issues, so I need to work with it. I need to deal with it.’ That’s when I say you had both, but it was all according to what was going on at the time, what the need was, what the timing was - other outside influences.

Repression and “Undiscussables”

The following data segment deals with the repression of “undiscussables” ―

unstated, yet widely understood, issues, situations, behaviors, etc. that are taboo, i.e.,

perceived as too explosive, too risky to address openly. The interviewee acknowledges

the existence of such a taboo issue and his complicity in it, and also acknowledges that

it stood in the way of the progress and performance of the business.

D: I see a shift in the last couple of months. …You’re moving more toward suppressive management: Whatever decisions you’re making, whether to deal with it or to postpone it, you’re doing it consciously, not through avoidance. M: Oh absolutely, and that’s a great positive outcome from the work that you’ve

183

done with us. I think we are shifting to that, which is really where we all wanted to be. In some ways, we kidded ourselves into believing we were there, but I’m not so sure, because of issues that were undiscussable, unaddressable. Frankly, the Derek issue was unaddressable101. … He was here before most of the others. He was one of the first ones to work with me. …How do I put this… it was not undiscussable, other than my telling people, “Just so you know.” What a ridiculous statement! Of course they’re going to feel awkward. …That was one of those things going on in the fabric of our relationships that have stood in the way.

Repression, and Dominance and Deference

The following data segment is illustrative of a common mechanism of avoidance

of dealing with feelings of vulnerability, awkwardness or unsureness (all of which stem,

in this context, with fear of appearing to be incompetent); that is, to defer to others, who

are perceived (or who set themselves up) as more dominant. This process of avoidance

acts to repress diversity of expression and input to group discussion. The interviewee

also notes that as safety grew within the group through the work we did in the action

research (AR) cycle, this dynamic changed, and group members became more able to

express themselves more openly, on a regular basis, regardless of whether or not they

were the dominant member (with respect to the issue under discussion).

H: With different issues people feel different freedoms to talk about it. There was a lot of group merger. An example that I’m infinitely familiar with is the finances aspect. The financial issue was like everyone would defer to me and I don’t know why that was. Part of that was that a lot of them didn’t know the details of it, to a certain extent. D: You think there was some repression? H: Yes, a little bit, and there still is. I think they overcame a lot of that from the

101 Matt and Derek had a long-standing, close personal friendship that interfered with the executive team’s ability to directly address some performance problems related to Derek.

184

process we’ve gone through as far as downsizing. D: How did that help? H: Because it forced them to look at the issue. [Previously] …I would defer to Matt’s opinion of the industry, because I have limited industry knowledge. Everyone had a little bit of that, so on certain issues each person has his own inability to voice what his opinions were because of his insecurities. D: Is that a difficulty with being vulnerable? H: I think so: vulnerable; maybe unsure of how to express what he is feeling. But I think we have come a long way in that aspect of it. I don’t think that happens anymore and if it does, it happens much less …because everybody, in his own way, has grown through having you involved and pointing some of these things out that were happening, but I don’t think we were really conscious of it happening. D: What? H: I’ll give you a perfect example…. Carl would always defer to other people, and as you went through and talked and showed the theory, I think it clicked in his head, and he is very much more outspoken and much more willing to throw his ideas out. … When we were meeting, I think, yesterday in the morning about something, he was very animated about it. …It was a perfect example of him being willing to throw his ideas into the mix and feeling safe doing that. …Part of it is just the culture of safety, and that it is okay not to agree on everything. I don’t agree on everything. D: So there has been some growth on the safety level. H: I think so.

Repression and Unexpressed, Unacknowledged Conflict

The following data segment addresses a commonly-expressed theme: that

interpersonal and inter-group conflict and differences were often repressed; they were

not openly and directly addressed, rather, they were avoided because of the anxieties

and difficulties involved in addressing them. As a result, the conflicting individuals or

185

subgroups tended to withdraw into their own, protected shell (or bubble) and to the

extent possible, avoided contact with the other, all the while complaining about and

labeling the other. As a result, the ability of individuals and subgroups to enact their role

effectively was diminished, and opportunities for creative development were blocked.

E: I think what had happened to us over the last 3 years is we tended to just get into our own little bubbles, the three groups, and that became normal for us. It was a dysfunctional abnormality, I guess, but that became normal. It was always hard, and most of the conflict was below the surface. D: It was repressed? E: Yes, it was very repressed, but you could sense it everyday when you came to work. There were always discussions within the different groups, and most of the discussions were about the other groups, and you could see that. We were all in our defensive positions, defensive posture; and that became the norm in our unit for the past almost 3 years. D: Are you saying it was a defended organization? E: Yes; …overall, I believe that is what it was. An example was this hesitancy to go to someone and say ‘I need assistance…do you have this document?’ We just didn’t do that. I would go out on my own and get information that I knew someone else had, so I would go to some other source and get the information.

Subversive Compensation for Repression

Both data segments below address the phenomenon of subversive

compensation for repression, which was illustrated in the Literature Review through the

example of the rapid rise of the Mafia during Prohibition.

D: Repression means avoiding [issues and conflicts that come up] completely, and pushing them away. N: And maybe never dealing with them, unless they come up where it is sort of forced. D: When it finally comes up, sometimes it comes up with explosive…

186

N: Right, and some that is very inappropriate or disruptive or not acceptable behavior that you didn’t really want. …When it comes out, look out! D: Talk again a little bit more about how you see the dynamic of repression versus suppression applying. M: The conflict, what is sort of wistfully referred to as “the conflict between Mary and Matt” … Mary’s bullying techniques were well known to all of us, but we never discussed them with Mary. … When I finally began to address these things with her, … because there was so much built up, … often times there was an over-reaction on my part, because I was no longer just reacting to the incident in front of us, but I was reacting to everything else that was in the room, and everything else that was history behind what led up to that reaction. And I felt I was answering for everyone who was powerless to stand up to her, but I was the one who could. D: That’s kind of what I was alluding to earlier about the dynamics of repression: “That which you repress builds up.” M: That’s exactly what happened, you bet. And it was coming out in other places [too]. …There came a time when our biggest customer indicated that they wanted to do business with Geri [rather than Mary]. …Had I not been repressing all these other issues relative to Mary, my common sense would have dictated that I would have called the head of sales [Mary], at the very least to get her buy-in and her collegial acceptance of this pact for us, but instead … I ... told the customer it was a done deal, called Geri and told her, called the other members of the executive committee. I didn’t ask them, I told them, this is what we’re doing. Mary found out about it through someone else. …The level of her reaction… was far greater than it had to have been. But it can’t be attributed entirely to Mary’s volatility. …It is much more about the fact that repression was afoot when it came to issues between her and the company, but her and I in particular. I used this one instance, I think subconsciously, as a way of smacking her with a 2-by-4 across the face without actually hitting her, because I knew better than to do something like that. Once I heard that she was upset, I did one of these, oh, how stupid of me. …I certainly knew better and I could have made that more efficient and more thoughtful, but I wasn’t in a mood to be thoughtful.

187

Suppression

As the reader will recall, the basic difference between suppression and

repression is the difference between accepting responsibility and evading it.

Suppression is characterized by open acknowledgement of the ultimate worth and

validity of contents, issues and differences emergent from within the Adaptation Domain,

together with a conscious moral choice: either to deal with them immediately and

forthrightly (i.e., to integrate them), or to postpone (but not evade) dealing with them for

the time being in deference to other, more immediately pressing issues.

This section focuses on several themes that all reflect various facets or

dimensions of suppression. Immediately below is a list of these themes, followed by a

more in-depth exploration of each of them:

o Suppression, Vulnerability and Fear

o Suppression as Reality-Based

o Suppression and Crisis

o Suppression and Claiming/Enacting Identity

o Suppression and No Hidden Agendas

o Suppression and Group Ownership of Group Issues

o Suppression and Putting Things On Hold

o Suppression and Acceptance of Differences

o Suppression as an Active Willingness to Learn

o From Repression to Suppression: Differentiation, Liberation, Bubbling-Up, and Energy Shifts

188

Suppression, Vulnerability and Fear

The following data segments deal with the relationship between suppression and

vulnerability, which is defined as the capacity and willingness to be open; i.e., to honestly

express one’s subjective experience, including perceptions, thoughts, feelings, wants

and needs, without making demands, and without attacking, blaming or making negative

attributions about others. As the interviewee notes, doing so requires that one come out

from behind a protective shell or stance that blocks interpersonal and intra-personal

learning. The interviewee notes that a suppressive stance ― one that is opening to

change, learning and development ― requires a degree of vulnerability in relationships.

J: In order to get to suppression you have to be vulnerable. …So repression would be not being vulnerable. …That’s the mindset that I see often, and it’s that protective sense of self, which is very easy to have as your MO,102 and I see it. I think it comes out in a defensive stance, and justification and not internalizing what is shared with you. … I just see it more and more. … I’m not necessarily judging it; I’m just accepting it as it is. …I find how consuming it can be to certain individuals. …As far as I’m concerned it’s wasted energy. I’ve never had a problem with being vulnerable.

Suppression as Reality-Based

This finding, and the data segments that support it, discuss the notion that

effectiveness in any endeavor is predicated on a clear perception, understanding and

acceptance of the realities within which an individual or organization is situated. As an

avoidance mechanism, repression in any form inescapably damages effectiveness

because it blocks awareness of some facet(s) of situational reality. Suppression is a

102 I.e., modus operandi.

189

turning toward reality, and a willingness to look at it honestly and unsparingly:

J: I like the idea of the reality base as a component of OD [organization development] and suppression as a piece of that. In OD… I can speak for myself: we’re dreamers, we see things as we want them to be, but we also have this reality base and we see things as they are. That’s a wonderful gift in some ways because that allows us to make some changes. D: Coming out of avoidance and repression into seeing the truth? J: Yeah, and the ugly face of that sometimes. That’s OK; it allows you to chart your path. It kind of puts energy behind things. D: Are you saying that you are getting more realistic? S: Yes that is a better word. That’s the easy way to put it. We are getting more realistic; we are understanding that if we want to reach that vision, there are some basics we must think about, check on, deal with, and that kind of thing. I see that as a real plus, because that in turn will enable us to reach that vision. D: To use the language of the model, and I’m hearing you say it, that for me, in my language, is that something happened around September where you moved into what I call suppressive management. You are dealing directly, and it’s reality-based. You are dealing directly with the issues. Before that there was this cloud that is between you, and you were repressing a lot of stuff that you don’t want to look at: differences of opinion, differences in style, and issues. Do you think that that is a fair? S: Yes, but I would add that there were a lot of things that I literally didn’t want to deal with because it was hard, difficult. There are people, as we all know, who really don’t like to deal with anything that is negative. They only want to deal with nice things and be nice to everyone. There are realities where sometimes that can’t always be the case. D: The blinders come off and the rose-colored glasses? S: Right, reality is the word I would buy into. … I think [the AR work we did together] began to bring honesty and a focus of reality in terms of who we were, who we are, as an organization. Before, it was really difficult.

190

Suppression and Crisis

As the interviewee below notes, there’s nothing more useful than a crisis for

helping an individual or group to come out of repression and move toward suppression.

Coupled with that, the interviewee also observed that by moving through and addressing

this crisis, the group also moved into a new communicative stance: where previously

much communication took place on a one-on-one basis, outside the group, now the

group is dealing with group-based issues directly, within the total group, which is a facet

of suppressive management.

D: Do you think you moved more toward suppressive management of issues for the past six months until now? C: Certainly so. …The key thing that happened was we were forced to face the fact that our sales weren’t going to turn around, and things couldn’t continue to exist the way they had been going. D: It was like a crisis? C: It was sort of like a crisis, not sudden but gradual. As Hank mentioned yesterday, it got to a point where we just had to face it. …In August when I had a conversation with him, I said, “No, we’ve got to make these decisions now,’ to be implemented in September perhaps. …How all that applies to the model… what’s happening now that wasn’t happening then is there is consistent communication and addressing of issues that are confronting the company by all the core leadership together simultaneously.

Suppression and Claiming/Enacting Identity

In the following data segment, the interviewee notes that through the process of

moving into a suppressive posture of dealing directly with uncomfortable, difficult

(formerly repressed) issues within the group, a beneficial by-product has occurred: group

members feel much safer, and more willing to differentiate within the group.

191

M: In some ways, I look at our group now, and because we have gotten past so much of that, those are issues that are out of our dynamic, so now we are much truer to ourselves. We’re more truly who we are. Nobody has to be… D: There’s less careful couching and avoidance. There’s more direct communication. That’s what I’m hearing you say. M: That’s what I think is going on.

Suppression and No Hidden Agendas

In the data segment below, the interviewee expresses the perception that, to a

significant degree, the AR project was successful because the leader (the Chief of ST-

ODT) was open, direct and honest about his goals, desires and intentions for the group

and for the project, which is a facet of suppressive management.

K: I think from jump street, there was no hidden agenda, as far as the leader was concerned. He said, I’m almost certain the first time we got together, what his goal was, and that was that they were not functioning as a team. There were issues and he wanted to work through these issues. I don’t know if anybody heard it, but I sure did. He said it again, further down the process, right out in the open in front of everybody. I admire him for that. I have a lot of respect for him for doing that.

Suppression and Group Ownership of Group Issues

The following data segment deals quite directly with the need to deal with group-

level issues directly and openly within the context of the group ― rather than on the side

through one-on-one conversations ― as a foundation for a suppressive management

stance. In connection with that movement, another notion is also addressed; namely,

that while repression arises out of an attempt to avoid discomfort, it actually produces, or

heightens, discomfort, which remains unspoken. However, directly admitting and

addressing the discomfort paradoxically has the effect of reducing it.

192

S: The other day, we had an executive committee meeting and we discussed this part-time sales person and what should we do. … I said, “Unless Hank has something new to tell us, in my opinion, we can’t afford to keep her on.” … She has not made a contribution to the top line and this has been going on for 9 months. So we all agree on this… So the group is…dealing with the issue, absolutely. It isn’t an individual making that decision, then moving on and executing. No way. D: What I’m hearing you say is that the group is dealing with it. A member of the group needed, in the language of the model, to differentiate from the defended place of not dealing with it, and speak out. And … that has become permissible now within the group. S: Yes, definitely. That also is part of that change we were discussing. It’s the growth, as I view it, of the organization, meaning the people, the decision process, and so forth. …We sit and discuss this as a group and the group decides. … We’ve come a long way in four months. …A long way, so a very healthy kind of activity. D: Before, when it was in a more repressive place, it’s like [you’re] trying to be comfortable, but you are not. …You are not comfortable, but no one is saying it; and now that you’re healthy, you are more comfortable because you are dealing with discomfort. S: Exactly. D: It’s hard to put into words, but… S: No, I understand exactly what you’re saying. That’s right. People are saying, “Yes, okay, that’s it. I’m not very comfortable, but that is right,” and the group buys in.

Suppression and ‘Putting Things On Hold’

The following data segment addresses the second element of the model’s

definition of suppressive management: namely, that suppression represents a conscious

moral choice to 1) either to deal with issues and differences immediately and forthrightly,

or 2) to postpone (but not evade) dealing with them immediately in deference to more

critical, pressing issues. That is, suppression can include putting issues “on hold.”

193

K: I think everyone’s intention was always good. I don’t think anybody was intending to hurt anybody or to leave anybody out, or leave anybody behind, or to undervalue anybody. It just looked that way to some people. D: The issue is there was no dialogue to find out what was going on. K: I think there was the preconceived thing that you couldn’t have a dialogue; that this is the boss, that you don’t question the boss. Maybe from the boss, “Why would I want to put myself in the position to be dumped on? I’ve tried this, I’ve tried that, and I’m getting nothing, so I’m tired of that. I’m not going to spend any more energy on that; I’m going to put my focus and my energy where it’s going to do the most good.” D: Almost like a giving up? K: No, putting them on hold. I don’t think he ever gave up, I think he put it on hold and said, “Right now, I’m up against time constraints, I’m up against this, and I’ve got to get over where I’m going to get the most bang for my buck, and that’s over here. You just keep doing what you’ve got to keep doing over here, and in the meantime, I’ll try to figure out how to get you to come along.” And then I think when you offered up your model and your training, …he saw that as an opportunity; … a non-threatening and an objective, smart way to get to where he wanted to go without creating a lot of animosity.

Suppression and Acceptance of Differences

In the following data segment, the interviewee expresses his/her perceptions that

the work done at the library, in which each ST-ODT subgroup was provided with a

means to differentiate ― i.e., to directly express the perceptions, thoughts and feelings

of subgroup members ― had the significant effect of helping all group members to

understand, accept and appreciate those differences. Repressed (unexpressed)

differences, which were formerly experienced as threatening, became a source of group

enrichment.

D: Are you saying it was a defended organization?

194

E: Yes, and it was defended in terms of the three groups, but overall, I believe that is what it was. …The key piece to breaking through some of that [defended-ness & repression] came at the library when each group was able to visually share what they thought about themselves and how they saw us. That was really good because some of the points that came up, when you look at them you see you never had thought about this. I never had thought about how my actions were interpreted by a particular group. I think that is a breakthrough… I believe you have people who come to work and we want to be committed to each other, to do a good job. That was a breakthrough, and just talking about it has allowed us to build on those relationships. D: In the direction that you were talking about earlier, the respect and trust? E: Yes. D: That day at the library, using the principles and language of the model would be about creating differentiated relationships, in this case, not between individuals, but between subgroups. E: Right. D: So allowing the differences to be at the surface, but explicitly, not implicitly. That allows for a dialogue across those differences because they are visible. E: Right, and it’s a matter of acceptance, and the groups may be different, but that’s okay to be different, … and to take that a step further, it brings down that repressive wall. It came down. What happens now is there’s no reason for me to hold tight for what I want, what I think. There’s safety now. Now I feel safe because now I understand a little bit of what the other person or the other group is thinking. … It’s just the fact that it’s okay to be different, so you are more accepting of the differences of the other groups. But I don’t think we would have gotten there if we hadn’t spent the time we did, just expressing visually that this is what I’m thinking, this is what is going on inside of me, which that time at the library allowed us to do.

Suppression as an Active Willingness to Learn

The following data segment captures the idea that the difference between

repression and suppression can also be characterized as the difference between

unwillingness and willingness (or capacity and incapacity) to learn:

195

M: Our leader says we have an open-door policy, and he does. He says he has ears, and he does. But at least I feel that we are definitely able to suppress (from your example) and take a look at differences and figure out how to deal with them, if they are usually within the unit. …In the unit the freedom is there to do that, but you have to be willing to step up to that process. I think that is work. I think it is a lot easier to be repressive than to be suppressive. D: Much; that’s why it’s the default setting. M: Exactly, so if someone is not willing to work beyond what they have to do, and that translates into knowing exactly the minute they walk in and exactly the minute they walk out, knowing exactly when break happens and knowing exactly how many days they have left to retire, ...I think then that they are not going to want to put the work in that it is going to require. If we look at our unit honestly, we continue to have conflicts over those who are willing to do it and those that are not willing to do it. I’m not sure it’s a skill set question. I think it’s a behavioral attitude question…. D: One is a learning posture and the other is a non-learning posture? M: Yes.

From Repression to Suppression: Differentiation, Liberation, Bubbling-Up, and Energy Shifts

The following data segment expresses an intriguing idea: that the shift from

repression to suppression can occur in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when someone

moves out from under the spell of repression, i.e., when someone differentiates and

speaks their individual, subjective truth or perception ― and that that action is a moment

of liberation. It represents a specific, micro-level occurrence of a repressed content

bubbling up and crossing the threshold from being unshared and/or unconscious, and

196

suddenly bursting into shared consciousness.103 Furthermore, it expresses the idea that

such occurrences also bring forth (or liberate) a burst of (formerly repressed) energy.

D: At that meeting …we were looking at those competencies …up on the wall, and I asked, “Where are you going to get those competencies?” There was a …minute’s silence and then Hank …goes, “If you look at those competencies, I think we’re talking about Matt.” Then what happened? C: What happened is we talked about what …actions need to be taken for Matt to move back into the role of having the primary relationships with the customers, so that sales reported into him …full-time rather than part-time. … D: Was that conversation repressive or suppressive? C: That conversation was liberating. … I view suppression as a state of surfing where you’re in action, but there’s a particular event that has to occur, where liberation occurs, where things bubble up. Then once they bubble up… But when there’s been repression, at that moment of liberation. D: Things welling up and bursting through. …How’s that different from suppression? C: I would consider suppression to be what we began to do after the bubbling up, …which was manage the decisions that we had come to, the realities that we came to, implementing those, moving forward and through. D: Sort of more on a functional plain. C: Functional plain, moving forward. D: What… took the lid off? C: Speaking of the idea that we had the wrong person in the role, and the willingness for somebody to speak to make a shift. …Somebody had to have spoken up. I don’t know who, but if she’s got to go, she’s got to go. …I think …that’s something Geri and others knew: …That Mary’s departure needed to happen. …For the long-term survival of this company, this person can’t be here. D: But nobody was speaking about it. At least no one was speaking to the group

103 That is, a content moves from the Adaptation Domain into the Performance Domain of the system.

197

about it; maybe they were speaking to one another individually, one-on-one. C: But the shift happened, what we as a team opened up to, “fessed up to.” That was very powerful as I recall… A lot of energy.

Differentiation Within a Group/Organizational Setting

This section explores findings related to a central paradox, tension, or dilemma,

which must be managed, both by the group and by each group member: differentiation

(and ultimately individuation) within a group setting. That is, as was mentioned earlier,

the default setting for human systems is to repress differences as a perceived threat to

the integrity of the group, and so expression of individuality in the group context poses a

tension or dilemma that must be managed. Following is a list of sub-themes, which are

explored in more depth in this section:

o The Problem of Group Merger in a Business Setting o The Importance of Awareness of Group Merger o Differentiation and Alignment, Group Synergy and Community o Differentiation and Boundary Enforcement, Power, Vulnerability and Strength o The Role of the Self o Self-Differentiation as a Tool for Effecting Organizational Change The Problem of Group Merger in a Business Setting

While repression of individual differences and approval-seeking behavior

(approval from the group or dominant coalition) is the default setting in groups, the next

data segment addresses the problem with this setting in today’s business world:

198

D: How about the issues related to breaking up the phenomenon of group merger, through differentiating and allowing people to be fully who they are, as opposed to going with that silent group-think, group merger thing. Is that something that you think is important? G: At our company groupthink is always disastrous. D: Yes, instantly disastrous. G: Instantly disastrous, yes. D: That’s why it is less of a problematic dynamic? G: Right – because it’s so instantly disastrous. S: Everybody was afraid to move, and no one would make a move without picking up the phone and calling Matt. D: How is that part of the defended organization? S: The fact that it was very rigid and that security was very key; …security in that they wanted to make sure that they were in the inner loop, that they were accepted, that they were “in-the-know.” D: Are you saying that that hindered your ability to take action now, independently, there was kind of like a stiffness there? S: I would say it slowed us down. They wanted to make sure that if they took action A that it was okay, so they ran it by the key people that they felt they needed to run it by, to make sure it was all right before they did that. In a small, growing, entrepreneurial kind of environment, that is a lot of what I call down time. You’ve got to move, having confidence that you’ve got this responsibility and accountability, and that is your mission to go move out to see what’s best for the organization. D: It’s like they hadn’t internalized the vision or something? S: Exactly; really that is much better wording, particularly relating to your model, very mixed up. They didn’t really see. … I think that when you are small and young and you’re trying to grow, then everybody’s got to buy into that. D: That’s what I mean by alignment and commitment.

199

S: Right, so when they don’t, it’s like it’s just another job, and I’m not seeing the vision of how if we do these kinds of things and we all pull together that this can become a significant player.

The Importance of Awareness of Group Merger

The following data segment addresses the importance of simple awareness of

the phenomenon of group merger in connection with increased effectiveness in group

setting. Through heightened awareness of the phenomenon of group merger, it becomes

more possible to spot it when it’s happening, and then to detach from it and relate to the

group from a differentiated position.

K: You just mentioned the differentiation and the non-differentiation part. I found that extremely valuable because we had been talking about groups, group merger and all that kind of stuff. It’s easier now. I can see myself easily getting sucked into the group merger stuff. It’s happened, and I have to step back and say, I won’t go there. That isn’t me, that isn’t what I really think, that isn’t what I really feel. But that was helpful, really telling. It’s there now, and you think about it when it’s happening: ‘Oh, that’s what’s going on.’

Differentiation and Alignment, Group Synergy and Community

Repression, in whatever form, is a product of fear. It is a fear-based response to

the assumption (often unconscious) that interpersonal and inter-goup differences, and

difficult issues, and difficult emotions are inherently threatening to the status quo, to

security, to safety, to comfort, to identity, or whatever and should be ignored, denied,

avoided, unexpressed, or actively held down. It is a primitive stance, based on the

assumption that system integrity depends on non-differentiation.

This sub-section, however, focuses on a paradoxical theme complex: there is an

intimate connection between the capacity of a human system to foster internal

200

differentiation (at the individual and subgroup levels) and to manage internal differences

from a suppressive standpoint, and the capacity of that system to build genuine shared,

committed alignment and genuine group synergy (and ultimately, community). The

following two data segments directly address this theme complex, and touch upon

several sub-themes within it:

o Paradox: shared alignment amid differentiation and diversity.

o Committed alignment: differences with a shared vision and purpose

o Differentiation and group synergy, or community

o Building safety within the group/system

o Suppressive management of differences

D: It’s a very strange paradox that my work is based on. I wanted to talk to you about that, and you just got right to it. It is alignment within a group that allows for differences, which is usually… E: That’s right, you would think it’s the opposite. But what happens when you become aligned ― and it’s understood by each and every member ― is we become more accepting of the differences. … I think that is the key issue: that we are all moving and serving for the same purpose of what we want to bring to the organization [i.e., that we are aligned]. D: It sounds as if there is work that needs to happen first, to build the kinds of relationships that foster that. E: Yes, and I think part of that we did when we met at the library. …There’s safety now. Now I feel safe, because now I understand a little bit of what the other person or the other group is thinking. …That…got us to a place where now we understood that it’s okay to be different. Now we can talk about “how do we work together on a consistent basis, now that we know it’s okay to be different. Now that we know that we need each other, how do we work together?” D: You need each other as different individuals? E: As different individuals; it’s okay to be different.

201

D: In other words, differences aren’t threatening; they are more enriching, or something. E: They are, and the mindset that they are more accepting, when someone has an idea, has an issue or comment to make, then we would be more accepting of those. In the past, we would start putting bricks up, and we were operating from that repressive posture…. That goes back to the commitment that we have to each other, and I think that goes back to the team getting aligned. We are getting aligned in goals and objectives that we want for the organization. D: I saw people… beginning to empower themselves, to bring themselves to the table more fully and let the chips fall. G: Yes, I definitely saw that. …What I found for myself was that I became much more comfortable with everyone’s differences, to see how everyone’s differences and weaknesses were put on line, put on the table, and [enhanced our] ability to reach people and deliver ideas to the marketplace, and to pull together. D: It’s like the more you let those differences be alive, the more cohesive you got as a group? G: Yes. That’s right. …That’s exactly what happened. …I think that as people become more comfortable with others’ differences, they become more comfortable with theirs. They can see how their strengths or weaknesses or whatever, their character, plays into it, and you can take ownership around it. I did for myself. D: That’s lovely. What you are saying, I think, is that as people brought more of themselves, it wasn’t just their positives. It was more, just the whole bag of worms and it got [to be] more acceptable, both to the team and to you, and then the team became more lively in learning and dynamics. G: Yes. Yes. Yes. That’s right.

Differentiation and Boundary Enforcement, Power, Vulnerability and Strength

Group and societal norms tend to reinforce the belief that authentic self-

revelation, i.e., being vulnerable, is unacceptable and dangerous. Unconscious,

repressive boundary-management processes in groups operate in such a way that

202

vulnerable, differentiating individuals are punished and/or reeducated in order to

reinforce conformity and the primitive belief that conformity is the basis for group safety

and integrity. Vulnerability is labeled or interpreted as weakness, and is either repressed

or attacked.

The data segment below, however, deals with yet another paradox: That

expression of vulnerability, acts of self-differentiation, and self-acceptance (i.e.,

acceptance of vulnerable aspects of the self) are actually powerful acts, reflecting a

position of internal strength, and are a key to personal freedom and aliveness.

M: There were a couple of times that I also did the same thing [push to get into difficult group conflicts and issues]. I would say something, knowing that I would get something going. The funny thing is that sometimes it was at a cost to me I didn’t anticipate, and we witnessed that a couple of times. …What I reveal to this group can, in an official setting, be “You just bared your weakness; you just opened yourself up and said here is where I’m weak. …Here’s where if you need to get me, you can.” D: How does that feel? M: At first it felt pretty awful because as a person, I felt that you always have to be as strong as possible and I also feel that you have to deal from a position of strength as much as possible. D: My experience is that you actually became very powerful in the group [through being vulnerable], and it will take you a while to process that. M: I think so. I think I have to get beyond… the feeling that I revealed myself to a point I didn’t want to. …It’s certainly not the way I would have planned a path to that place. It certainly isn’t. It’s funny because I was thinking about it: In a way it’s free because it’s out there. D: That’s the odd paradox about all that stuff. Nobody can attack anything that you accept. People say you are stingy, and you go, “Oh, yeah.” It’s like the wind is taken out of them, because what’s going on is they are trying to tap into your shame, but if you don’t have any, they lost all their “power.”

203

M: Yes, and I think that that is extremely valuable. I didn’t know if that was one of the goals of this program to bring someone to that place, to make them go through that to understand that. D: It’s not a goal. It’s a natural byproduct of it [the process the team followed] because the Self wants to be known. M: That is interesting.

The Role of the Self

The data segment below addresses the issue of self-awareness and self-

responsibility as facets of self-differentiation. That is, as a by-product of undergoing the

process of self-differentiation, one becomes increasingly aware that interpersonal

difficulties are a product of the nature, dynamics and maturity level of one’s own psyche,

and are not caused by others. That is, one is completely responsible for one’s own

internal experience, which is a product of the psyche.

As this awareness settles in and begins to grow in depth and clarity, it becomes

more and more difficult to blame others ― to locate the source of one’s problems and

angst outside the self. One begins to take full responsibility for one’s experience and

behavior, and begins to become empowered ― both to accept and enact one’s own

identity, and to learn to have healthier, more appropriate, and potentially more

productive relationships with others, regardless of their level of maturity

E: Maybe I have these walls that I’ve built around me, and I don’t want to work with the other members in my unit. I don’t want to work with a team. Maybe those walls need to come down. Then that goes back to asking why are the walls there? If that comes up, now you are starting to really look at it. And, it’s not about the organization. It’s not about the folks I work with. It’s really about me. It starts out with me, and I’ve got to see that. I am not so accepting because

204

someone else is a little bit different, and I’m not willing to bend and work with him a little bit. So it starts out with me, and then once you see that, then you begin to say, “How do we get aligned?” We can say I don’t like this person because, or I don’t like that person because, but that …will bring it back to me. The question is: Why don’t you like that person?

Self-Differentiation as a Tool for Effecting Group/Organizational Change

This theme explores some paradoxical properties of self-differentiation, and the

relationship between one’s level of self-differentiation and one’s effectiveness as a

change agent. As one gains more and more sense of self, one becomes increasingly

able to understand self and others; one also becomes increasingly centered and

emotionally-balanced. This development brings with it two paradoxical properties. On

the one hand, one becomes increasingly able to detach from the dysfunction,

machinations, manipulations and emotionally-colored responses and projections of

others, and to set (and adjust) one’s course effectively and (relatively) painlessly ―

without tremendous, ongoing angst. On the other hand, one becomes increasingly able

to have genuine compassion for others, precisely because one is not hooked

emotionally by their behaviors, and because of a growing depth of understanding of

human beings and their vulnerabilities and foibles (which are much like one’s own!).

The data segment below is a marvelous (if not exactly straightforward)

discussion of the power of self-differentiation within a human system as a tool or method

for enacting change strategies within that system. Throughout its meandering course,

the dialogue reflects on various elements discussed in the previous paragraph. It also

205

discusses the role of the adaptive capabilities (see Appendix D) in becoming

increasingly effective as an agent of change.

J: Perseverance gets nailed down if you don’t have some of these things on the adaptive side. D: I don’t understand what that meant. J: You will not persevere, be as persistent, care as much, go after new things, or what you truly think is right or you need, if you don’t have the skill set to get it or the confidence that it’s a worthy endeavor, and you do what you have to do to do it. D: How does that relate to the model? J: I think it relates to vision, and that’s an adaptive piece. D: Being in connection with your vision? J: But also the systemic piece of it: the interconnection, the new science, because that gives you the momentum and detailed information that you need to chart out a course or a plan of action. D: In other words, it gave you a context, through grasping how these principles relate together, to be able to stay here in the environment, but differentiate and set a course in the midst of it? J: Absolutely; but also allowing it to be OK. D: What to be OK? J: The whole process, and approaching it from this slant,104 not becoming overwhelmed, not internalizing it; not trying to change people or the situation, but perhaps having an impact, and slowly whittle and influence your way to perhaps change the system. D: Yeah, through being yourself. J: And doing very strategic things; but it’s a step-by-step process that takes an inordinately long time here because of all the coalitions and ulterior motives and

104 “This slant” being differentiation of self within the setting of a human system.

206

divisions. But that’s OK. It’s almost like learning how to play the game, and that’s OK, too, because it’s in a genuine way to benefit the organization. Manipulation isn’t there. I think because the assumptions are checked, the ulterior motives no longer apply, or at least for you, who is trying to craft and design the change. D: So you’re getting clearer about yourself and where you come from, so there’s less manipulation. J: I feel very liberated about this. …I don’t have a lot to prove any more, and that’s a very liberating thing. D: You’re not taking on other people’s stuff? J: I don’t own it. No, it’s not my baggage any more. I’m trying to have some empathy, and I see that as a piece of the adaptive side. D: That’s good input. I think I’ll add empathy. J: It’s our humanity, and we need that.

Macro Conditions That Foster Differentiation, Alignment and Integration

This section focuses on conditions and practices that foster the ongoing process

of differentiation - both for individuals and groups - within the larger context in which that

individual or group is situated. The sub-themes explored include:

o Differentiated Communications and Relationships Practices

o Acknowledge Differences First, Then Move Toward Commonality and Alignment

o The Need to Maintain Dialogue and Relationship Across Differences

Differentiated Communications and Relationships Practices

This subsection focuses on interpersonal communication practices that foster

self-differentiation and development of interpersonal safety within a group (Short, 1998),

207

(Rosenberg, 1999).105 It also focuses on the dangers and risks involved in either not

using them or attempting to use them without truly internalizing their principles. The

second data segment delves more deeply into the notion that people’s current subjective

experience is framed or strongly influenced by their life-history as well as their current

life situation and emotional state. Because of that, it can often be unwise to take the

behaviors and statements of others at face value, or to interpret the behaviors and

statements of others solely through one’s own interpretive lens, which is colored by the

same influences. This leads into the need for inquiry; that is, to gently inquire or probe a

bit into the meaning of that statement or behavior, and to remain open to inquiry from the

other person as well.

Such communications practices seek to overcome or blunt the effects of residual

psychological non-differentiation. As the reader will recall, the non-differentiated psyche

has problems distinguishing subjective experience from objective reality, and tends to

unconsciously assume that what is going on in my head is either 1) the same as what is

going on in your head, or 2) that what is going on in my head is a pure, clear reflection of

objective reality, or both. In fact, the products and experience of each separate,

individual psyche is inescapably subjective and inescapably framed and (dis)colored by

our own individual history, experience and level of psychological maturity.

D: When we started to air those things out finally… we started to let more cats out of the bag, so to speak. Do you see that being helpful to the group? C: It depends on the individual. When they decide to let all this out, how are they letting it out? …If it’s going to be hurtful to the other person, I think they do more

105 See Appendix I for a distilled summary of the principles underlying these practices.

208

damage than it does good. D: I agree with that. …That’s what those exercises were about, was learning how to share your perspective, your experience, your perceptions, your feelings that come up with that, without laying them on and blaming the other person. Do you think that was helpful? C: I think it was helpful, but I don’t think we did enough of it. Maybe we need to review it again, because if I’m not mistaken, this was around the piece that Gail brought out. …When she gave her comments, she was jumped on by the other members. So it didn’t quite get through. D: We didn’t really follow rules. If we had followed the rules, what do you think would have been different? C: I think they wouldn’t have just reacted to what she said so quickly… stepped back and at least listen to her point of view and analyze it a little bit before giving a response, or come back with, “This is how I took your response.” M: I also was struck by the relevance of looking at someone’s story, and how he is communicating, in a way that takes into account how he is feeling, what he is saying. …You added another dimension to that with your concept of looking at, what I call, the history story, which is why a person’s first story is what it is, because of what he may have encountered as a child, and as growing up through a system, where there is the system of childhood, or parenthood …or whatever. Whenever someone says something to me, of course, they are saying it from their perspective, and I need to understand that. I also need to understand that because I don’t have all the information, “I,” as in all people, are prone to look at impact (versus intent), and are prone to put the intent probably in a negative framework. That …is something I try to be cognizant of: …what the impact is looking like. But I also realized there are limitations to my knowing what that is, unless I go through a very deliberate process of finding out how that person is, what kind of impact have I made on them. …Doing inquiry, and inquiry from the standpoint of not just curiosity, but of a willingness to learn and to open myself up to that. I have often attempted to read how the other person is taking what I’m talking about. I will read how a situation is, read how feelings are being felt. It was interesting to me to find out that maybe I’m not as good at it as I thought I was, and that I had been making some assumptions based on what I thought was [a]

209

fairly good reading, things that weren’t there. D: Did they come out of your story? M: They came out of my story: that is, someone is frowning when I’m talking to them, …I’ve come to realize, …it might have nothing to do with what I’m saying. It might have to do with their own story. It might have to do with mourning, or with their mother being in the hospital. …It could be many things…That’s an important realization. Something Simon said makes a lot of sense to me ...which is checking the assumption, checking why someone is responding the way they are. …Inquiring: ‘I see that you are frowning. Is it what I’m saying to you, did you understand it; did I say something that’s bothering you?’ I’m making inquiry versus making assumptions, even if I thought they were pretty well-founded assumptions. I am struck by how every conversation I have with someone could either further an agenda, stop one, or cause it even to fall backward. That is a tremendous weight, and if you think about that, the communication skills become all the more important, and you need to fill out [the picture] constantly. You need to seek out more and more dimension, which is what you got with that program. This might be the over-thinking thing [but] I’m not sure there is a lot that is routine in anybody’s interactions. What we might see as routine can have incredible ripples. The day that somebody gives me a comment, and I fall back to something offhandedly and think, ha, ha, and move on, I don’t know that that comment just stopped someone from being able to reach out to me in a different way. I’m not sure there is a lot of, what I would call, routine, when I’m not operating on a level that I need to, to be totally perceptive.

Acknowledge Differences First, Then Move Toward Commonality and Alignment

This sub-section and the data segment below focus on another key issue: that

commonality, and shared alignment among members of a group, cannot be assumed, or

forced, for that matter. It must be built upon the foundation of the individual. There is a

profound paradox here that is often overlooked or unseen: individuals must be

acknowledged and accepted as such, prior to effective and meaningful explorations of

210

shared territory, such as our common humanity, our shared involvement in the

Performance Domain, or whatever. Skipping past this truth, and assuming (or forcing)

an easy commonality, puts one squarely in the corner of repression and group merger,

not to mention outright insult.

J: Another revelation that came to me, and this was a while ago with you: I used to start out at commonality. I really thought, until I took a diversity course, that we’re all the same. Now I realize, I think, that’s kind of a naive take. It’s insulting at some level, and it’s very inappropriate. What I think I learned from this differentiation that we talked about is that it’s better to start at the differences, and there are ways to do that, and that can be an OD intervention. Then you find out the commonalities and you bridge that gap. That’s been very helpful, and I’ve done that in a team-building setting. But I now believe, and this is a new shift for me, to start out at the differences. D: And you’re saying that leads eventually to commonality. J: Absolutely. … [That’s] loud and clear, and I think it has to be your premise to start. I think it’s one of the bases, the foundations.

The Need to Maintain Dialogue and Relationship Across Differences

Effective self-differentiation has two sides, which are somewhat paradoxical: on

one hand, it provides the foundation for the individual to separate, i.e., to detach from

repressive social pressures for conformity and chart an internally-defined and internally-

motivated path; on the other hand, it calls for cultivation and maintenance of healthy

relationships with others in one’s social world (to the extent possible or practical), based

on compassionate awareness and acceptance of others, as well as oneself. It has much

in common with Jung’s description of individuation as an “at-one-ment with oneself as

well as with humanity” (Jung, 1954/1966, p.227). It has also been described more

211

informally as combining backbone with heart (O'Neill, 2000). It is about enacting one’s

true self in conjunction with fostering ongoing, healthy, productive dialogue and

relationships with others. The following data segment explores this paradox within an

organizational setting:

M: One of the things we are experiencing here is, this unit, under Simon’s leadership, has changed its culture on a level that is not at the top. …We’re [ST-ODT] ― through sheer force of will, and momentum, to some degree ― forcing things to happen that could happen on …a more effective level, if that support and willingness was there [at the top]. D: What I’m hearing you saying is that Simon’s group is slowly differentiating from the culture, the embedded culture. M: I would absolutely agree. D: The key to differentiation is sort of like combining backbone with heart. So you are having a backbone, you are routing away and setting a new course that is internally directed, but if you don’t maintain relationships, and even work harder on them, you differentiate yourself out of existence. M: Yes, I would agree with you, and my feedback is I think you are right. I really think that the director and the …deputy director may feel at times that we created a monster. We have absolutely let loose something that we don’t know how to control. We’re not sure we need to, but we know we are creating discomfort here. D: How about having an inquiry about that point? M: I think it is an excellent idea. I think it would be worthwhile because the pace that we’re working at is just an aberration in the system. …You’ve got manager whose leadership is pushing the envelope. So we are really doing a lot of things at once that are changing things. We are pushing the organization, and at some point, they are pushing back. D: And the idea is to remain in dialogue and deep… M: Yes, and I know Simon is capable of doing that. I don’t know how willing, the deeper level dialogue he will receive up there. I’m not sure.

212

The Birth - Death - Rebirth Cycle

This major section explores findings that relate to the archetypal developmental

or equilibration pattern of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle. The data segments

explored in this section all are taken from interviews with members of the executive team

of Life Transitions. The section explores the following themes in some depth:

o Birth, Death and Rebirth in a Business Setting

o Integration of Death as the Necessary Antecedent of Continuous Rebirth

o Death As Letting Go of a Dysfunctional Survival Strategy

o Rebirth, and the Emergence of a Uniting Symbol

o Rebirth and Taking Responsibility

o Rebirth, and Claiming True Identity

o Claiming True Identity and Empowerment

Birth, Death and Rebirth in a Business Setting

The following dialogues explore the theme of Birth, Death and Rebirth in the

setting of a new, struggling and growing business (Life Transitions). The data segments

describe and explore the process that the company went through. First, it started out

with a vision and identity, and an initial product to help support the implementation of

that vision ― the company was born. Next, it become so deeply attached to that product

as its sole survival strategy that it lost sight of its original identity and vision;106 next, it

went through a period of near-extinction, which forced the executive team (with a little

106 The team became identified with its Performance Domain.

213

help from the lead AR researcher) to confront the fact that it’s survival strategy was

actually leading to its extinction; finally, the executive team let go of its false survival

strategy and false identity ― the executive team went through a small death. As it let go

of old things, the team reconnected with its original identity, purpose and passion, and

became reborn.

D: I see that relating to …the archetype of birth, death and rebirth. …That seems to be what just happened over the past 6 months. Tell me about how you see that playing out. G: I could talk about both from a symbolic sort of way. It was like a family came together and had a baby (Career Discovery), gave birth to something that some people knew something about, while the rest of us knew nothing about it; …this “who is in the industry and who is not in the industry” …separated parents and children from the very beginning. That was kind of the “birth.” Through the aging process that model died, just the way parents die. D: Over the past 6 months, since we started doing this work …it seems like a lot of pieces that were cancerous, oppositional or fragmented, began to be pared away. I can’t find any linear linkage, but shortly after that, that image popped out [the matrix], and it was like Life Transitions was reborn as Life Transitions, instead of Life Transitions doing business as Career Discovery, or Career Discovery doing business as Life Transitions. G: Exactly. Exactly. D: I challenged you about who you are, and that’s really what I was doing with that matrix, [and] you got reborn. S: No, I think that is correct. The key, or the $64,000 question is, “Can we keep that focus while we have to still also concentrate on what I call ‘staying alive.’” D: That is the key of the resilient organization: The performance system is focusing on those survival issues, but not losing the “gut” of who you are [the vision]. And that is one of the things that you just said. S: Correct.

214

D: I think you got so focused on your survival needs that you forgot who you are. S: Yes, we did. We weren’t, as a group, really focused on survival a year ago, not as a group. Then, as we went through these transitions, or to use your words, through a death and then a rebirth, within that we missed the understanding that, yes, we obviously must focus on survival, so that we can reach the vision, but keeping focused on our future [the vision]. …That is going to be very critical. D: Big difference. S: It really is. …Now the question becomes, “We’re making some real progress on that, so now let’s focus on that future and how we are going to get there. What is the plan?” …Without that plan, people lose focus.

Integration of Death as the Necessary Antecedent of Continuous Rebirth

The following data segment needs little explanation, other than to state that it

provides a marvelous reflection on the need of human systems to accept, to integrate,

the reality of death as an ongoing process, which paradoxically provides the foundation

for the capacity for that system to remain in a process of ongoing rebirth.

C: I was saying that just as an individual has to deal with the reality of death, if an organization integrates into its thinking, its being, its living, the concept of death, it can regenerate itself; but if it’s unwilling to face death… I don’t know what’s going on in this company around this, that we’re sitting in the middle of a crisis. But if they think that they can do business the way they’ve always done business, and it’s going to just grow, and they don’t face the fact that maybe some people need to go ― just reality. Don’t put any names on it right now. Don’t even deal with this concept in real time right now; just deal with the concept. Life, death, rebirth: it happens. Let’s understand the concept. Then, understanding the concept and accepting the concept, then put it into context here, so that you’re always looking for what has to die, what has to die, so you’re always looking at that. If you’re always looking at that, that’s a whole different perspective than “Let’s survive.” That attitude of “Let’s survive” has you holding onto things that need to die.

Death As Letting Go of a Dysfunctional Survival Strategy

The following data segments explore and reflect a basic theme: the archetypal

215

symbol of death ― as a precursor to rebirth ― as explicated in the Jungian literature,

does not refer to the extinction of the system itself (either at the individual or human

system level). Rather, it points to the process of extinction of an outmoded, non-

functional portion of the centrated domain of the system, i.e., either an ego content or a

PD content that the system (individual or collective) has become unconsciously

embedded in. It refers to the process of dis-identification with a temporary survival

strategy, which the system has become (falsely) identified with. Using other words, the

system has conflated its identity with a temporary survival strategy, and death refers to

the process of disentangling the two. Rebirth, then, points to the process of

reconnection with the deeper layers of system identity, located more closely to the

archetypal systemic core – either the Self at the individual level, or Community at the

collective level.

C: I remember saying things like, ‘Matt, we could do such-and-such, and I heard, “Yeah but…” … We …have a guy on [the] Board who’s …always got tremendous ideas about where to go, what to do, what possibilities are out there. When he speaks I get excited, but there’s no buy-in and implementation on that because we feel like we’ve got to get this right, first. D: What’s this? C: Career Discovery. We’ve got to get Career Discovery right first. Instead of to hell with Career Discovery! Maybe we need to right now figure out how to kill Career Discovery. …Let’s entertain the possibility that in 2004 Career Discovery won’t exist any more …if that’s impeding other possibilities. D: I think that’s what started that day when the matrix came up. You claimed your identity, and you separated your identity from your survival [strategy]. C: What comes to mind right now is drug addicts. You think heroin allows you to survive, but it’s really killing you. D: What happened was it somehow became permissible to die… pieces. It all

216

happened in collective, too. It wasn’t this one-on-one, off-on-the-side thing. C: Mary and Derek were already gone, which meant that, to the extent that any of us… thought that we would not survive if Mary or Derek left, that became a non-issue. D: Because you separated that from your survival too. C: Exactly. D: From your identity. It was like “This is our identity, and we’re going to enact this and create it.” C: We were freed up to think about new places. H: The performance is a smaller piece of what we want to become, and being able to be adaptive in that way is important. D: It’s a small piece? H: I think so, at least in our specific instance, when I look at it as what we are doing today [i.e., selling Career Discovery] is really a small piece of who we are. Where before, it seemed like the other way around. We were so focused on this small piece that we didn’t see what we could become. D: You lost sight of your identity. H: Yes, too busy worrying about today and tomorrow, rather than what we really set out to become. D: When I put the matrix up… and asked, “Is this who you are?” It forced it and something happened in that group that changed. What happened? H: We decided that’s who we were. Before, we were so focused on getting revenue out of this Career Discovery. The formula107 that …everyone had grown accustomed to …was “We have no investment; we have a growth-through-revenue [strategy]; this is our current product; we have to increase the sales of these units, one-by-one;” which was an insurmountable task.

107 The “formula”: the temporary shared survival strategy; the focusing and coordinating action of the shared Performance Domain, with which the executive team had become unconsciously identified.

217

D: But it’s unspeakable, too, somewhat un-discussible. H: Un-discussible from the standpoint of trashing it. It was one of those things, like we paid all this money for this, so we can’t just discard it. But when we saw that matrix of all the things that we really wanted to be, that we all were talking about, but had never been focused on, it was like it didn’t matter what happens with Career Discovery because it’s such a small piece of what we’re going to be.

Rebirth, and the Emergence of a Uniting Symbol

This section explores the process of emergence of a visual symbol (in this case,

the matrix), which simultaneously accomplishes the following systemic shifts:

1) Emergence of the symbol aids the system in disentangling itself (dis-identifying)

from its temporary survival strategy, and reconnecting with its genuine, original,

core identity, meaning and purpose.

2) The symbol provides the foundation for reunification of the group, as group

members collectively and individually reconnect with their true shared purpose.

3) The symbol provides the foundation for group members to re-align themselves,

to become whole-heartedly recommitted to, the shared domain, because it has

reconnected with and reintegrated its core shared purpose and identity.

4) The symbol (according to Jungian thought) bridges the conscious and

unconscious domains; its roots extend deeply into the psyche, even into the

physiobiological roots of the psyche. Because of this, conscious integration of the

symbol can be described as a process of embodiment. That is, the psychic

contents it activates and integrates move far past simple intellectual awareness,

and provide the foundation for integration of (reconnection with) the emotional,

physical and energetic domains.

218

5) Thus, its emergence liberates energy which had become repressed into the

adaptation Domain through the process of collective, unconscious identification

with a temporary survival strategy.

6) As a by-product of that liberation of energy, it aids in lifting collective and

individual depression (which is a natural by-product of repression of one’s true

identity).

7) As an additional by-product of that energy liberation and reconnection with core

meaning, it opens up the collective floodgates for exploration of new possibilities

and strategies, for enacting the core identity, which are not restricted to the old,

outmoded survival strategy (i.e., the rebirth process becomes activated).

All of these themes are reflected in and explored in the following data segments:

H: There were a few of us at one time that had seen this matrix, but a lot of times people didn’t see the matrix. They heard talk about bits and pieces of the matrix and they took that as being unfocused. D: There was no uniting. H: On that matrix. D: That’s the picture I had when that happened. To use Jungian language, it became a uniting symbol. H: Yes, I agree ― 100%. D: It was like some kind of lid came off and there was this tremendous upsurge of energy that you could see. H: Yes, and that was the energy that was there at the beginning, when Matt first got me involved; …when it was Matt and Geri, and going over to Matt’s apartment and meeting with the two of them and the energy around it. D: I don’t know how, but that day with the matrix it was as if you, to use my

219

model, were reborn. H: Yes ― and that is the only word to describe it. I think that is what is going to propel us in this next phase. D: Another one I want you to talk about …is when we created the matrix. C: I recall being energized personally because the idea jumped in my head of the cradle-to-grave transition, and also what I saw was a willingness on the part of the other folks in the room, probably most importantly to me, Hank, because Hank is the finance guy. …When he [Hank] got to the possibility of all these life transitions, it energized me, because then it showed me that this is the company beyond Career Discovery. From day one, when I joined this group, I still felt like it was a Career Discovery company, even though I had a broader dream, even though I spoke to some of the ideas of us getting into …the things that resonated with me, and what I wanted to do. Every time I spoke those …there wasn’t any energy toward that. …It was still “How to get Career Discovery out the door within the 3-day deadline that we’ve got to get it out on.” But [when the matrix was created and displayed] …I began to really see, rather than just lip service, I began to see a broader vision being bought into by everybody. That energized me because then I felt, “Yeah, I can be here. I can be in this place; I can help make this happen, because these people want what I want.” …Yes – I became personally committed. There’s a distinction between understanding something in theory and living it: the distinction between something coming to life for people, versus hearing it, versus just saying it. …People didn’t understand it with their being, to the extent that they wanted to really create it. It was just a theory. …At least in my mind, that’s what I surmised. We can get to this, we can be this, but the visions weren’t aligned. People weren’t aligned with that as who we are. When …the matrix emerged, people took a step out of the Career Discovery Company to become something broader. For me, a significant event was when I observed Hank buy into this. …I saw him get more excited. I saw him physically excited. I saw movement in his body. It was almost like more blood rushed into him. It was thrilling because for me Hank represented …“Where’s the money coming from and what bills need to get paid?” Right now, that’s Career Discovery.

220

Around that table prior to that, I saw people giving up. I saw Hank giving up, me giving up, Matt giving up. … D: I felt like …the way you were operating, if it just stayed the same and nothing significant changed, in a year you wouldn’t be here. …I was seeing this disjunction between the way you were operating, and who you told me you were. …So I said, “Who are you? Do you do this, do you do that?” I felt like I was holding up a mirror. I created a mirror by asking that series of questions. And then something happened: Boom. …When that matrix went up …you came alive, and all of a sudden, everybody else did. …It felt like you awoke to your actual identity. The theory, people leapt toward the theory and said, we’ve got to make this not a theory. C: Yeah, one of the things that may have been going on at that point was, yeah, we faced the reality of, if we kept going the way we were going, it would die. You either had to leap or get consumed in the fire. …And then we began to generate energy around new possibilities. How could we implement this, this new identity, what resources could we tap, where could we go for funding, how could we even take Career Discovery from a different approach and generate revenue from it, how do we replace our old order-taking system with some new ideas and new ways of selling. We wanted to at least begin to voice some ideas that may have been bubbling in people’s heads, but we began that discussion about possibilities. D: All views. It got very open at that point. Something opened and there was an enormous openness. C: Exactly.

Rebirth and Taking Responsibility

This sub-section explores the theme of Rebirth as a process of reconnection with

core identity, purpose and meaning that fosters or engenders a parallel process of taking

responsibility for enactment of that core identity, as a by-product of embodiment, of full-

spectrum integration, of that identity.

221

D: It seems like Life Transitions was reborn on that day. C: Yeah, it gave a new picture.108 Also, some excitement for Hank, in that it opened for him a new way of presenting the company for potential investors. Then he began to see, oh wow, this story sounds a lot better to somebody who we’re asking for money from than our old story.109 Somebody might be much more attracted to this, in terms of growth possibilities, in terms of potential. D: The most paradoxical thing for me is that that new picture was a very old picture. … It wasn’t a new picture; you finally owned the picture you were putting out to me. C: Right. But it’s also, with regard to communication for example, it’s not your words that delivered your message -- it’s your animation, it’s your body language, it’s your way of expression. The presentations they might have done to potential investors might have been that same presentation, but there was no energy in it. …They spoke it, but they didn’t live it. … [They were] still stuck in Career Discovery, still stuck in the hope that Career Discovery was going to come through …and the hope that Mary was going to come through, and the hope that since Career Discovery was the means by which everything else was going to get funded, …that this was going to work. It stopped being a hope, and started being responsibility – for creating it! Don’t just hope that it’s going to happen. …Yeah, we began to take responsibility for creating this company that we have been giving lip service to.

Rebirth and Claiming True Identity

The following data segments explore a theme that has already been brought up,

in a bit more depth: that Rebirth is a process of reconnection with the more fundamental,

or core layer(s) of identity, and a re-imaging or re-imagining of the potentials and

possibilities associated with it. It is a process of letting go or giving up of an old,

outmoded partial/temporary identity/survival strategy, and a reclaiming of the deeper

108 The new picture refers to the matrix. 109 The old story refers to Career Discovery, Life Transitions’ original product.

222

levels of identity, resident within the individual unconscious and/or the collective

Adaptation Domain.

In the first data segment, the interviewee uses a wonderful metaphor to illustrate

this contrast between core identity and a false identity connected with immediate

survival: the contrast between Superman and Clark Kent. Superman represents the

fundamental identity, full of boundless energy and power, while Clark Kent is a persona,

a constructed, survival-based, socially-acceptable, but also ultimately quite limited and

relatively power-less) false identity.

Further, the interviewee explicitly affirms the model assumption that individual

and system-level development are intimately interconnected ― that they might even be

considered as two sides of a single coin. The interviewee explicitly links the identity shift

at the system level with the very same kind of identity shift occurring within his/her self.

M: I felt that for the first time we were codifying our identity, and by doing so, a reawakening for some, but certainly confirming our commitment to mission. There was something very empowering about feeling the freedom to put onto paper, beyond it being on paper, identifying the power of that, which is that we have a uniqueness about us. What we are doing is not replicated anywhere else. There aren’t others, and that if anything we will be …the thought leaders in this industry - to evolve and revolutionize this industry because our thoughts are that succinct and they are that good. I think that was very, very valuable. …It’s part of what put energy back into us as a group. …It’s the same old that we always knew, but …it was …the best-kept secret in the company, kind of Clark Kent and Superman. We were being a good Clark Kent by being the Career Discovery Company, something that everybody recognized and nobody is going to throw a stone at because after all, it’s been around for 10 years. …But actually, beneath it all, we are a super innovative, thoughtful group. We’re not going to tell anybody about that. D: You were afraid to own that? M: We were.

223

D: I had a sense, along with your Clark Kent/Superman analogy, …that in connection with the archetype of birth, death, rebirth, that in your heart of hearts, but not owning it consciously, …that’s what you were telling me: “We’re Superman,” but what died was a false identity that you were caught up in, Clark Kent being a Career Discovery Company. And when we went through this painful contraction period, and I started pressing you on “Who are you, anyway,” what popped out of the womb was this Superman, and everybody owned it for the first time. M: I saw that happen and was part of it, but I also was watching it at the same time that I was experiencing it. …Part of my personal struggles with identity, and fears of success and failure, are part of what the company is all about, too, because it is the sum of its parts, but it’s also a reflection of its founder. …In some ways, we have been held back by something that I …have been working on for a while, which is my own …fundamental belief that “We really can do this.” The basic principle… that I’m attending to is a concept that basically says that “Nothing goes on in the universe around you that isn’t going on inside of you.” So if you want to change what’s going on out there, look in here and make that change. D: That’s what I’ve seen you guys do, because you’re always looking outside for funding and all this. Meanwhile, there’s no energy behind what you were communicating, because you were communicating Clark Kent with investors. He’s just a meek and mild reporter at the Daily Planet. M: And nobody was biting. And if you know that Clark Kent isn’t the real deal, you’re really not going to sell the Clark Kent; you’ll simply get up there and say, “Well, here’s Clark. What do you think?” …No takers ― well, what a shock. What a surprise; whereas, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. And much of that, as I say, reflects on my own struggles with “Can this work? Will this work? Have I made a huge mistake here?” I think it’s reflective of my own breakthroughs in that area. D: That powerhouse that the company is becoming... the company owned it; …but you took it on, not just the company. I have a sense that you see yourself, personally now, as more empowered and more of a thought leader around this whole area. …You can’t separate it out: It happened in the group and it seemed to happen to you. Is that it? M: That’s exactly how I see it, exactly.

224

D: One of the things that I can’t resolve yet in my head …is [that] it’s so odd that what you got reborn to is who you were, or who you said you were. C: That’s not odd at all. I think it happens all the time. People pretend to be what they want to be, but there’s a difference between pretending what you want to be and realizing you can really be what you want to be …and claiming it; because when you’re pretending you’re what you want to be, you’re hiding the fact that you really don’t believe it.

Claiming True Identity and Empowerment

This sub-section explores a further extension of the previous finding, which

focused on claiming, or reconnecting with, the deeper levels of identity. Here, the focus

is on the notion of empowerment as a by-product of claiming one’s core identity. The

core identity, which is rooted more deeply in the Self and in the Community archetypes

than in the provisional ego or Performance Domains, brings with it the power and energy

― the drive ― associated with those deeper, more fundamental, fountainheads of the

psychic and social worlds. In today’s lingo, connection with true identity brings with it an

attendant sense of empowerment.

M: What a feeling of empowerment that’s been for me when talking to the national association, and when they said, “By the way, Matt, we want to take you up on your offer from last year, that you would lead a workshop this year.” …Every year they have these workshops, and it’s always about some different aspect of writing a resume or some new technique in interviewing and bla, bla, bla. I said, no, none of that; what I want to talk about is where are we going as an industry, and her eyes got real big. I said, “That’s what I want to talk about. I outlined it,” and she asked me to write it down and send it because she needs to show that around the association. If they don’t go for it, they don’t go for it. I felt a sense of victory in the fact that I felt so strongly about it that I never hesitated to suggest that that’s it. …That’s how good I feel about this thing: It’s their loss if they don’t. If they do, I’m OK if I get booed off the dais. I learned a lesson, which is they’ll boo me today and praise me tomorrow. Almost

225

every bit of genius ― and I’m not saying this is genius ― but every bit of genius in society is discounted at first, and is later, only in retrospect, seen for what it was. I feel that sure that we as a group are on to something that is revolutionary in the industry. It will change the industry forever by bringing it to a real core competency, by seeing what that core competency is, and speaking it. I can put it this way: 6 months ago, if the proposition was stated to me like this, “Matt, …we’ll give you a topic to speak about …and it’s real controversial, so … people aren’t going to buy into it, and they’re going to think you’re a nut when you do it,” …I might have gone to Puerto Rico, but I certainly would not have been on the dais, because I am pain-avoiding. …And now, even if it’s painful, I’m OK with that because it’s not the same kind of thing as being rejected. …I see it in a whole different context. Maybe it will be good if they laugh me off the podium, because that’ll be a pretty good indication that I’m on the right track. One of the messages that I would like to convey to the industry [is] to awaken to our real missions. I’m going to work a little bit on the Superman/Clark Kent thing because I think we all suffer from that. … It suggests that in life a true superhero can never really be out as such. There must always be an alter ego that is somewhat diminutive and, in a sense, becomes the societal cover. Here’s my next book: The Clark Kent Syndrome. Part of what we all learned is that it’s somehow not OK to be that [i.e., Superman] in common life, in everyday life; you must somehow find your Clark Kent persona and put that on, in order to find acceptability and safety. Remember: Clark Kent was all about safety. He was invulnerable personally, but he had to protect Ma and Pa Kent. He had to protect Lois and all the people who loved him, so he put on this persona that was other than the real self. D: What I hear you saying is: …through this pressure cooker over the last 6 months. …the old mode of operating under the Clark Kent persona of Career Discovery began to crumble, and the group unconscious spoke through that symbol. …It seems like a true community of superheroes emerged at that point, and the question is how to keep it out, so that you don’t retreat back when the crisis passes, to keep remembering what you were about ― thought leaders and powerhouses. M: That’s our challenge.

226

Symbol and Image: Capturing Identity and Complexity

The following data segments illustrate and reflect a core Jungian concept: that

the symbol, the visual image, is an extraordinarily powerful conveyor of a wide spectrum

of information. In this case, symbol served as a powerful, crisp, lucid means to distill,

capture, convey and concretize complex ideas (as in the model) and core levels of

identity. As well, the image is viewed (from the Jungian perspective) as a mediator or

bridge between the conscious and unconscious domains, the literal and the figurative,

the abstract and the concrete, and the cognitive and the emotional domains. Thus, the

image conveys or constellates information from all of those domains.

N: I thought that was a good session where we did finally start to get honest with each other about what we seeing or what we were feeling, …and having to come up with a visual and then explain why that was your visual. …I think it helped, not so much in answering about my own group, but thinking about the other groups. The one [the picture] that sticks with me …was the Newbie’s…, and that the others see them like a freight train just coming in and doing whatever. And that is true, because a lot of times I think that is what is going on with them. They come in and they don’t know what’s been tried, so they don’t ask what’s been tried before and are just doing their own thing. …The visuals really helped because that stayed with me. I don’t remember the words on why they said that, but I’m a very visual person, and the image really stuck. D: It crystallized a lot of things? N: Yes, it captured the whole thing, besides the words that they said. D: That’s why I wanted to use an image. N: Yes, …giving us that task between the visual as well as the words made us do a lot of thinking, even in that short period of time, and the visual stayed with me, and was to the other group ― The Bridge ― which is built into the name anyway. Their perception of where they are and how they got caught in the middle, neither this way nor that way ― that really is true.

227

D: The visual piece seemed to be important; I don’t know why. E: It’s because we’re trainers. Just about everyone in the group has done some type of training, and what happens to many of us as trainers is, we may not understand the models fully, in how it’s written, but what we do understand is when someone puts a visual representation of what’s going on with them, you can see it. The group with the foundation, when they built the foundation with the house, they didn’t leave the house out. They didn’t build just the foundation; they said we need you. That graphic was saying to me that “we need you guys. We’re the foundations, but we need you.” …That’s why I thought it was excellent. What I saw with the Bridge is they were saying that our job is to help both groups. Our job is to bring a connection in the needs of both groups, so that is why the visual works. D: It made it crystallize? E: Yes, it was clear. D: Were you there for when it [the matrix] popped out? S: Yes. D: Something happened there, big, to the group. S: I’m not sure I know what that was. You are absolutely right. Something all of a sudden… This is just a gut feel …but that whole idea of how we might look 5 or 10 years down the pike had never really been there. D: What I’m hearing from everyone is that …there was never any time where it was all distilled and cohesive in one symbol, which brought all of it, visually, to the table. S: That, to my knowledge, is very accurate, which, once again, goes back to your model and the process that we as a group, as a team, never sat down and strategically looked at what we could be and what would all those pieces make us look like. D: People were telling me in the interviews, in the very, very early stages …that we are not a Career Discovery company; we’re a Life Transitions company, and that we want to be in this channel and this channel, and we want to do this and

228

that. So you weren’t living it? S: No, it was just garbage. …What I think happened was, …people would say that “We are life-long learning processes,” …but there wasn’t any substance behind that, meaning, what does that look like if we’re a life-long learning organization? …What are the components? When we went through this matrix and did the exercise with you, then that began to have some substance behind it. It was, “Oh, life-long learning; …these can be the key components and elements of who we are.” Now all of a sudden, that statement had some substance behind it. It had some real meaning other than just using words. D: So ― very concrete? S: Yes, exactly what those kinds of things could look like: the retail, the retirement, and …the television. There were concrete examples of what that statement meant.

Further Dimensions of the Resilient Human System

This section discusses several additional themes that do not fit neatly into the

sections above. These themes include:

o Paradox and Paradigm Shift o The Link Between Individual and Group Development o Alignment with the Self, Security, and Resilience o Community versus “One Big Happy Family” o Synchronicity Paradox and Paradigm Shift

The following data segment explores an intriguing theme: that the shift described

in the Literature Review, between the older, traditional notion of organization and the

model’s vision of a resilient human system, represents a fundamental shift in paradigm

229

― toward a paradigm of living with and integrating paradox:

D: It’s totally a paradox. How can you institutionalize practices and systems that allow a system to escape becoming an institution? Do you know what I’m saying? C: Yeah, but see, the problem is that …people think there shouldn’t be a paradox, that things are black and white. There’s a principle in Buddhism… [that] means “Two, but not two,” and it can be applied to different aspects of life. Life is like a coin; its heads, [its] tails, and it’s both. …It’s a paradigm shift, and then once you see it, I don’t know how challenging it is; it just might be OK. This is just how life is. D: Once you see it. Seeing it is the problem. C: Once you see it doesn’t mean you’re going to permanently see it, but at least… It’s kind of like surfing, I’m not a surfer, but somehow when you discover how to surf, how to get up on top of that wave, then whatever competing dynamics become balanced. Even though you fall, you took a dive, you don’t always surf. D: But you know how to surf. That’s the paradigm shift ― getting to that spot. That’s what you’re talking about here. It is a paradigm shift, a significant one and it’s difficult. C: Surfing is living with paradox.

The Link Between Individual and Group Development

This finding is an intriguing, if somewhat partial and fragmentary, illustration of

the notion, drawn in the Literature Review, that there is an intimate connection between

individual and organizational development:

M: Part of it, always, this company will be a reflection of me, and I can’t deny that. Not always, but certainly in the near term. Part of my personal struggles with identity and fears of success and failure are part of what the company is all about, too, because it is the sum of its parts, but it’s also a reflection of its founder [the interviewee]. So, in some ways, we have been held back by something that I as a Buddhist have been working on for a while, which is my own belief system, which is the

230

fundamental belief that we really can do this. The basic Buddhist principle for all humans that I’m attending to is a concept that basically says that nothing goes on in the universe around you that isn’t going on inside of you. So if you want to change what’s going on out there, look in here and make that change, and [then] that [what’s going on out there] will change, that that is just a mirror; that’s not reality.

Alignment With the Self, Security, and Resilience

The following data segment explores, in a highly telescoped form, the

developmental journey of an interviewee. It sheds light onto the process of realignment

of personal identity, from an ego-centered, provisional identity focused on immediate

survival and achievement within a socially-constructed context (i.e., fitting in with the

Performance Domain of the company within which the interviewee used to work), to an

identity more firmly rooted in the deeper layers of the Self, where (in Jungian thought)

our deepest, truest, identity resides.

In connection with that journey, that realignment, the interviewee discusses an

attendant shift in the locus of security. In the initial stage of the journey, security was

located in “being a good cog in the machine;” i.e., in working hard at enacting a role-

bound, performance-based identity rooted in the socially-constructed PD of his/her

former company, and with the rewards of social approval and economic remuneration.

Security was located externally. The shift toward a deeper alignment with the Self

brought with it an attendant shift in the locus of security – it became located internally, in

a reliance on the energies and activities of the Self-archetype.

G: I said to a friend of mine... they said, “How do you live without a stable paycheck?” I said that it’s very funny, my dad is a professional gambler and I grew up with my mother teaching school. I was so broke as a child that security… I’ve been married to the same guy for 27 years. I’ve moved all over

231

and I’ve worked setting up a corporation. I said that I was so miserable all the time that I hung my hat on that steady paycheck, bigger and bigger every year. I love my life now more than ever, and it’s so strange because, in a very bizarre way, I have more money. And in a strangely bizarre way, I have a better life. The thing that’s really most important to me is being who I am and in control of my life. D: What controlled your life [before]? G: Fitting in. Not being who I am and molding into this… I’m an excellent cog. I made it all the way to a certain level, and then things fell apart. D: No longer the cog. G: Yes, I couldn’t do it. D: That’s what this model is about ― in an organization. G: Yes, I couldn’t do it.

Community Versus “One Big Happy Family”

This sub-section focuses in on a crucial distinction that is often overlooked or

glossed over. The vision of a resilient system as a form of community is very often

misinterpreted as or equated with the notion of a collective where everybody is happy,

well-adjusted, and likes everyone else ― the one big happy family syndrome.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In terms of the model, one big happy

family actually provides an excellent image of the pathology that needs to be overcome.

It is an image of group merger, of psychological enmeshment, where genuine

differences between people are repressed in order to maintain the façade that the family

232

wants to present, where members are often consigned to rigidly-enforced roles,110 and

where interpersonal boundaries are often either significantly distorted or missing

altogether. It also contains within it the seeds of hierarchical, power and control based

relationships (parents and children), and of domination and dependence. It is the

essence of what Scott Peck calls “pseudo-community” (Peck, 1998) and is antithetical to

the Jungian notion of conscious community. The following data segment explores these

concepts.

N: We [ST-ODT] used the phrase somewhere along the way about “one big happy family,” but I don’t know that we ever will be, and I’m okay with that. …I want to work well with people here. I want to feel that they respect me, and I want to respect them. But do we all have to like each other 100% and say we are terrific buddies? …Maybe we can get better in how we do relate, and I would probably say we could, but to say that this is all wonderful and spend all our waking hours together, and that this is a terrific family, so to speak, I don’t know that that is realistic. We are all very different people here. D: I think the family is a very unhealthy image to adopt because it’s parents and children. …And families are role-bound; in fact, they are usually very enmeshed, and the goal of this work is to break the enmeshment, and let each person be a completely separate, adult, individual human being, and let that be okay. So that is completely opposite. N: Right, in that sense, but it is easy to say “one big happy group.” I don’t know that we will ever be one big happy group in that sense either, because there is always going to be personalities and different styles …and everyone is not always going to like everything that is going on. …Sometimes I felt like he [the Chief] wanted this to be just one big, happy, wonderful place. …It seems that maybe that is not appropriate. It’s not realistic, or to me, really necessary. D: That’s certainly not the goal, in my work, anyway. N: We can get much better at working together, and still have things that we don’t like about each other, and that’s reality, but it’s a matter of how you deal with it.

110 These family roles include: the hero, the scapegoat, and the lost child.

233

It’s certainly something that I have had to build into a lot of different situations with working in [the field]. We have to work with individuals, where we …have to treat them with respect. We have to be professional. We have to, even, in some way, get into their head and understand what they did, but that doesn’t mean that you have to like them or even accept their behavior as appropriate. D: That is aligned with the model, and, as you said, the ability to be in their head is related to the issue of empathy, but it doesn’t mean moving into their space. I mean understanding it; and it doesn’t necessarily mean liking it. N: No, and in many cases, you can’t. With some individuals and with certain behaviors, it’s easier to do that with some than with others. You might understand why somebody robbed the bank, but it’s very hard to understand why somebody abused a child, so that is one you just can’t get into. So there will be some things there that you will never be able totally to accept.

Synchronicity

We conclude with an exploration of a Jungian theme that is considered by many

people to be nothing less than “far out.” Jung offered up the notion of synchronicity as a

principle of explanation which supplements material causality; he defined it as “a

coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same or

similar meaning (Jung, 1973).” Jung explained the occurrence of such phenomena by

an a priori, causally inexplicable knowledge, based on an order of the microcosm and

macrocosm, which is independent of our [ego-based] will, and in which the archetypes

play the role of ordering factors (Jacobi, 1973).

Jung attributes synchronistic phenomena to the energies and activities of the

collective unconscious, with the archetype of the Self at its root. Further, he proffered his

observation that the frequency and intensity of such phenomena fluctuates with the flow

of psychic energy between the poles of the ego and the Self. He noted that as energy

flows toward the conscious pole, synchronistic events tend to wane; as energy flows

234

toward the Self, such events tend to wax.

I could easily have decided to overlook or bracket the following two examples of

synchronicity brought to my attention during the interviews, in the interests of making my

work appear, at least, to be a bit less “far out.” To do so, however, would be to ignore

the data, so I decided that inclusion was the more honest route.

C: I think that’s what we were doing, is trying to figure out how can we keep everybody. And then the reality of, we can’t continue this. Something needs to change; otherwise we’re going down the tubes …we’re going to fail at this. It was really serendipitous. I don’t know what day that was, but within a few days, there was a phone conversation …in which Mary wound up saying she would resign. D: Really! C: I was just dumbfounded to find out that instead of having to initiate her departure, she initiated her departure, over some blowup over the phone with Matt. It was like, “Wow, it fell right into our hands.” G: When I talked with a guy in Detroit, he actually used the words “life, learning and transition,’ where the stuff mirrored who we were. D: He came up with that independently in talking about your company? G: Yes …The dialog was around they want to use our web site … [focused on] that second life transition. He was so praising, and said that they were finding that this move towards life, learning and transition is really the most valuable. I said I’m glad you mentioned that, because we see ourselves as a life transition company. D: Another synchronicity. …That’s because you were clear about your core identity. You weren’t just pushing products at him. G: Exactly, we weren’t just “web learning” (because we were talking in terms of technologies). D: So you were never clear about your identity to anybody before? G: No.

235

Summary

The range of themes that emerged in the data analysis was extraordinary,

exhaustive (and exhausting). It is impossible to provide a brief summary of them in

capsule form. In general, the findings are highly concordant with the assumptions of the

model. The findings, however, also provide a few modifications to the model

assumptions, mostly at the nuance level, and provide greater depth, texture and nuance

to several of them. These subtleties, modifications and nuances are explored in depth in

the discussion chapter, in the section entitled Loop Two Discussion.

236

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Introduction

The primary purpose of this chapter is to reflect on the Loop Two findings

presented in the previous chapter. However, Loop One will also be included, with a

lesser degree of emphasis.

As the reader will recall from the previous chapter, we distinguish between

findings and results for Loop One: Results are defined as the practical organizational

outcomes of the Loop One AR activities, while findings are defined as the outcome of

reflection on the utility of the activities and interventions undertaken in the AR cycle. For

purposes of comprehensiveness, we will begin with some important reflections on the

Loop One results for ST-ODT and Life Transitions. Since Loop One is not the primary

focus of the dissertation, the reflection upon Loop One results is fairly abbreviated, while

the Loop Two discussion is much more extensive

Loop One Results Discussion Performance Domain – ST-ODT

As lead researcher, my perception of the results of the Loop One AR work with

ST-ODT includes some additional observations. In connection with work the AR team

did in connection with the Performance Domain (PD),111 it quickly became clear to me

that group members all had slightly differing views of the organization, its purpose and

111 I.e., defining the vision, mission, values, products and services, etc.

237

priorities, and that in some cases, strong feelings were attached to those differences. I

could have chosen to work on creating differentiated conversations immediately, in an

attempt to surface those differences lurking in the AD.

I chose to work on the PD first, rather than move immediately into dealing with

those difficult lurking issues, for several reasons: 1) the group had never to that point

worked together as a total group on any significant group issues; 2) working on PD-

related issues has a strong cognitive flavor and deals with familiar concepts, thus

making it easier and emotionally safer to work on; 3) working on the PD together as a

total group might at least make a small beginning in developing group trust; and 4) a

deep concern that diving headlong into difficult, possibly explosive differences might

destroy whatever emotional connective tissue that already existed and irreparably

damage the group.

Through working on the PD, two things happened simultaneously: 1) the group

began to learn a bit about working together as a complete group, and became more

comfortable with this process; 2) the un-addressed differences emerged slowly, bit-by-bit

over time, until they reached a critical mass, and then the group itself decided to deal

with them. This was the point at which I trained the group in having differentiated

conversations (see methods chapter) and moved into working on the Adaptation Domain

(AD).

Adaptation Domain – ST-ODT

In connection with the Adaptation Domain, I witnessed the beginning of a great

deal of healing. During the work at the library, and at the following team meeting,

238

several group members openly apologized for their behaviors over the last couple of

years; several expressed admiration for the work done by others in a difficult subgroup,

and expressed interest in working on joint projects that include members from the

different subgroups.

Psychic and/or group wholeness ― healing of splits ― comes through

reparation, which occurs in what Melanie Klein calls the depressive position. (Klein,

1975) (Diamond, 1993). Reparation occurs through the withdrawal of projection, which

involves experiencing the fullness of the reality both of the internalized self-object (which

has formerly been split) and of the other, the recipient of our projections. To do this we

must feel. We must experience the feelings associated with those aspects of ourselves

that have been split off. We also must experience the fullness of the other, and as well

how we have violated the personhood of the other; we must fully experience the reality

of the other and of our own violence. This is generally associated with feelings of

depression, guilt and shame because we realize, and experience emotionally, the

violence we have done to ourselves and to others. We realize that the people we have

demeaned or hated or controlled are also people who have contributed to our lives and

perhaps even loved. This includes ourselves as well as others. We experience shame,

guilt, and remorse. We get depressed. We may have to feel older feelings associated

with the original split. This might variously include hurt, anger, rage, anxiety, fear, and

even terror, depending on the intensity of the original event.

If we can tolerate these feelings, and the anxiety of working through them, we

can heal, or repair, our relationships with others, and ultimately, with ourselves. We

239

come to see others and ourselves as whole persons, containing both good and bad

aspects simultaneously.

Klein emphasized that a central aspect of this reparative/healing process

involves the need or desire to create something of value for others, and potentially to

serve others, as a symbolic act of healing or reparation. This feeds back into the work

process, and helps organizational members to reconnect with a sense of meaning and

interconnection with other organizational members or customers. I believe that this is

what I witnessed.

Performance and Adaptation Domains: Life Transitions

My own reflection on the results of the Loop One AR work at Life Transitions

includes the following observations. In connection with the Performance Domain, the

outcomes all centered around making operational changes that enabled the company to

perform its shared task more economically, efficiently and effectively, and with greater

clarity of focus. All of these changes were necessary, but they were not sufficient.

The company ― and the executive team ― was in a rut. It was stuck inside of its

initial flagship product, and could not see outside of it. This product was supposed to

have been the key to a lively future of continual launching of new products; this strategy,

however, was not working. In fact, the company’s survival strategy was beginning to kill

it. My bold move - confronting the team around its identity and the gravity of its situation

― was an attempt on my part to shake up the team, move them beyond their comfort

zone, out of denial, and into new forms of action. I chose to use a visual representation

or symbol, in the form of the matrix, for reasons already outlined in the Methods chapter.

240

The effect was electric. To a person, the team, which had formerly been in a

somewhat desultory, depressed state, suddenly and unexpectedly became totally

energized, animated and excited. It was as if a lid had been removed, and a giant surge

of energy coursed throughout the team. The company President grabbed the picture and

put it up on the wall, and all eyes kept going back to it throughout the remainder of the

session. Ideas began flying around the room, options opened up into view, and before

my very eyes, the company finally became what it was originally intended to be.

The team members told me that none of them had ever seen or discussed the

original vision together as a group. It existed only in fragments, inside of different team

member’s heads, but was never codified or expressed materially or collectively before.

Consequently, it was more of a “theory” than anything else, and it quickly fell into the

background ― into the unconscious Adaptation Domain ― of the group’s operating

modality. The foreground ― the conscious PD ― was utterly consumed with immediate

survival, and with the flagship product as a strategy for that immediate survival. Since

there was no conscious backdrop ― the bigger picture or total vision ― available to the

group as a context for generating options, as matters became more difficult the team

became more and more consumed or preoccupied with making this product work. They

were heading for a “bottom;” I knew it and expressed it.

My confrontation had the effect of moving the original vision, fallen into the

group’s unconscious AD, up into the conscious, shared domain of the PD, where it could

become an object of collective reflection and action. The sense of peril associated with

economic difficulties in effect forced, or strongly prodded, the group to take a risk and

241

make the leap into a new mode of being, rather than remain in its familiar and

comfortable, if dysfunctional, mode. In one dramatic event, the old Life Transitions

(doing business as Career Discovery) died, and the new/ original Life Transitions was

reborn.

In the days that followed, the President created a new presentation targeted at

potential investors and business partners, based on the matrix and the discussions that

happened that day. The company approached its debt owners with this new (original)

vision, and managed to restructure the debt to make it far less burdensome. Since that

time, they have been boldly approaching potential partners and investors in a quest to

realize the original vision.

Loop Two Discussion Introduction

The purpose of the remainder of this chapter is to perform the Loop Two

reflection and learning discussed in the Methods chapter. Loop Two learning is

theoretical, aimed at confirming, refining or improving the framework of thought, belief

and value (i.e., the model) that informed action during the AR cycle. The research

question investigated in Loop Two is “How do participants and facilitator describe the

strengths and limitations of the performance-adaptive model assumptions that guided

collective action within the cycle of action research?” This chapter interprets the findings

presented in Chapter 4 and applies them to the model, drawing on the data collected in

the journal I kept during the AR cycle as an interpretive aid.

242

Even a cursory glance at the findings chapter reveals their richness, range, depth

and diversity. I view this as a reflection of the same characteristics of the model.

Because of this richness and diversity, the discussion below will not exhaustively

examine and interpret each and every nook and cranny of the findings. The reader is

free to pursue such an investigation and interpretation at his or her leisure. Also, many

of the findings above are fairly self-explanatory and do not require much interpretation.

As the reader has undoubtedly noticed, the findings exhibit a remarkable degree

of confirmation of the assumptions of the model developed in the Literature Review. I am

keenly aware of the skepticism of the scientific mind, which might view this degree of

confirmation as inherently suspicious. My experience throughout the entire AR cycle

and interviewing process, however, was that all participants were highly independent-

minded, autonomous adults, who were at no point loathe to disagree, interject, query, or

express doubt; in general, this was a tough crew that was not easily swayed. I believe

that I can say with complete honesty that any aspersions cast on the findings are cast on

the participants themselves.

The questions that guide and focus this discussion of the findings are: What is of

prime significance? What critical points must be made? What is novel or unexpected -

and important? What is the implication of the findings for the model?

As mentioned at the beginning of this dissertation, the answers to these

questions are offered in a spirit of humility, which is at the core of complex learning. The

data could have been analyzed and interpreted from several different perspectives or

interpretive frameworks and, depending on the perspective, yield differing meaning

243

structures and conclusions. The interpretation presented here is rooted in the model

developed in the literature review, and attempts to critique and refine it.

Structure of the Loop Two Discussion

We will begin with a detailed discussion which draws from a number of themes

from the findings, weaving them together into a reduced, more selective, more focused

set of meta-themes which I believe are of primary importance to the model. This

discussion attempts to penetrate more deeply into certain key facets of the model, and to

bring greater illumination to them, at a richer and more nuanced level of meaning. This

discussion is presented in the section entitled Detailed Discussion of Findings.

Following this, a tentative model of group development will be introduced, which

is derived from the findings in the previous chapter, the detailed discussion just

mentioned, and the data I collected in the journal I kept during the action research

process.

Finally, the discussion chapter is capped off with a slightly revised model of

resilient human systems, including a brief highlight of key elements and revisions, and a

brief summary of implications for organizational leaders and consultants.

Detailed Discussion of Findings

The key meta-themes selected for in-depth reflection, interpretation and learning

include:

o Conceptual Clarity vs. Situational Complexity

o Wholeness, Splitting, Pain and Healing

244

o Alignment: With the PD, With Self, With Community, With the Greater Good

o Death and Rebirth

o Building the Enabling Container

o Intimacy and the Resilient Human System

o The Differentiated/Integrated System: Conscious Community

All of the relevant data in support of these themes are presented in Appendix N:

Loop Two Discussion ― Themes and Relevant Data. There are relevant data in support

of all themes except the first. For some themes, the supporting data are presented in a

particular order, paralleling a logical interpretive sequence or argument presented in the

discussion.

Conceptual Clarity Versus Situational Complexity

It is clear from the findings that while theories aim at conceptual clarity and clear

conceptual boundaries, the world itself is muddy and complex; real situations draw

outside the lines. Organizations, groups and individuals do not fall neatly into either/or

classifications around conceptual distinctions such as commitment and compliance,

repression and suppression, performance and adaptation, merger and differentiation.

Rather, they are more of a complex admixture of all of them, operating simultaneously ―

within the same organization or group, and sometimes within the same individual.

This does not, however, nullify the utility of the concepts (the assumptions)

themselves. All participants in the interviews expressed general agreement with them ―

as useful and insight-generating ― and described in some detail how they played out in

245

the organization or group or within individuals (including the interviewees themselves),

and how application of them led to positive change. The learning here focuses on the

need to apply these principles and assumptions with sensitivity and granularity, and

cautions against the use of broad brushstrokes and black-and-white characterizations.

Wholeness, Splitting, Pain and Healing

This section reflects on the findings in relation to the model’s proposition that

living, evolving, resilient human systems are a union of complementary polarities, and

that their developmental arc can be characterized as a movement from unconscious

internal splitting and incoherence to conscious wholeness and coherence. We begin with

a discussion of the notion of wholeness, and follow it with a discussion of splitting, pain

and healing.

Wholeness

The data segments presented in Appendix N (under the heading of Wholeness)

echo a common theme: a living, evolving, resilient human system must be viewed as a

single coin with two inseparable, integrated and complementary sides. The primary

theoretical polarity is between the masculine and feminine principles, which characterize,

respectively, a Performance Response and an Adaptive Response in a human system.

The balances mentioned ― between stability and creativity/diversity, between driving

forward and being reflective about the big picture, and around missing components of

the spectrum of capabilities (mentioned in the first segment) ― are all facets of this

central and fundamental polarity.

246

Splitting, Pain, and Healing

Several conversations, presented in Appendix N, all refer to the splitting of ST-

ODT into subgroups, which began to be directly and openly addressed during the

exercise at the library. From a theoretical perspective, each of the two conflicting groups

(the Foundation and the Newbies) was consciously owning one end of the primary

conceptual polarity at the base of the model, and projecting the disowned side of the

polarity onto the other. The Foundation group owned the inherent conservatism and

stability (and perhaps rigidity) of the Performance Domain, while disowning the

inherently restless, divergent, developmental energies of their own Adaptation Domain.

The Newbies reversed the polarity, owning the creative, imaginative, divergent (and

perhaps reckless) energies of the AD, while disowning the need for stability, and for

slow, patient progress needed by the organization-at-large (and perhaps themselves) in

order to feel safe.

In both cases, each sub-group had some (semi-conscious) inkling of this, as

revealed in their symbolic representations of how they guessed the other sub-group

viewed them. The purpose of these drawings was an attempt to capture, in symbolic

form, some key dimensions of each subgroup’s shadow. The Newbies drew a picture of

a speeding, runaway train, while the Foundation drew a picture of a very large,

immovable boulder: The conflictual nature of the subgroup conflict (formerly in the

shadow within the AD) could thus be symbolized as a runaway train heading straight for

a gigantic boulder. “Ouch!”

The reference to pain in one of the data segments presents the impression that

247

only one group was in pain, and did not have the capacity to heal itself. In my

experience, both subgroups were in pain; both felt devalued, under-appreciated, in

conflict, and held some degree of resentment toward the other. This was obvious to me

throughout the entire course of the AR cycle. Each side owned half the pain (contained

in the shadow): one side was an immovable boulder; the other side was a reckless, out-

of-control train. The combined image is one of great collective pain.

Here, the healing, or movement toward group wholeness (as well as subgroup

healing), would be for each subgroup to become aware of its projected shadow side, to

own it (take responsibility for it), and then to integrate it. Interestingly, the symbolic

representations produced by each subgroup included the seeds of such development.

The Foundation subgroup represented itself as the foundation of a structure. As

noted above in the Findings, the image they drew was not just the foundation; it included

the entire structure. Their symbolic representation reflected a (probably not entirely

conscious) awareness of the need for wholeness within the group, and of their role in it.

The Newbies represented themselves as seekers, or wanderers, in a rugged and

mountainous, but beautiful terrain, with a large sun in the distance. Conspicuously

missing, however, was a home ― a place of shelter, safety and conviviality. They were

homeless, wandering seekers in a vast, open-ended terrain. What would happen to them

in the event of a terrible snowstorm? Finally, the third subgroup represented themselves

as the Bridge ― a reflection of their awareness of the group splitting, and of their role in

it. A bridge provides a way to leave home and head out for open terrain, and also a way

back home for exhausted pioneers.

248

I interpret this thread of meaning as a confirmation of the idea that a resilient,

living, evolving human system must consciously own and integrate both fundamental

polarities, however one chooses to phrase it: it must perform both Task One and Task

Two; it must have a strong performance orientation and domain, and an activated,

enabled adaptive orientation and domain; it must integrate stability and creativity; it must

equally own and integrate the masculine and feminine principles.

Alignment & Commitment: With the PD, Self, Community, and the Greater Good

This section also deals with a somewhat complex topic: the essence and

dynamics of alignment and commitment ― both within an individual and within a human

system. This topic is examined from several perspectives. It may (or may not) be clear

from the title of this section that a core issue here will be the relationship between

committed alignment, and finding and living out our core identity ― as individuals and as

members of the human collective.

The previous section discussed the fact that interpersonal and inter-group

conflicts arise from the banging together the percussion of narrowly-constricted,

wounded, ego-centered identity constructions, in which significant portions of the shared

elements of our shared humanity are repressed into the unconscious. Percussive

encounters with repressed elements of our shared humanity in others (through the

mechanism of projection) are a two-sided experience: the initial bang hurts, because we

encounter (in others) the pain associated with those same repressed aspects of our

249

selves;112 once we get past that initial shock, though, there is a real potential for healing,

because if we face and work through that pain, we discover and re-integrate more of our

Selves, and we discover as well more of our shared, common humanity. We discover

our Selves, and Community.

Here, we are also discussing the ego-Self dialectic (and that of its correlate, the

PD-AD dialectic), but extending it a bit: the central issue here includes the source of

identity and meaning, but also includes the dynamics of how the location of that source

of identity and meaning plays itself out in workplaces.

This discussion is supported by six data segments, presented in sequential order

in Appendix N, under the heading Alignment & Commitment: With the PD, Self,

Community, and the Greater Good. The following discussion references these data

segments by number. It is not crucial to read the data segments in parallel with the

interpretive flow in order to understand it; however, the data segments are included in

this document if the reader is interested in following along.

The first data segment addresses one of the core paradoxes of the model: true

alignment and commitment within a human system113 depends to a great extent upon

dis-identification with the Performance Domain (PD), which is simply a temporary

medium of exchange and relation with customers and the environment within a given,

temporary context. That is, the deepest and ‘truest’ source of systemic identity should

112 That pain might possibly include hurt, abandonment, shame, anger, and/or guilt. 113 With a task responsibility.

250

not be conflated with the narrowly focused, provisional, social construction of the PD.

But if the PD does not provide or confer identity and meaning, what does?

The second data segment begins to shed some light on the answer. The

individual being interviewed mentions the idea of aligning with the super nature.

Interpreted through a Jungian lens, this is an allusion to the difference between believing

that our identity is rooted in (and limited to) the ego, and believing that it is rooted in the

Self-archetype. As discussed in the Review of the Literature, the ego is provisional,

temporary, and to some extent a social construction. It is focused (largely) on survival

within a context.114 It is a product of our early struggles to survive in the context in which

we were raised. It is affected (and constrained) by the values and taboos of our families,

schools, neighborhoods, religions, culture, and nationality. It is contextual, and obsessed

with control.

The Self, on the other hand, is the transpersonal objective psyche, as Jung

described it, common to every human being. In Jungian thought, is the ultimate source

of identity and meaning, because it contains, and seeks expression of, the fullness of

human experience, and human capacity, as accumulated over the eons. It is the seat of

the soul and of human spirit, and seeks to fulfill itself, to the extent possible, through the

vehicle of the ever-expanding, but ultimately limited, individual ego. In other words, each

person, while still unique and limited, is the vehicle though which the Self seeks its

fulfillment, and to enact the deeper, transpersonal layers of identity and meaning within

each human being (Jung, 1978). This paradox is the source of our capacity both for

251

individual uniqueness and for sharing in our common humanity.

The same holds true at the system level: The Performance Domain (PD) is a

provisional social construction that provides a provisional, limited sense of shared

‘identity’ to system members, but is focused, for the most part, on immediate survival in

its context. Just as the ego represses much of the Self, the PD represses (or

suppresses) much of the vast range of capacity, meaning and identity of the system, i.e.,

that which is unrelated to the issues of that immediate survival, and immediate

gratification. The root of the system is the (repressed or suppressed) archetype of

Conscious Community. This archetype, like the Self, is the ultimate, numinous source of

meaning and identity for the system; and, like the Self, seeks the fulfillment or wholeness

of the system. In this case, fulfillment would mean conscious integration of differences

and latent capacities, both conscious and unconscious.

The second data segment illustrates the shift in dynamics that occurs when the

seat of identity shifts from the PD to the AD (with its ultimate roots in the numinous

archetype of community). When systemic identity is utterly conflated with, or embedded

in, the PD, differences are threatening. Of course they are because, like in the case of

the individual ego, differences from the shared norm call into question the narrowly-

constricted, PD-centered, provisional identity of the system. When, however, the system

embraces the deeper layers of the AD, the ultimate driving force of meaning, purpose

and identity rooted in connection to and relation with the larger whole, and to being of

service to that larger whole, those differences become enriching.

114 I.e., on Task One.

252

The third data segment chronicles the travels of an individual who successfully

traversed the journey from alignment with the limited, ego-centered concerns of

individual survival and achievement in the social/economic playing field, to alignment

with the deeper, purpose, meaning and relationship-centered Self. The commitment and

energy displayed by this individual is directly related to the alignment between the

ultimate purpose and meaning of the organization and his/her own source of meaning

and purpose; and further, that both of those are rooted more in service to (relationship

with) community115 than in the immediate, individual gratifications of the ego, or in the

immediate survival gratifications of the PD.

When this individual mentions that “there was a cost involved’ in belonging to the

personal products company, this alludes to a loss of Self ― to an inability to find a

legitimate, and accepted, place for his/her growing need for greater connection to the

deeper layers of meaning and purpose ― aligned with the Self ― within the context of

that organization. There is also an implication that perhaps the organization itself

suffered from a loss of soul: its identity, purpose and meaning were perhaps too-tightly

circumscribed by the immediate pressures and gratifications of PD enactment; i.e., by

economic survival and achievement.

The fourth data segment brings in another layer of complexity, of potential

modification, to our thinking. It points to the possibility that commitment and alignment

might potentially bypass the problem of alignment with the PD. It points to the possibility

115 A manifestation of a rooting of the identity in the Self, which seeks expression of the totality of the individual in relation to the whole, e.g., to the human collective.

253

that alignment and commitment, to and among members of a system, are possible in

spite of a poor alignment with the limited, narrowly constricted, purpose, meaning and

contents of the PD. In this case, some individuals might be able to jump past the issue of

a problematic alignment with the PD, by moving directly into the substrate of human

community as the source of meaning, purpose, commitment and alignment. That is,

perhaps we can root our shared activities and relationships in the bare fact of our shared

humanity, and in the meaning (and ethically-based commitment) that that conveys. This

sort of commitment, alignment, purpose and meaning is trans-organizational (or trans-

PD): it does not depend on any particular, limited social construction as delimited by a

PD.

It is important to acknowledge this finding and its implications for the model. At

the same time, I believe it is vitally important not to over-emphasize its relevance. Taken

in isolation, it could provide leaders of organizations with what would amount to an

excuse: “Look, it doesn’t matter what kind of organization I run or how I treat my

employees. They should be committed, just because it’s the right thing to do!” I believe

that such an interpretation would widely miss the mark of truth; in fact, it would represent

just another rationalization for the continuance of compliance-based, repressive,

oppressive, exploitative human systems. Common sense should rule, not justification for

avoidance of the developmental imperative.

Taken in context with the totality of the findings, a fairer interpretation might be

rooted in an examination of the dynamics and tensions of the ego-Self and PD-AD

polarities. There are certainly individuals who are capable of committed, aligned shared

254

action and focus, regardless of the situation in which they find themselves. The key point

is that such commitment is given despite, not because of, and not as enabled or

supported by, the social context in which they operate. What is also acknowledged in the

above data segment is that the context is in fact problematic (in the eyes of the

interviewee): “We want the organization to represent something that is a positive. We

want the organization to be very consistent with a lot of the programs that we present.”

Well, it wasn’t.

This statement expresses a human need, a yearning, for alignment with the

organization, and in the eyes of this individual, it is to some extent lacking. This

particular individual is apparently capable of bracketing that problematic issue, and

working beyond it, so to speak. Most individuals in the interviews did not express such a

capacity or willingness; in fact, all other interviewees who spoke to this issue expressed

the opposite viewpoint: their capacity and willingness to respond to their organizational

context was negatively impacted by a lack of alignment between the PD and their own

deepest needs and values. In fact, two individuals mentioned that they left organizations

precisely because of this lack of deeper alignment, which brings us to the fifth data

segment.

The images of fitting in or being a cog in the organizational machine (in the fifth

data segment) express the core problem addressed by the model: many/most

organizations operate in a manner that requires individual system members to repress

themselves and box themselves in ― to a very significant and often deeply painful

extent ― as the price of membership. This is the essence of repressive systems that

255

gain alignment via the mechanism of compliance. The payoff is the steady paycheck,

social status and the perception of security; the price is loss of self, loss of soul, and loss

of commitment.

In Jungian terms, this is the modus operandi of an individual (and also of a

human system) that has repressed, that has lost touch with, its deeper layers of identity,

motivation and meaning: in the case of the individual, it is a disconnection from the Self;

in the case of a system, it is a repressed AD, and more specifically, repression of its

roots in the numinous, meaning-filled, activities and energies of the archetype of human

community.

Continuing in the Jungian perspective, the individual in the fifth data segment

describes their experience when their ego-centered, survival-driven, adaptive stance

wore out, so to speak, and their deepest inner need for Self-expression took

precedence. This person was unable to maintain their machine-like, role-bound stance,

and in spite of their fears about loss of security, realized that they must move into deeper

alignment with the calling of the soul ― the cry of the Self to become the driving force in

their life. This person went through his/her own personal experience of Death and

Rebirth.

At that point, this individual joined forces with an organization (Life Transitions)

that was, perhaps, economically insecure, but was aligned with a deeper and higher

purpose than simple economic gain: to provide genuine aid to individuals in deep need,

in deep pain, as they move through major life transitions. Paradoxically, this individual

gained a different kind of security through placing their reliance on the deeper,

256

transpersonal, non-egoic (and hence non-controllable and non-predictable) energies,

activities and unfolding of the Self. Expressed in somewhat religious terms, this

individual let go of their ego-based drive for control, and for the false security it longs to

achieve, and cast themselves upon a Higher Power (the Self) with its non-rational, non-

predictable, patterns of emergence. This is the essence of the psychological meaning of

the traditional religious call to trust God, who works in mysterious ways. Placing reliance

and trust upon the energies and activities of the Self allows for the possibility of letting go

of the fundamentally controlling, protectionist stance of the ego. This individual found an

organization (Life Transitions) that was in contact with the same operating mode.

The sixth data segment, while fragmentary, alludes to a phenomenon that

(according to Jungian thought) is also intimately connected to the relativization of the

ego and to a psychic shift toward alignment with the deeper currents and activities of the

Self: synchronicity. In the deeper (and perhaps more esoteric) layers of Jungian thought,

the deepest layer of psyche is viewed as a transpersonal, interconnected psychoid field

that permeates the human community and perhaps even the material world itself. It

operates beyond the conscious awareness of the ego, and in its permeating

connectivity, shapes the unfolding of events according to unpredictable-yet-discernable

archetypal patterns and designs, seeking fulfillment of the human collective. This is an

essentially religious (and hence highly controversial) root of Jungian thought.

Synchronicity is viewed as a manifestation of the activities of the Self, or of this

interconnecting and permeating psychoid field.

The frequency of synchronistic events, according to Jung, fluctuates loosely with

257

the direction of the flow of psychic energy: as psychic energy becomes directed toward

and bound up in the ego, synchronistic events tend to wane and perhaps even

disappear. As a stronger and deeper connection (alignment) with the Self is made ―

and energy flows toward the psychic pole of the Self ― synchronistic events tend to

manifest with greater frequency and impact. My interpretation is that the two separate,

independently-reported synchronistic events reflect a deeper connection being made

within the group to the deeper, more meaningful currents within the group’s AD.

Death ― and Rebirth

This section focuses on the core assumption of the model that the equilibration

process is characterized by the archetypal image of Birth, Death, and Rebirth. The

illustrative data, presented in Appendix N under the heading Death ― and Rebirth, is

drawn from the interviews with members of the Life Transitions executive team.

When Life Transitions was born (when the original two or three members got

together and decided to form a company), the founder (Matt) had a vision: to help

individuals move through major life transitions. In those first days, weeks and months,

the core identity of the company, its real mission, was alive and vibrant. To launch the

company with an initial product and provide a revenue stream, they financed the

purchase of an existing, but somewhat moribund product ― Career Discovery. Selling

and servicing Career Discovery was the survival strategy, but the mission was broader

and deeper.

As time passed, the energies, activities, structures and focus of the company

began to coalesce around Career Discovery, not life-long learning and transitions. A

258

provisional PD began to form. As more time passed, and the company continued in

bare survival mode, making just enough revenue to keep it alive but not enough to

finance any new product launches, the original motivating vision (and the energy,

passion and commitment associated with it) began to fade into the background, and

finally more-or-less disappeared. It fell into the AD. It was there, but not activated, not

energized; it became perceived as disconnected from the real business of the company

― economic survival. The original vision became latent, untapped, and undeveloped.

Depression followed.

Buried deep in Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities is the

definition of an adaptive capability entitled Purpose and Meaning, which is defined as the

capability to retain the original motivating energy, purpose and passion that is behind the

“mission statement” hanging on the wall. What took its place was an exclusive focus on

its complementary performance capability, Economics, which is defined as the capability

to foster enterprise-wide understanding of financial fundamentals and goals as well as

widespread stewardship of financial resources. In short, it is the capability to keep the

ship afloat economically.

In Jungian terms, the two capabilities, when conjoined, form a necessary alloy.

When split (and one of the two is repressed into the AD), neither is sufficient, and in fact

become contaminated with shadow from the repressed AD. The focus on economics

became a dry, meaningless, even stultifying and entrapping, repetitive cycle ― the

Career Discovery treadmill. Additionally, two other adaptive competencies fell into the

AD in the company’s narrow, tightly-focused preoccupation with immediate survival:

259

Imaginative Visioning, and Innovation. The company became precisely what its

members were trying to escape from by launching the business in the first place.

The company became entrapped in its (rapidly becoming outmoded) survival

strategy ― its perceived source of security, through a slow-but-sure process of

unconscious identification with it, and through a forgetting of the original core identity

and vision. Like Linus with his shopworn blanket or the heroin addict with his needle,

Career Transitions could or would not let go of Career Discovery.

However, like all addicts do, the company hit bottom. The survival strategy, the

provisional identity, was becoming more and more like a pair of concrete shoes. If group

members could not take off those shoes ― and soon ― Career Transitions would sink

into the sea of business oblivion. A terrible fear of death (mostly unexpressed, of course)

lurked in the air. But since it was unexpressed, this fear could not become an object of

conscious reflection. The fear was that Career Transitions would die, but the absolutely

key point to be made is this: the group had forgotten its core identity, and could not see

that what had to die was only its provisional PD ― its intense focus on Career Discovery

as its sole survival strategy. And in a profound irony, this blinkered protectionist stance

was most assuredly going to guarantee the company’s death! This situation is at the

heart of the saying repeated throughout this study:

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. – Luke 17:34 (Barker, 1985, p. 1574)

Group members could not see this because of their unconscious identification

with the (ultimately provisional) PD. Again, this is why dis-identification with the PD is so

critical: it is impossible to reflect on, and thus possibly change, something that has not

260

yet become an object of consciousness. If one is embedded in (identified with) a partial

psychic content, one is subject to it: one is its slave (Kegan, 1982). Being a slave is no

fun, especially when the master is not even helping you all that much, even to survive.

Under great stress, and with some additional pressure and mirroring added by

the lead researcher, a unifying symbol emerged, which elegantly and simply captured

the totality of the original vision, the ground-bed of meaning and purpose for the

company. The group “leapt toward the theory and said, ‘We’ve got to make this not a

theory.’” Group members moved from understanding it to living it. The theory became

embodied, integrated, owned. The group took responsibility for its original, and true,

identity.

When this happened, there was a sudden liberation of (repressed) energy; the

energy associated with that original passion and purpose, but which had fallen fallow in

the AD. Career Transitions was reborn as a newly-empowered Career Transitions, the

life-long learning and transitions company, as group members finally became dis-

identified with Career Discovery, their provisional PD construction. Linus put down his

blanket; the heroin addict threw away his needle. The paralytic “took up his bed and

walked.” And with the lifting of repression, there was a concurrent lifting of depression.

Building the Enabling Container

This section is supported by five data segments, presented in Appendix N under

the heading Building the Enabling Container.

A key foundation for building safety and trust within a group is built through

adoption of communication practices that foster differentiated relationships and

261

communications, which aid in the enactment of accurate interpersonal boundaries, and

in the withdrawal of projection, blame and negative attributions at the individual and

subgroup levels (Rosenberg, 1999; Short, 1998). This kind of communication and

relational behavior fosters the taking of responsibility for (or “owning”) one’s own

perceptions, emotions, and behaviors. These practices, while critically important (see

first data segment below), have both their strengths and their challenges, both for

individuals and groups.

The default setting for groups is to repress differentiation and to scapegoat,

isolate, punish or even expel individuals and subgroups for so doing. The reasons for

this were described earlier in this chapter. Thus, in a group operating in the default

setting, differentiation is inherently risky which is why it is definitely not the norm. The

second and third data segments attest to that.

However, as the first data segment bluntly points out, operating in the default

setting ― of group merger or group-think ― is disastrous for any company, organization

or group that must adapt, and adapt quickly, to rapidly-changing marketplace conditions.

To my mind, in today’s world this means most companies, organizations and groups.

This calls for a change, in both thinking and practice. My thesis, which I believe

the data support, is that this change must take place at the system level, and not by a

handful of pioneers or lone rangers, who for the most part will not be successful at

making an impact on the organization-at-large. They may be successful on occasion, but

in the vast majority of cases, they will be scapegoated ― put into detention for

reeducation, or expelled.

262

The change called for starts with a change in perspective ― in thinking. The

total system must view itself as a human community with a shared, co-owned task

responsibility, rather than as an organization. This latter perspective, in the view of the

model, reflects the (mostly unconscious) belief that the system is the organization; that

is, the system is totally identified with (and thus limited by) the PD. As mentioned earlier,

when a human system is totally identified with the PD, differences from the shared

construction of the PD are inherently threatening, because they call into question that

shared notion of identity, with its limited and limiting set of socially-constructed norms

and practices. This situation effectively blocks any chance of making real change, even

when required to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

This change in perspective must be coupled with a change in relational practices.

The total system must adopt practices that embrace the individual as such (rather than

as an interchangeable task performer, or “cog in the machine”), and which enable and

support growth in that direction. This calls for practices that support and enable the

growth of safety and trust, and the enactment of accurate boundaries, so that individuals

and groups can differentiate, which is the natural and normal course of human

development. These practices have already been described. Further, it calls for active

management of system-level repressive processes, which are detailed in Appendix F.

Intimacy and the Resilient Human System

This section is very much related to the preceding one. The two conversations in

Appendix N (under the same heading) carry both the promise and the challenges in the

core idea that in a resilient organization, the PD must remain an object of continuous

263

reflection, negotiation and change among system members. The PD is a malleable

subject of conversation among differentiated individuals, rather than a predetermined

and imposed given. This implies a kind of intimacy not generally found in business or

government institutions, in which the individual has systemically-legitimated permission

to bring their own individual needs to the table, even when they differ from the current

structure of the PD, without being shamed or shut down. This is antithetical to the cog in

the machine perspective on system members as interchangeable role performers.

Again, this cannot happen apart from a systemic dis-identification with the PD. As

mentioned, a PD that has not yet become an object of conscious reflection is doomed to

be immutable. It also calls for a new level of relational maturity, which is fostered to a

degree by the communications practices already mentioned.

Two theoretical (as well as practical) issues are mentioned in the data segments:

What is the size limit of a human system that could successfully carry off such a stunt?

What are the limits of PD negotiability? That is, what aspects, if any, of the PD should be

immutable? I don’t have definitive answers to these questions; obviously further

research is required.

I do have some reflections and positions, though. First, I would tend to err on the

side of “the larger the better.” I have a concern similar to one expressed earlier: the

desire to avoid the pain, difficulty and challenge involved in attempting to move toward

this vision might (and will) be couched/hidden in (apparently quite rational) objections

related to organizational size, when the real issue is avoidance of development. Fractal

and other leading-edge organizational designs might provide a path for investigation of

264

the size issue.

In connection with the second question, I would think that the PD might be

conceived in terms of layers or strata. The top layer is the least connected to identity,

and thus the least difficult to engage in a conversation around. The bottom layer

contains those aspects of the PD that are most deeply embedded and connected most

directly with current notions of collective identity, and thus most difficult to change.

The top layer might be limited to the Task Structure. The next layer down, if my

assessment has any merit, might be the Task Competencies. The third layer down might

be the Task Focus. The bottom layer might consist of the Culture. It is quite possible that

I’ve mixed up the layers in terms of the depth of their embeddedness.

Such layering might drive the timing, frequency and degree of engagement

involved in re-negotiating their construction. But it should not limit them, in my opinion.

Ultimately, everything should be on the table. As de Geus has noted, several

companies with the greatest longevity have successfully moved through multiple

changes in conscious, shared identity over, in some cases, several hundred years

(de Geus, 1997). Obviously, fundamental notions of systemic identity somehow were put

on the table as an article of discussion and negotiation. Interestingly, de Geus also noted

that in such cases, the companies/ systems tended to identify themselves more strongly

with the notion of community than with any particular business focus.


This interpretive theme is fairly complex, and revolves around a paradox:

individual and subgroup differences and difficult issues, which are often or even

265

generally perceived as threatening to group and/or organizational integrity (and therefore

repressed), are in fact the source of organizational integrity, as well as organizational

aliveness ― the ability to create, to grow, to innovate, to develop ― in short, the ability

to respond to the world in a resilient, empowered manner. This theme is explored in

some depth; it is based on four data segments presented in Appendix N (under the

same heading).

There’s a lot going on here, among the four data segments presented in

Appendix N, but it all fits together, theoretically. Group merger is a social-psychological

by-product of incomplete psychological development, i.e., incomplete or inadequate

differentiation of the self from the world, especially within the social world. Underneath it

is an unconscious (and false) assumption: both you and I are psychologically identical,

and therefore both you and I are (or should be) comfortable and happy with each other,

because we mirror (and thus validate) each other. Actual interpersonal differences pose

a threat to that and have the potential to invalidate or dis-equilibrate the ego’s current

identity-construction. Therefore, as a defense, our unconscious default setting tends

toward denial, repression and control of differences, toward the one big happy family

syndrome, and toward an unspoken assumption (or imposition) of an easy, painless

commonality. All of these fantasies block effectiveness because they are attempts to live

in unreality.

Dealing effectively with differences is an invitation ― no, a call ― to grow. It is a

call to own and re-integrate difficult, uncomfortable or painful aspects of the self that

have been repressed into the shadow and projected onto others in the social world,

266

where they are encountered as difficult, uncomfortable or painful individuals or social

groups:

Seen from within … [multiplicity] is a state of inner fragmentation involving a number of relatively autonomous complexes [within the unconscious] which, when touched by the ego, …make the individual realize that he is not one but many. From the external standpoint, multiplicity is manifested by the exteriorization or projection of parts of the individual psyche into the outer world. In this condition one finds his friends and his enemies, his hopes and his fears, his sources of support and his threats of failure, concretized in outer persons, objects, and events. (Edinger, 1992, pg. 174) (Emphasis added)

As mentioned previously, inner multiplicity or inner fragmentation is a way of

expressing the idea of poor (hostile, adversarial) intra-psychic relations ― a lack of inner

coherence and wholeness. If this idea is conjoined with Jung’s observation that “to the

degree that he does not admit the validity of the other person, he denies the ‘other’

within himself the right to exist ― and vice versa. The capacity for inner dialogue is a

touchstone for outer objectivity” (Jung, 1960/1969), then you have a strong basis for the

proposal that there is a very deep correspondence between intra-psychic and social

relations. Indeed, inner multiplicity and social multiplicity (fragmentation or incoherence)

may be mirrors of each other.

As the AR work proceeded around building alignment with a co-constructed

Performance Domain, difficult, uncomfortable, painful repressed issues and

interpersonal/inter-group differences began to emerge. With the small company, those

differences and issues began to be acknowledged in regular AR team meetings all along

the way, and were enabled (made safer) through the use of differentiated

communications practices (Short, 1998). The pictorial work done the library with the

267

governmental group (which also included the same practices) included four sub-goals:

1. To foster clear differentiation of subgroup identities from out of the assumed

collective “identity,” i.e., to break up the influence of group merger.

2. To foster a clear, differentiated discussion of how each subgroup perceived the

other groups and their behavior, and the impact of that behavior on each

subgroup.

3. To foster withdrawal of inter-subgroup projections and shadow materials, and

owning subgroup behaviors and attitudes (i.e., withdrawing blame and taking

responsibility).

3. To enhance and improve inter-group relationships as a by-product of achieving

the first three sub-goals.

The point was to create conditions and practices that would foster movement

away from repressive management of social multiplicity (the fragmentation of the total

group into conflicting subgroups), and toward suppressive management of this

multiplicity. In other words, the point was to develop a container where unexpressed

differences and projections could safely be made explicit, acknowledged and owned,

and addressed directly, in an above-board manner.

The paradox is that, as safety and permission was created to allow differences

and issues to emerge explicitly (i.e., for the natural process of differentiation to occur,

and movement from repressive to suppressive management), group members began to

make several surprising discoveries. First, they discovered their own, and others,

unique individual and/or subgroup contribution and value. Second, at the very same

268

moment they discovered their shared humanity, which includes strengths and

weaknesses, light and shadow which no longer had to be hidden from view. Third, they

discovered that they did in fact share a common alignment with the core purpose or soul

of the group/organization. As more of the various selves within the group became

available, both to the individual and the group, through the withdrawal of projection and

through taking ownership of one’s own experience and behavior, group members

experienced an increased sense of richness, diversity and cohesion. Theoretically, this

represents a glimpse of the emergence of the archetype of conscious community:

The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the [collective] unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind. Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of humanity. (Jung, 1954/1966, para. 227).

A Tentative Model of Group Development:

The section presents a tentative model of group development, based on the

findings presented in chapter 4 and the detailed discussion above, combined with

material drawn from the journal I kept during the action research (AR) cycle (including

observations, insights, and interpretations). It is a rough, initial attempt to trace the

developmental process of a group with a shared task ― a small human system ― that

has decided to deal with its internal problems, conflicts and differences. It represents a

kind of distillation of my observations during the AR cycle, and of my learning during

analysis of the raw data and interpretation of the findings. As is already clear, it is offered

in the spirit of deep humility and desire to learn; no pretense is made of completeness.

Given all that, I believe that it contains some valuable insights and material for continued

269

learning and investigation. As usual, I would like to begin with a graphic/verbal

representation (below):

The graphic above appears to show three distinct stages of development; it is

important to note, however, that the distinctions are primarily conceptual. While I do

believe that the progression of development proceeds generally from left to right, I also

recognize that all three states can co-exist, and that the process of movement is

interpenetrating (all three states can co-exist, but with differing degrees of salience in the

operation and dynamics of the group); further, the process is characterized by much

270

back-and-forth movement. They might be better characterized as states of being or

modes of operation.

A key aspect of the model is its investigation into repressive processes that block

access into its latent adaptive material, and into processes that facilitate its access and

integration. The intent is to build a group-level transcendent function which can develop

group awareness of polarities and differences within the group, and work toward a

creative integration or synthesis of them, in service of developing greater levels of

resilience and effectiveness. This ability to tap into latent group materials, to develop

them and integrate them into the group’s performance domain, is a foundational element

of what I have termed the Co-Individuating Group.

A fundamental issue for groups is that it is impossible to access, much less

integrate, differences or oppositions that are not explicitly acknowledged in the first

place. Thus, group merger, or lack of psychological differentiation, is a fundamental

phenomenon that blocks access to adaptive materials within groups. It produces

excessive conformity and regressive behavior, which effectively blocks access to

individual differences, which is the primary key to unlocking access to adaptive

materials. As you will recall, the performance domain is primarily characterized by

alignment and shared perspectives. This is the domain of group focus and alignment

around the current survival task. The adaptation domain, however, is fundamentally

characterized by alternatives ― by differences, by lack of alignment.

Thus, social-psychological processes of group merger, of repression of

individuality, are a primary problem in being able to gain access to resources needed to

271

undergo adaptive, transformational change. A key mechanism for gaining increased

access to adaptive materials is development of group communications processes116

targeted at creating differentiated interactions. These communications processes are

aimed at diminishing the effects of group merger, and at creating increased access to a

greater range of information, perspectives and perceptions from individual members of

the group, which increases the range of choice and diversity of perspectives to bring to

bear on issues facing the group. These group processes, by the way, are a fundamental

building block in developing the transcendent function mentioned above. They are aimed

at building a communicative bridge between the performance domain and the adaptation

domain of group functioning. The following paragraphs describe how.

Psychological differentiation is in a sense the first step in individuation. It

represents the development of clarified interpersonal boundaries, and development of

responsibility within each individual member of a group for their own experience. It

represents the beginning of the end of blame and of making negative, counterproductive

attributions, and the beginning of mature, adult interactions.

As individuals differentiate within a group (aided by adoption of differentiated

communications practices), psychological differences that have been repressed begin to

emerge. As this happens, the network of projections among group members begins to

surface. In effect, people begin to have more direct contact with aspects of others that

remind them, unconsciously, of the same aspects of themselves that they have

repressed, and with which they are uncomfortable. Often or even generally, in the

116 See Methods Chapter for a detailed description of these communications processes.

272

interests of staying within the comfort zone of its members, the group will balk at this

prospect and attempt to move back into a comfortable blandness, the group merger

zone, in which these differences are repressed.

However, if the decision is made to “stick with it,” and differences continue to

emerge, group members are eventually forced to allow those differences to remain in

view. As these differences remain within conscious view, group members are forced to

confront the reasons within themselves why they have been uncomfortable. That is, they

eventually come to know themselves at deeper levels, and projections can begin to be

withdrawn. Individual members either come to accept their own limitations, and those of

others, or they may be triggered into the process of integration of formerly disowned

(projected) psychic contents, i.e., they may grow (individuate) a bit.

This can lead into the process of individual transformational change; i.e.,

individuation. If it does, this will most certainly lead into a process of group-level change.

Thus, group differentiation eventually triggers group individuation, and eventually, can

yield wholeness at the group level. That is, the vast range of alternatives and capabilities

latent within the group can begin to emerge as creative materials to draw from in

executing its primary task, or in facing change, or enacting it. The entire range of

capabilities resident within the group becomes increasingly accessible for action and

development.

A deeper level in this group-level process of differentiation and individuation can

be reached through adoption of group-level practices specifically aimed at the following:

273

1. Developing increased awareness within the group of destructive, dysfunctional

behaviors (complexes)

2. Uncovering individual and group-level projections, including scapegoating

3. Adopting group processes aimed at increasing access to materials that lie at the

level of the “collective unconscious,” the deepest layer of the adaptation system.

These might include:

a. Use of symbol and image (as was done in the AR cycle)

b. Group dream-work

c. Story-telling or mythologizing

d. Active imagination

Theoretically, the ultimate stage of group development, which probably will never

materialize, but which may be glimpsed in fleeting moments, is realization of the

archetype of Conscious Community; i.e., the Individuated Group. It represents a group

with a task responsibility which is consciously working toward development of highly

differentiated interactions among group members, and which is also consciously working

toward increasing wholeness, both at the individual and group levels. As mentioned

previously, these may be two sides of a single coin. It also expresses a paradox: the

group simultaneously displays a full expression of individuality within the group context,

together with a rare, subjective sense of group unity, coherence, vitality and synergy ―

a palpable experience of the whole being greater than the parts, but not at the expense

of the parts.

274

The Model ― Revisited

This section presents a slightly revised model, based on the preceding materials.

Before delving into details, let’s begin with a graphical representation of it (Figure 6).

The image above reflects only a slight variant of the model developed in the

literature review. It now roots the system in the context of its immediate environment and

below the world-at-large. In such a revised context, the roots of the system now

penetrate and beyond itself, into the human collective, the collective unconscious, and

275

the permeating psychoid field proposed by Jung. It can be re-imagined in terms of a new

metaphor: the human system as meta-psyche. While this image is useful for discussion,

it is important not to over-determine our interpretation. After all, this is a metaphor, not a

definition. A human system is not a meta-psyche; we are saying only that it operates, in

certain key ways, in a manner akin to one.

When it comes to human systems, by wholeness I mean the totality of capacities,

actual or potential, developed or latent, conscious or unconscious, that are resident

within the system. Now, a central need of human systems is to perform certain tasks in

the interests of immediate survival. This central concern for immediate survival

necessarily requires them to bracket, emphasize and privilege certain capacities within

the system that are aligned with immediate survival and task concerns, and to suppress

other capacities resident within the system that are not focused on or required by

immediate survival or task issues. Through this process, the actual wholeness of the

group, while always an underlying existential reality, is not immediately perceived or

accessible; it is split into domains that are more- or less-focused, and also more- or less-

conscious to system members.

Through the process of focus (centration), required in order to survive within an

environmental context, human systems form a sort of ego function, which I call the

“performance system.” This is the domain of system functioning that is aligned around

the current survival task, is more structured, organized and visible, is shared by group

members, is more highly developed, and is more conscious. This domain can be

equated (roughly) with the traditional notion of organization.

276

By corollary, human systems also form a kind of unconscious domain of less-

focused capabilities ― latent potentials that are not immediately aligned with survival

concerns. I call this the “adaptation domain.” These potentials in the adaptation domain

form a reservoir of capacities and energies that are available to the group for ongoing

development or rejuvenation. The adaptation domain is fundamentally characterized by

alternatives ― by diversity and differences, and by lack of alignment. It also includes

repressed systemic shadow and complexes.

The root of the system is a segment, so to speak, of the human collective

unconscious, which is bounded by the members of the system. This root is the

archetypal realm, of anima and animus, and ultimately of the archetype of Community.

This foundational segment is embedded in the larger world, in the collective unconscious

of the world at large, and, ultimately, in the psychoid field which, according to Jung,

permeates the material world. These archetypal roots of the system provide the ultimate

motivating energy of the system, which drives toward wholeness. This deep foundation

is also the realm of synchronicity and of emergent (unanticipated, unforeseen, non-

logical) phenomena.

The archetypal root of the system (in the adaptation domain) is energetic and

purposive, seeking the ultimate fulfillment of the total systemic potential, realized through

a state of conscious wholeness. Thus, it is a force to be reckoned with, expressly not an

inert container of cast-off parts. The activity of the archetypal roots triggers an ongoing

cycle of small deaths and rebirths as the very process through which that potential can

be fulfilled, and through which conscious wholeness can be realized. Simply put, this

277

process is the flow of life.

Systems can either embrace or reject the adaptation domain and the flow of life;

this is the essence of the distinction between suppression and repression. Rejecting it ―

managing through compliance and repression ― in a futile attempt to maintain the status

quo through mechanisms and processes of control, leads only to internal fragmentation,

incoherence, subversion, stagnation and early death.

A resilient system will be more able to negotiate dynamic changes in its

relationship with the external world or with internal groups and members by embracing

the adaptation domain; i.e., by developing a living relationship between the two domains.

This is the essence of managing through processes of whole-person commitment and

suppression. Through these processes, the system builds the capability to access,

develop and integrate latent capabilities in the interest of developing a broader suite of

skills and strategies. Ultimately, a resilient system is one that is consciously moving

toward conscious wholeness, which basically means moving toward a model of a co-

individuating community with a shared, co-owned task responsibility.

Embracing the adaptation domain also means embracing the numinous realm of

meaning ― of deep, core (spiritual) identity, purpose and passion ― in a service-

oriented connection to the world. This goes far beyond the immediate pressures and

gratifications of the survival- and achievement-orientation of the performance domain,

but does not denigrate them. A service-based connection to the world is at the root of

278

individuation, and is a far cry from the ego-centered motivations of individualism.117

As a human system makes deeper connections with its adaptation domain,

energy, purpose, identity and meaning are activated, or re-activated. The system and its

members become more energized, purposive and meaning-filled, more creative and

resourceful, and more engaged in the focus of the performance domain – in a healthier

relationship to the world. The system becomes less narrowly-focused, less preoccupied

with its day-to-day emphasis on finances and operational details, and more rooted in

enacting its true identity. It becomes dis-identified with the temporary contents and

structures of the performance domain, and becomes more identified with its core

meaning – rooted in a genuine, authentic, non-controlling relationship to the world and to

its members. It also opens itself up to the potential, at least, for an increase in

synchronistic phenomena, which aid the system in fulfilling its purpose, but in a

mysterious, non-control-based, emergent (non-egoic) mode.

Resilience – embracing the adaptation domain and moving toward wholeness –

also means living with the flow of life: an ongoing series of small deaths and rebirths,

which are subjectively experienced as ‘passages through chaos.’ During such a

passage, the old systemic equilibrium, embodied in the performance domain, must to

some extent ‘loosen’ or ‘melt’ or ‘disintegrate’ prior to being reinvigorated, renewed and

restructured – i.e., “reborn.”

117 It is reflected in Jung’s description of individuation as an “at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity.” (Jung, 1954/1966, p.227)

279

Resilient Human Systems ― A Brief Recap

Alignment with the Community Archetype

Rooting systemic identity and purpose solely in the Task One focus of the

Performance Domain118 is “putting the cart before the horse.” Breathing, eating, clothing

and shelter119 are indeed critical to sustain life, but equating them with the very purpose

of life itself is narrow indeed and rather barren as well.120 As noted in the findings and

the discussion, such a reversal of ends and means in a human system has the

paradoxical consequence of critically-narrowing focus, creativity, energy and options,

which in turn undermine long-term systemic survival capability.

Rooting meaning in the deeper realms of the Adaptation Domain, founded on the

community archetype, opens a fountain of sustainable energy, creativity, deeply-felt

purpose, commitment and engagement. The archetype of community is one of deep

interconnectedness. It grounds meaning and purpose in extension of the self and group

in service to the world, over against ego-centered drives for power and immediate

gratification.

118 I.e., immediate survival and gratification. 119 And by extension, position, status, power and money. 120 This is the essence of the positivistic/scientific/materialist/biological view of life, which this study regards as death-producing, rather than generative, at least in the realm of humans and human social systems. It is also the perspective of traditional organization theory and much of current management practice. The author whole-heartedly agrees with the view that man was not meant for bread alone.

280

System-Wide Dis-Identification with the Performance Domain

The change called for starts with a change in perspective. The total system must

re-imagine and re-purpose itself as a human community with a shared, co-owned task

responsibility, rather than as an organization. This latter perspective reflects an

unconscious belief that the system is the organization ― that is, the system is totally

identified with the Performance Domain (PD).

When a human system is totally identified with its PD, i.e., when the PD has not

yet become an object of conscious shared reflection, that PD is doomed to be

immutable. In such a state, differences from the shared construction of the PD ― which

are at the root of learning and change ― must be repressed because they inherently

threaten the current shared notion of identity. This effectively blocks any chance of

making real change, even critically necessary change. Thus, creating a mutable PD

requires the system to dis-identify with it and to address differences.


Individual and subgroup differences and difficult issues, generally perceived as

threatening to group and/or organizational integrity, are in fact the source of

organizational integrity, as well as organizational vitality ― the ability to create, to grow,

to innovate, to develop; in short, the ability to respond to the world in a resilient,

empowered manner.

Dealing effectively with differences is a call to grow and to heal, both for

281

individuals and for human systems. It is a call to own121 and re-integrate difficult,

uncomfortable or painful aspects122 of the self/group that have been split-off, repressed

into the shadow and projected onto the social world, where they are encountered as

difficult, uncomfortable or painful individuals or social groups.

As more and more of the various selves within a group become consciously

available, both to the individual and the group, group members experience an increased

sense of richness, diversity and cohesion ― i.e., of community. Differences enrich and

enliven, rather than threaten.


In a resilient human system every facet of the Performance Domain (PD)123

remains a malleable object of conversation among differentiated individuals and

subgroups, rather than a predetermined and imposed given that all system members

and groups must submit to and conform with. A resilient human system is the antithesis

of the repressive cog in the machine modus operandi of most currently-existing

organizations. It implies a level of intimacy: a genuine, two-way, give-and-take between

the system and its membership rarely found in business or government institutions. It

calls for systems in which individuals and subgroups have systemically-legitimated

permission to bring their own needs, perspectives and emotions to the table, even when

121 I.e., to take responsibility for. 122 Including wounds, complexes, and non-integrated capabilities. 123 I.e., the task focus, task structure, competencies and culture.

282

they differ from the current structure of the PD, without fear of being shamed, shut down,

scapegoated or ejected. This calls for a new level of relational maturity, which is

supported to a degree by the communications practices already mentioned.

Suppression and the Resilient Human System

Permission to differ openly and to bring one’s authentic self, with its wide

spectrum of needs, perspectives, abilities, and emotions, to the systemic table does not,

however, guarantee that all of those needs will be met; that all of those perspectives will

be honored; that all of those abilities will be developed; or that all of those emotions will

be assuaged. This is a critical point.

In a repressive system, it is expressly and rigidly not okay to bring anything to the

table that differs from current norms; openly bringing differences to the table is generally

cause for marginalization, scapegoating, punishment or being expelled. Suppression

bespeaks of freedom to be open and to speak the unspeakable without fear of negative

consequences, and it guarantees an open and honest conversation about those

differences and issues. As a facet of true mutual intimacy, however, it does not

guarantee that everybody’s total spectrum of needs will be met every time. It calls for

mutual listening and mutual give-and-take in the context of an unblinkered look at reality,

which grounds and bounds the spectrum of options. It calls for maturity and wisdom. It

calls for commitment to grow over time in a prudent, reality-based manner that is not

blunted by the twin obstacles of fear or recklessness.

283

The Importance of a Healthy, Strong Performance Domain

Speaking of grounding the systemic modus operandi in reality, here is another

paradox: While we strongly affirm the belief that man does not live by bread alone, we

acknowledge and embrace the absolutely fundamental importance of bread to sustain

that life. While bread may not provide ultimate purpose or meaning, without it there is no

life at all. In a company, this means surviving and thriving within its environment, which

means making a healthy profit. This is a primary function of the Performance Domain.

The literature detailed the structure of the PD and provided some criteria for its health

and functionality, so we will not reexamine them here.

Interpenetration of System and Individual Growth (Development)

In a resilient, malleable system there is an ongoing dialogue between the system

and its environment, and also between the system/PD and its individual/subgroup

members. Just as the system as a whole must change in order to accommodate to

changing external, environmental conditions, so too, must individual system members

change in order to accommodate system-level change. Simultaneously, as different

individual/subgroup needs, wants, perspectives and feelings are legitimated and brought

to the table, the system/PD must be able to adopt an accommodative stance; that is, it

must be open to change from within. Thus, system and individual are engaged in an

ongoing dance of mutual assimilation and accommodation (equilibration or

development). In a resilient human system, both system-level and individual-level

change and development are encouraged and actively supported.

284

Development as the Cycle of Birth ! Death ! Rebirth

Both for individuals and systems, development is an ongoing process of

assimilation and accommodation, of attachment and loss, of progression and regression

of libido. In archetypal terms, development is a cycle of Birth, Death, Rebirth, Death,

Rebirth, Death, Rebirth, etc., ad infinitum. If this cycle is embraced and managed

appropriately, movement through it actually adds value to the system and its members.

Embracing Death means remaining willing to return to the well, where alchemical

“prima material” ― latent capabilities and meaning, shadow, and complexes ― are

encountered, and willingness to pass through chaos. Embracing Death is the hard part,

which we tend to avoid, almost at all costs. If managed appropriately, however, these

base elements are eventually transmuted into living gold that renews, rebuilds and

broadens individual/systemic capabilities in the PD through the process of Rebirth. The

cycle of Death and Rebirth is painful but ultimately rewarding; it also cannot forever be

denied or forestalled, because it is the root of life itself. It is truly a case of “no pain, no

gain.” More importantly, it is a case of “no pain, no gain, and then decay and death.”

Practice: Build a Strong Temenos

A resilient human system can also be imagined as a strong temenos with

paradoxical qualities. A strong temenos is a strong and powerful sacred space that

enables survival and fosters transformation. It is strong and powerful in a traditional

sense, to make sure that the system can thrive in its current context (Task One). It is

also strong in the characterological sense of flexibility, wisdom and resilience, to absorb

285

the pressures, pain and anxiety of equilibration ― of learning, change, growth,

development, transformation and renewal (Task Two).

I am well aware that there are a myriad of practices related to building such a

temenos. I will focus on only a few of them, which appear to be critical in the light of the

findings and discussion:

� Build a strong, healthy, high-functioning PD.

� Build systemic alignment around the PD through practices that foster whole-person

commitment. Such practices might include:

o Inclusive, ongoing co-construction of the PD

o Ever-growing acceptance of group and individual differences

� Consciously and actively manage repressive processes, which block whole-system

and whole-person engagement in PD co-construction. 124

� Build systemic supports to social-psychological disembedding of the community from

its primary identification with the PD, so that the PD can become an object of

community reflection.

� Adopt communication practices that foster differentiated relationships and

communications through enactment of accurate interpersonal boundaries and

through withdrawal of projection at the individual level (Rosenberg, 1999; Short,

1998).

� Support system members in utilizing change to foster individuation, i.e., actively

124 See Appendix F: Resistance to Equilibration – Human Systems Level, for more information regarding these defensive, repressive processes and tendencies.

286

help system members to dis-embed individual identity, self-worth and locus of power

from the socially constructed PD.

� Co-Individuation: consciously use differences125 as a mirror, to discover and integrate

unconscious, split-off and projected intra-psychic and intra-group contents.

� Develop practical and emotional supports to an ongoing cycle of Death and Rebirth.

125 Interpersonal and inter-group differences

287

References Abt, T. (1988). Progress Without Loss of Soul. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, Practice.

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Auger, R., & Arneberg, P. (1995). Analytical Psychology and Organizational

Development. In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz (Eds.), Psyche at Work: Workplace Applications of Jungian Analytical Psychology (pp. 38-52). Wilmette: Chiron Publications.

Barker, K. (Ed.). (1985). The NIV Study Bible: The Zondervan Corporation. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bertalanffy, L. v. (1969). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development,

Applications. New York: George Braziller, Inc. Bion, W. (1961/1996). Experiences in Groups. New York, NY: Routledge. Bion, W. R. (1952). Group Dynamics: A Review. The International Journal of Psycho-

analysis, 235-247. Bridges, W. (1992). The Character of Organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black

Publishing. Colman, A. D. (1992). Depth Consultation. In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz (Eds.), Psyche at

Work (pp. 92-117). Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications. Corlett, J. G. (1996). Toward Systematizing and Extending Jungian Organization Theory,

The Union Institute, Cincinnati. Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species (Vol. London): John Murray. de Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent Business

Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Diamond, M. (1993). The Unconscious Life of Organizations: Interpreting Organizational

Identity. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

288

Donlevy, J. G. (1996). Jung's Contribution to Adult Development: The Difficult and Misunderstood Path of Individuation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 36(No. 2), 92-108.

Edinger, E. F. (1992). Ego & Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function of the

Psyche. Boston: Shambala. Einstein, A. (n.d.) [Quotation]. Famous Quotations Network [Online].

Retrieved October 8, 2003, from http://www.famous-quotations.com Gilbert, R. M. (1992). Extraordinary Relationships: A New Way of Thinking About Human

Interactions. Minneapolis: CHRONIMED Publishing. Gray, R. M. (1996). Archetypal Explorations: An Integrative Approach to Human

Behavior (First ed.). London: Routledge. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research

for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA:

Perseus Books. Jacobi, J. (1973). The Psychology of C. G. Jung (Third ed.). New Haven: Yale University

Press. Johnson, R. A. (1983). He. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Johnson, R. A. (1986). She. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Jung, C. G. (1928). On Psychical Energy, Contributions to Analytical Psychology . New

York: Harcourt Brace. Jung, C. G. (1938). Psychology and Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jung, C. G. (1954). The Development of Personality. Princeton: Princeton University

Press. Jung, C. G. (1954/1966). The Practice of Psychotherapy (Vol. CW16). Princeton:

Princeton University Press. Jung, C. G. (1960/1969). The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

289

Jung, C. G. (1973). Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1966). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (Vol. 7). Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. Jung, C. G. (1978). Aion: Researches Into The Phenomenology of the Self (Second ed.).

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jung, C. G. (1993). Psychology and Alchemy (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (Second ed.).

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kast, V. (1992). The Dynamics of Symbols. New York, NY: Fromm International

Publishing Corporation. Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization

and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press. Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Klein, M. (1975). The Psychoanalysis of Children. New York, NY: Seymour

Lawrence/Delacorte Press. Krefting, L., & Frost, P. J. (1985). Untangling Webs, Surfing Waves, and Wildcatting. In

Frost & e. al (Eds.), Organizational Culture (pp. 155-169). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lepper, G. (1992). The Complex in Human Affairs. In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz (Eds.),

Psyche at Work (pp. 72-91). Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications. Marshak, R. J., & Katz, J. H. (1990). Covert Processes and Revolutionary Change.

Paper presented at the Forging Revolutionary Partnerships: Organization Development Network Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Menzies, I. (1960). A Case Study in the Functioning of Social Systems as a Defense

against Anxiety. Human Relations, 13, 95-121. Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of Developmental Psychology: W. H. Freeman and

Company. Mish, F. (2002). Merriam-Webster Online, [Internet Web site]. Merriam-Webster Inc.

Available: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm [2002, October 2002].

290

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization (Second Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Olson, E. (1995). Opening to the Change Process: The Transcendent Function at Work.

In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz (Eds.), Psyche at Work: Workplace Applications of Jungian Analytical Psychology (pp. 156-173). Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.

O'Neill, M. B. (2000). Executive Coaching with Backbone and Heart: A Systems

Approach to Engaging Leaders with Their Challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Pagels, E. (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books. Peck, M. S. (1998). The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. New York:

Touchstone. Perlman, M. S. (1995). Toward a Theory of the Self in the Group. In M. Stein & J.

Hollwitz (Eds.), Psyche at Work: Workplace Applications of Jungian Analytical Psychology (pp. 174-193). Wilmette: Chiron Publications.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism (Chaninah Maschler, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. Pondy, L. R., Morgan, G., Frost, P. J., & Dandridge, T. C. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational

Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rosenberg, M. B. (1999). Nonviolent Communication... A Language of Compassion.

Encitas, Ca: PuddleDancer Press. Samuels, A. (1994). Jung and the Post-Jungians. New York: Routledge. Segal, M. (1997). Points of Influence: A Guide to Using Personality Theory at Work. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Short, R. (1991). A Special Kind of Leadership: The Key to Learning Organizations.

Seattle: The Leadership Group. Short, R. (1998). Learning In Relationship: Foundation for Personal and Professional

Success. Seattle: Learning in Action Technologies, Inc. Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Stein, J. (Ed.). (1988). The Random House College Dictionary - Revised Edition. New

York City: Random House, Inc.

291

Stein, M. (1992). Organizational Life as a Spiritual Practice. In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz

(Eds.), Psyche at Work . Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (Second Edition ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Whitmont, E. (1969). The Symbolic Quest. London: Barrie and Rockliff. Wink, W. (1986). Unmasking the Powers. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

292

Appendix A: Archetypes and the Model

Two different kinds of archetypes are explored in this dissertation.

Pattern Archetypes

The first kind, which we will call a “pattern archetype,” stems from the dictionary

meaning of archetype as an “original pattern or model of which all things of the same

type are representations or copies” [Fred Mish, 2002 #112]. We will be investigating

some critical pattern archetypes that characterize the structure and developmental

processes of living systems; in particular, those of individual human beings (viewed here

as living systems) and human social systems that share responsibility for a common

purpose and task. Traditionally, human systems with a shared purpose and/or task have

been called organizations. The model views this term as inadequate and limiting from a

developmental perspective, for reasons outlined in the literature review.

Pattern archetypes fundamental to this model development effort and

dissertation include:

• Equilibration as a living gestalt comprised of two functionally integrated life tasks:

o Task One: Responding to a context

o Task Two: Responding to a change in context

• Bipolarity, created through enactment of the first of the two life tasks, as foundational to living, adaptive systems.

• Dialectical relations between polarities.

• Equilibration (development) as a product of this dialectic.

293

• The equilibration process, which:

o Proceeds, or unfolds, according a pattern symbolized in the ancient archetypal image of the Birth ! Death ! Rebirth Cycle.

o Is objectively accomplished via the mechanism of differentiation, integration and transcendence (“individuation”).

o Is subjectively experienced as passage through chaos.

o Is motivated by the central archetype of the system (see next paragraph)

Central (Jungian) Archetypes

The second meaning of archetype is “an inherited idea or mode of thought [and

behavior] in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race

and is present in the unconscious” [Fred Mish, 2002 #112]. There are a wide variety of

archetypes discussed in Jungian literature. Only one kind is investigated, which we will

call “central archetypes.” A central archetype is a Jungian archetype that:

• Constitutes the psychic center and ultimate foundation of the system (whether an individual or social system)

• Is purposive in its activity, directing energy toward the ultimate goal of explicit realization of the totality of implicit systemic potential126

• Moderates and orders the functioning of system sub-archetypes

• Operates autonomously from the conscious pole of the system127

• Is the source of creativity and renewal for the system

• Is motivic in the sense of providing a stimulus to action.

126 A.k.a., conscious wholeness. 127 The analogue to conscious, when applied to human systems, is described in detail in the section of the Literature Review devoted to equilibration in human systems.

294

The model proposes that there are two central archetypes. The first is the Self, a

Jungian archetype that has been extensively documented in Jungian and post-Jungian

literatures, and which is the central archetype for individuals128 (Edinger, 1992; Jacobi,

1973; Jung, 1960/1969, 1978, 1993; Samuels, 1994). The second central archetype

proposed here, called “Conscious Community,” represents a theoretical extension of the

Self into the collectives domain. There are only a handful of prior referents for this

theoretical construct, all of which describe or intimate a construct similar to, but having

significant differences from, the construct developed here. These will be noted below, in

the section devoted to Conscious Community.

128 For more about the Self, see Appendix B: The Structure of the Individual Unconscious.

295

Appendix B: The Structure of the Individual Unconscious

The unconscious contains all psychic contents and processes not manifest to the

conscious ego ― they are suppressed from consciousness via the process of initial ego

formation. It consists of two layers: the personal and the collective unconscious, which is

founded on the central archetype of the Self.

Personal Unconscious

The personal unconscious consists of personal contents that have been

repressed either through early experiences or because they do not fit with the orientation

of the conscious personality. It is comprised of latent, undeveloped tendencies, functions

or capabilities, personal shadow, the anima/animus, and complexes, which represent,

roughly, painful or traumatic experiences that are unassimilated.

Collective Unconscious

The collective unconscious, on the other hand, does not contain personal

contents, but only contents resulting from the inherited potentials of psychic functioning

in general; in other words, the collective heritage of all human beings. It is comprised of

archetypes. Archetypes are nothing more than patterned psychic and behavioral

potentials that correspond to the typical and fundamental experiences of humankind

since primordial times. There is a certain numinous or spiritual quality to them, in that

they are fundamental ordering principles representing in axial form the vast store of

ancestral knowledge about the profound relations between man, God, and cosmos. I

use the term axial form in that, like the axial form of a crystal, they encode basic

296

structural form, but not the actual, particular experience, or unfolding, of the archetype.

The Self

There is one particular archetype of fundamental importance to the development

of the model, and that is the central archetype of the Self. The Self represents the

psychic totality (an integration of the conscious ego and the unconscious) and is the

ultimate foundation of the psyche. In Jungian theory, the Self archetype is a symbol,

usually expressed in mandala symbols, which stands at the midpoint, so to speak, of the

conscious and unconscious psychic subsystems, and which leads toward a union of

them both in a transcendental synthesis of the opposites/complements (poles) which

stand at the foundation of the psychic energy system. 129 Another key descriptor referring

to the Self is a protective structure capable of bringing order out of chaos. As an

essentially transcendent archetype, the Self cannot be fully delimited in rational terms.

129 The Self-archetype, at the foundation of the psyche, operates autonomously from the narrowly focused purposes, goals and strategies of the ego, and in a compensatory fashion, in a progressive movement toward conscious wholeness of the psyche (Jacobi, 1973).

297

Appendix C: The Structure of Human Systems

Figure 7 is a graphical representation of the fundamental structure of a human

system, as interpreted through the lens of the model constructed here. There are four

quadrants: the Performance Domain (PD) in the upper-left quadrant, and the Adaptation

Domain (AD), comprised of three sub-domains in the other three quadrants. Each

domain and sub-domain is described in more detail below. Following the description of

the model, there is a section comparing and contrasting the model constructs with

similar notions in the literature.

298

The Performance Domain

Definition

The model defines the Performance Domain (PD) (upper-left quadrant) as the

centrated domain of the systemic totality, which:

• Is both conscious and shared (collective), 130 and

• Provides the medium through which ongoing equilibration of the system can take

place. Obviously this includes:

o Task One: Surviving (and hopefully thriving) within the current context - both

external/environmental and internal/systemic.

o Task Two: Responding effectively to significant changes in context - either

external or internal.

The PD is that portion of the systemic totality through and by which the system

consciously defines and enacts itself as a living, evolving, collective entity with a shared

task responsibility. It serves as the system’s executive function in a manner analogous

to the individual ego.

130 The conscious dimension represents the Jungian contribution; the collective dimension represents the adaptive systems contribution.

299

Contents

The PD is comprised of several interpenetrating elements:

Table 7

Contents of the Performance Domain Element Definition

Task Focus Includes the stated mission or purpose, vision, strategy, and goals of the system.

Task Structure Includes the organizational structure, organizational and job roles, management and work processes or procedures, and management systems (e.g., reward systems, compensation systems, hiring, staffing, promotion, etc., systems).

Culture Includes shared behavioral norms, values, patterns of relationship, ideology, collective notions of systemic identity, shared rules or strategies for success (at both the individual and organizational levels), and a shared symbol system. This set of elements serves as a collective foundation for meaning-making and contextually-appropriate action.

Competencies Refers to the collection of systemic capabilities that are highly differentiated, i.e., that are collectively and consciously focused on, developed and rewarded.

The Adaptation Domain

The Adaptation Domain is comprised of three sub-domains:

Conscious-Unshared Sub-domain

The Conscious-Unshared sub-domain (lower-left quadrant) consists of conscious

material, at the individual and subgroup level, which differs from the collectively shared

material that comprises the Performance Domain. This is the domain in which diversity

300

issues within a human system will manifest. That is, there may be a subgroup of

individuals within the larger system who exhibit a common characteristic, attribute, or

competency. This characteristic would belong to the Conscious-Unshared domain if

individuals with this characteristic are consciously aware of this characteristic as an

integral part of their personhood, and that it is not accepted by, or is not aligned with the

collective nature of the Performance Domain.

Depending on the nature of the Performance Domain of the system, examples of

this might include being Black, being White, being male, being female, being old, being

young, having an accent, being right-brained, being left-brained, being intuitive, being

rational, having abstract thought processes, thinking in concrete terms, having an

emotional nature, having an unemotional nature, adopting a mode of dress that does not

fit in, etc. Note that in terms of the model, it does not matter whether individuals with this

attribute are aware that other individuals within the system also share it. What matters is

that the attribute is consciously perceived as not fitting in by individuals possessing it.

Unconscious-Unshared Subdomain

The Unconscious-Unshared sub-domain (lower-right quadrant) is collectively

comprised by the reservoir of material resident within the personal unconscious of the

members of the system, and which does not fit with the orientation of the Performance

Domain. In Jungian thought, the personal unconscious consists of personal contents that

have been repressed either through early experiences or because they do not fit with the

orientation of the conscious personality. An assumption here is that individuals within

the system belong to it because there is at least a basic alignment between their own

301

conscious orientation and the conscious identity of the system (an aspect of the

Performance Domain). The Unconscious-Unshared sub-domain is comprised of

individual-level latent, undifferentiated, undeveloped functions or capabilities, personal

shadow, and complexes.

Unconscious-Shared Subdomain

The Unconscious-Shared sub-domain (upper-right quadrant) is that portion of the

systemic totality that might also be termed the systemic unconscious. It consists of

material that is shared, or systemic in nature, and which is not consciously accessible to

system members, or to the system-as-a-whole, on a day-to-day basis. It consists of

several elements.

First, it includes latent, undeveloped systemic capabilities. If the system’s

conscious orientation is generally strongly rational, then emotional competence may be

an aspect of its unconscious-unshared sub-domain. If the system is strongly oriented

toward repetitive, production-oriented work processes, then the capacity for creativity

and innovation may be in this sub-domain. If the system exhibits a strong reliance on

verbal or written communication, then the capacity to communicate via imagery,

symbols, movement or other means is probably in this sub-domain. This concept is

similar to, but more broadly inclusive than, Bridges’ notion of undeveloped typological

characteristics within an organizational context (Bridges, 1992), since it is not limited to

the Jungian dichotomies of introversion-extraversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling,

and perceiving-judging.

302

Second, it includes what might be termed the systemic shadow ―

characteristics, behaviors or dynamics which are an integral aspect of system behavior,

but which are unperceived or unacknowledged, and not consciously integrated. Thus, in

a highly competitive, cutthroat company in a highly competitive industry, altruistic,

cooperative behavior might possibly be in this sub-domain. In a non-profit group that

stakes out high moral ground in its mission, wide-spread back-biting, political infighting,

gossiping and other behaviors classified officially as negative or unacceptable might

potentially lie in this sub-domain. In a religious group devoted to pursuit of a spirituality

of perfection, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, and sexual misconduct among its

congregation and/or clergy might lie in this sub-domain. I use the term possibly here

because if the behavior or characteristic is openly acknowledged and is being

consciously and honestly addressed by the members of the system, then it is no longer

part of this sub-domain. Nor is it important whether the characteristic is generally

classified as good or bad in nature; what is important is its unconscious/

unacknowledged (underground) nature.

The way the model defines the systemic shadow is similar to, but more narrowly

construed, than Corlett’s, whose notion of shadow appears to include undeveloped

systemic capabilities, which I have split out separately (Corlett, 1996, pg. 50).

Third, this sub-domain includes systemic complexes (Corlett, 1996; Lepper,

1992; Wink, 1986). Fourth, it includes the aggregate of unconscious, individual-level

identifications with the system, which provides an unconscious foundation of support to

the conscious, shared orientation of the Performance Domain.

303

The Archetype of Conscious Community

The ultimate foundation of the AD is the central archetype of Conscious

Community (or Community, for short), which is listed in the Unconscious-Shared (upper-

right) quadrant. The archetype of Conscious Community proposed by the model

represents an extension of the individual-level central archetype of the Self to the

collective or system level. The archetype of the Self is at the very foundation of the

collective unconscious, which is shared by, but which also transcends, all individuals.

The collective unconscious is comprised of collective archetypes that result from the

inherited potentials of psychic functioning in general; in other words, the heritage

common to all human beings.

Since all humans share in these archetypes, and they arose out of our collective

activity and experience over eons of time, it is reasonable to assume that they shape

collective behavior as well as individual behavior. In fact, an assumption of the model is

that the archetypes operate within, and strongly influence the unfolding of, our collective

social psychological activity (Gray, 1996). This is reinforced by Jung’s perception of the

archetypes as “sets of relations, not content-filled categories” (Gray, 1996, pg. 28).

The archetype of Conscious Community is the central archetype operating

autonomously in the social-psychological sphere of the collective unconscious, which

contains, but also transcends, the functioning of the Self at the individual level. It

represents a matrix of forces, dynamics and potentials, operating in the collective

unconscious, that move toward realization of a collective of individuated persons ― a

conscious community. This matrix of forces, expressed through the archetype of

304

Community, is directed toward the conscious completeness and wholeness of the

human collectivity. Community is envisioned in terms outlined by Jung at the very

beginning of the Review of the Literature:

The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind. Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of humanity. Once the individual is thus secured in himself, there is some guarantee that the organized accumulation of individuals… will result in the formation no longer of an anonymous mass, but of a conscious community. (Jung, 1954/1966, para. 227) (Emphasis added.)

The self is our life’s goal, for it is the completest expression of that fateful combination we call individuality, the full flowering not only of the single individual but of the group, in which each adds his portion to the whole. (Jung, 1966, par. 106) (Emphasis added.)

The Model and The Literature

Centration and Consciousness

As mentioned earlier, centration, which enables a system to attend or respond to

a stimulus, can be viewed as the fundamental root of consciousness. Thus, in a human

system, it is possible to suggest that centration, or systemic focus on a primary task,

enacted through the processes of organizing, creates a systemic analogue to

consciousness. The content of this consciousness is the structured systemic response

grammar or schema, through which the system enacts its adaptive response to the

environment.

305

Centration and Consciousness: The Group Theory View

There have been some attempts at noting a capacity for systemic

consciousness. Perlman suggested the notion of a group ego and a group self (Perlman,

1995). Auger and Arneberg suggested that the chief executive officer of an organization

functions as the organization’s ego (Auger & Arneberg, 1995), but did not pursue the

idea in depth. Bion did not come right out and say so, but his work suggests this

possibility in his notion of the work group, which has, in a collectively conscious form,

characteristics similar to those attributed to the ego by Freud (Bion, 1952, pp. 235-247).

Centration and Consciousness: The Jungian View

Corlett, using the metaphor of Jungian psyche as a model of organization,

suggested an organizational analogue to the individual ego, which he called “Work

Focus” (WF). According to Corlett,

WF is the essence of the conscious organization, comprising the myriad reflective, planning, controlling, coordinating, and implementing activities necessary to an organization’s existence. …It codifies its sense of itself in vision and mission statements, statements of ethics, strategic plans, celebrations of organizational heroes, and declarations of values and creeds. …Work Focus is embodied in the people and structures of the organization. (Corlett, 1996)

The key issues here center around the notions of consciousness, and those activities

necessary to an organization’s existence, which strongly relates to the primary task.

Bridges suggested that organizations have a developed Myers-Briggs (Jungian)

typological profile, which is analogous to the Myers-Briggs type of the conscious

personality of an individual (Bridges, 1992). Bridges’ work suggested that like

individuals, organizations constellate within the centrated domain a collective orientation

306

or modus operandi that selectively differentiates (privileges) only a sub-spectrum of the

full spectrum of psychic functions, 131 which then becomes a preferred mode of

functioning.

Centration and Consciousness: The Complex Adaptive Systems View

Stacey reached a similar conclusion via a different route. He interpreted human

systems through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory.

A complex adaptive system is a system that is capable of learning, adapting and evolving. It consists of a number of agents interacting with each other according to schemas, that is, rules of behavior, that require them to inspect each other’s behavior and adjust their own in the light of the behavior of others. They survive because they learn or evolve in an adaptive way: they compute information in order to extract regularities, building them into [shared] schemas. (Stacey, 1996, pg. 284)

Here, the process of centration yields a set of shared, organized behavioral

schema or strategies. In addition to shared schemas, systemic centration also yields a

legitimate network and a dominant symbol system. The legitimate network is an

intentional set of connections between agents that is shared among all members of the

system. Its purpose is to enable performance of what is judged, by the dominant

coalition, to be the primary task (Stacey, 1996, pg. 24). The dominant symbol system is

a collection of behavioral schema, represented via a symbol system, that is fully shared

by group members and which drives the explicit behavior of the group, the performance

of its primary tasks, and the defenses against anxiety that may be aroused in connection

131 In Jungian thought, these psychic functions include 1) source of energy renewal (introversion or extraversion), 2) source of information (sensing or intuition), 3) foundation for decision-making (thinking or feeling), and 4) orientation toward the outer world (judging or perceiving).

307

with that task. What is important here is the emphasis on the shared nature of these

structures and their direct connection with performance of the primary collective task

(Stacey, 1996, pg. 148).

Centration and Consciousness: the Model’s View

Both Corlett and Stacey focused on Task One as the fundamental stimulus to

systemic centration, but differ regarding the fundamental character of the centration-

diffusion polarity. Corlett emphasized the conscious-unconscious polarity, while Stacey

emphasized the shared-unshared polarity. It occurred to me that they are both right ―

partly. The model draws from both the Jungian and complex adaptive systems views by

defining the centrated domain of human systems as that portion of the systemic totality,

differentiated through fulfillment of Task One, that is both conscious and shared.

Diffusion and a Systemic Unconscious

The Performance Domain’s purpose and function is akin to a systemic

consciousness. What of the diffuse domain? Does it function in a manner akin to a

systemic unconscious? Bion may have been the first to note such a possibility with his

concept of proto-mental phenomena, which operate far below the level of conscious

awareness and which “cannot be understood by reference to the individual alone…

proto-mental phenomena are a function of the group and must therefore be studied in

the group” (Bion, 1961/1996, pg. 103). There exists a collection of scholars who have

each proposed the existence of an organizational unconscious (Krefting & Frost, 1985;

Marshak & Katz, 1990; Morgan, 1997). Jung wrote about the existence of family

308

complexes, which imply the potential existence of a family unconscious (Kast, 1992, pg.

97). Abt suggested the potential for a group or family unconscious as well (Abt, 1988,

pg. 101). Lepper posited a system of meaning which operates below the surface of the

objective structure of the organization (Lepper, 1992). Stein made a direct claim for the

existence of an organization unconscious, suggesting that when individuals join

organizations, it is possible to observe the interweaving of the individual and the

organizational unconscious (Stein, 1992). Corlett, from a Jungian perspective, defined

the organization unconscious as

the set of psychological dynamics and contents unique to an organization that is beyond the conscious control of those who manage and lead the organization. It is the realm of psychic activity in an organization that lies on the border between the conscious life of an organization and the collective unconscious. (Corlett, 1996)

Corlett’s formulation emphasized only the conscious-unconscious polarity in

characterizing the centration-diffusion dynamic in human systems.

From the perspective of complex adaptive systems theory, Stacey highlighted

only the role of unshared material in describing the shadow or recessive system, the

counterpole to the legitimate or dominant system, which is

a kind of shadow of the legitimate system consisting of informal social and political links, in which agents develop their own local rules for interacting with each other in the course of that interaction. …Shadow systems are characterized by varying degrees of uniformity and diversity, conformity and individuality. (Stacey, 1996, pp. 26-29)

The Central Archetype of Conscious Community

Both Stein and Colman posited the existence of an organizational self, an

analogue to the individual archetype of the Self, which is “what the organization seeks to

309

become, the unfolding of its potential, its inexorable movement toward integration and

wholeness” (Colman, 1992). Corlett proposed a similar, but slightly different, underlying

archetype which he called Organization Wholeness (OW). Corlett agreed with Pondy et

al. in suggesting that OW is the archetype that expresses itself through the tendency to

organize (Corlett, 1996, pg. 53; Pondy, Morgan, Frost, & Dandridge, 1983). From this

perspective, the specific details of organizational enactment ― defining roles,

organizational structure, rules, etc. ― merely provide particular content to this underlying

archetype.

The archetype of Conscious Community proposed by the model differs subtly,

but fundamentally and profoundly, from these characterizations. The authors above all

appear to propose that the fundamental raison d’etre of the underlying archetype is the

enactment and/or fulfillment of organizing ― of centration. Their focus and scope

appears to be limited to Task One. In contrast, the model proposes that the central

archetype of Conscious Community moves autonomously132 to enact the conscious

wholeness and integration of the human collectivity ― in general. Organizing, centration,

is simply the initial phase of development, akin to the initial, individual-level process of

ego formation. From a Jungian perspective, ego formation, Birth, is only the first chapter

in a long developmental story. 133

132 The archetype operates autonomously from the narrow purposes and focusing/organizing function of Performance Domain, analogously to the complete autonomy of the Self from the purposes and goals of the ego. 133 Birth is only the first chapter in a long process of developmental unfolding, which takes place through a continuing series of small Deaths and Rebirths.

310

Embedding organization in archetype implies that organizing is a principle sui

generis. In the model proposed here, the centrated/ organized domain (the PD) is not

viewed as an overarching principle or a principle sui generis. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Its raison d’etre is purely utilitarian. The function of the PD is to serve the community

with respect to its needs for survival134 and with respect to its needs for achievement,

accomplishment, contribution, meaning, service, learning, growth, and development.135

When it fails to serve those needs, it is utterly subject to amendment, and possibly to

abolition, by that community. It has no independent status ― no reason to exist ― apart

from the needs of the community. We view the PD as a temporary, functional social

construct, not as embedded in archetype.

Corlett, et al, appear to regard “organizing” as an end-in-itself. We regard this as

a confusion of ends and means. We believe that the end is survival and fulfillment of a

community of individuals, and that the organization (the Performance Domain) is merely

a temporary means toward that end. Further, we believe that regarding organization as a

principle sui generis, or as an end-in-itself, which might appear to be a rather subtle and

insignificant shift in emphasis, is in fact a drastic shift in emphasis which brings with it

the potential for profoundly dangerous consequences. From the model’s point-of-view,

individual, concrete persons appear to be subtly demoted in importance ― possibly to

become regarded as mere functionaries or actors in the enactment of a disembodied,

abstracted, transpersonal (or impersonal) archetypal drama which transcends, but does

134 Task One.

311

not explicitly or necessarily include, the needs and rights of the flesh-and-blood,

individual persons who are members of that collective. We are exceedingly wary of any

mode of understanding organizations which does not explicitly heed the following

warning:

This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom. (Bertalanffy, 1969, pg. 53) (emphasis added)

This quote goes a long way toward explaining our emphasis on Conscious

Community as the underlying central archetype of the system, and on co-individuation

as a core element of the process for unfolding and realizing that archetype. We promote

individuals-in-community, and demote organization136 to the role of servant of the

community — a servant whose job description, structure, culture and list of required

capabilities could change at a moment’s notice.

There is another critical difference. The model developed in this study suggests

that development of the capacity for ongoing equilibration in a human system depends

critically upon the ability of its members to take its organized domain (the PD) as an

object of conscious reflection, which in turn depends upon their capacity to dis-identify

with it ― to dis-embed themselves from it. One might envision the Performance Domain

as a structure sitting in the center of a large round table, and all members of the system

are sitting around the table ― outside of and apart from the PD ― observing it, critiquing

135 Task Two.

312

it, reflecting upon its utility, and making suggestions for change or improvement or to

broaden its foundations, from their individual perspectives. Clearly, this is exceedingly

difficult to do if the very root and circumference of the system is taken to be the

“archetype of organizing” ― in such a case, the system and its members are inextricably

embedded in that which we believe should become an object of reflection! In such a

case, the notion of a co-individuating community with a task responsibility is impossible.

To sum up, we envision a human system with a shared purpose and/or task

responsibility, in which system members:

1. Dis-identify with the organization (the centrated Performance Domain (PD); that is,

system members become more and more conscious of their individual and collective

identity as fundamentally separate from the social construct of the PD;

2. Become more and more conscious of themselves as a community of individuals who

happen to share a collective purpose, framework of interpretation and action, and

social structures that are momentarily useful in helping them meet their collective

and individual needs for survival, reward, achievement, contribution, service,

meaning, learning, growth and development.;

3. System members collectively reflect, from each member’s genuinely individual

perspective, upon the utility of the PD in connection with its utility in meeting

community needs; and

4. Amend, change, improve and/or abolish aspects of the PD, or possibly the entire PD

if necessary, in order to better meet those needs.

136 The centrated Performance Domain.

313

Appendix D: The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities

In connection with the notion of wholeness, the model proposes that within any

human system, a wide spectrum of basic human capabilities that support ongoing

equilibration is available to the system from somewhere within the systemic totality. The

graphic below illustrates this spectrum of capabilities. 137

137 Definitions are provided at the end of this Appendix.

314

This spectrum of capabilities is offered speculatively and heuristically. It is based on my

own experience in consulting to human systems, rather than on rigorous scientific

analysis. Performance Capabilities (the top half of the spectrum) are proposed as most

supportive of Task One ― responding effectively to a context, or Birth, or a Performance

Response. Adaptive Capabilities (the bottom half) are proposed as most supportive of

Task Two ― recentration, or Death and Rebirth, or an Adaptive Response.

Close examination of these capabilities will reveal their affinity with the Jungian

typology of organizations offered by Bridges (1992); however, the model includes some

capabilities not discussed by Bridges. Note that the capabilities are arrayed as

complements or polarities. For instance, the capabilities for Action and Reflection, and of

Rational Analysis and Emotional Competence, are viewed as complementary in nature.

These capabilities are discussed further in the following sections. A brief definition of

each capability is provided at the end of this Appendix.

Performance Response and the Spectrum of Capabilities

A Performance Response is the systemic analogue to a flow of psychic energy in

the direction of the masculine principle at the individual level. As mentioned earlier,

differentiation itself is a manifestation of the masculine principle, which manifests in a

differentiation or separation of the centrated and diffuse domains, development of

system-environment boundaries, separation of the objective world from the subjective

world, discrimination or separation of the world into distinct categories and parts

(analysis), development of abstract, rational thought, and in notions of autonomous,

instrumental action, power and control originating in the intentions of the system.

315

The model proposes that the top half of the spectrum of capabilities articulates a

set of capabilities consistent with the notions of centration, a Performance Response,

and thrust in the direction of the masculine principle, in a systemic context. Further, the

model proposes that these capabilities specifically support ongoing maintenance of the

Performance Domain; that is, maintenance of an assimilative response strategy, which is

equivalent to supporting ongoing execution of an unchanged primary task within a

relatively stable environmental context. In lay terms, they represent the fundamental

competencies related to traditional notions of management in a human system.

The set of performance capabilities in the spectrum may represent a further

differentiation and elaboration of the archetypal foundations of organization as proposed

by Corlett. Specifically, performance capabilities can be associated with Corlett’s

articulation of the twin archetypes of Zeus/Athena and Apollo/Hestia, which are identified

with the impulse to produce and direct, and the impulse to stabilize and maintain

tradition (respectively) (Corlett, 1996, pp. 53 - 54). The performance capabilities in the

spectrum also can be roughly (but not perfectly) associated with the Myers-Briggs

typology of Sensing-Thinking-Judging in an organizational context as described by

Bridges (Bridges, 1992).

Adaptive Capabilities

The model proposes that the bottom half of the spectrum of capabilities

articulates a set of capabilities, many of which are consistent with a flow of energy

toward the feminine in a systemic context. Further, the model proposes that these

feminine capabilities specifically support the capacity for creating and supporting

316

significant change to the structure and contents of the Performance Domain, and for

successfully negotiating a period of instability, turbulence and chaos that mark the

passage between adaptive plateaus or dynamic equilibria.

Some examples: Whereas ongoing repetitive task performance is supported by

the capacity to focus on concrete, material details, making change to a system is

facilitated by the capacity to back up, so to speak, and to look at the basic structure and

patterns of the system itself ― a systemic focus. In a related manner, task performance

is supported by a bias toward action, whereas making change to the system is facilitated

by the capacity for reflection ― to reflect on a systemic content as an object of

consciousness, rather than simply acting on that content in an unreflective manner.

Successful task performance requires an emphasis on mastery ― on becoming highly

competent in a given skill or strategy ― while change requires learning new skills and

strategies, which requires the capacity to let go of mastery in order to learn.

Performance excellence is often achieved through intense interpersonal competition (in

this culture at least), while effective movement through deep change (passage through

chaos) is fostered by a healthy dose of social cohesion, interpersonal support and

nurturance, and a felt sense of community (emotional competence). Successful

operation of an ongoing performance orientation is generally strongly tied into a focus on

managing financials (on economics) while undergoing significant change is often

facilitated by the capacity to reconnect experientially with the original purpose and

meaning-structure of the system. Successful performance of an ongoing, repetitive task

is facilitated by the capacity to create and manage repetitive, production-oriented

317

processes, while changing a system is fostered by the capacity to innovate. And so on.

The set of adaptation capabilities in the spectrum can be associated with

Corlett’s articulation of the twin archetypes of Hermes/Aphrodite and Poseidon/Demeter,

which are identified with the impulse to innovate and transform, and the impulse to

nurture and develop people (respectively) (Corlett, 1996, pp. 53 - 54). The adaptation

capabilities in the spectrum also can be roughly (but not perfectly) associated with the

Myers-Briggs typology of Intuition-Feeling-Perceiving in an organizational context as

described by Bridges (Bridges, 1992).

318

Table 8

Definitions of Equilibration Capabilities Performance Capabilities Adaptive Capabilities

Task Mastery: A sustained, enterprise-wide focus on achieving excellent results through task mastery: being excellent at what the organization does.

Learning: An enterprise-wide capability to learn: to take risks, to use mistakes as opportunities for learning and innovation, and to develop latent, untried abilities.

Action: a capability to take decisive action toward a goal or resolution of a problem when the need becomes apparent.

Reflection: a capability to stand back from the day-to-day work and ask the deeper questions: How are we working together? What is my contribution, for better or worse? How can we work better together?

Planning & Control: The capability to plan, to organize, to work sequentially toward a goal, and to create a helpful degree of order and structure to support task achievement.

Emergence: The capability to utilize unanticipated, unplanned events as opportunities for new developments, and the ability to embrace positive changes that were not initiated or planned by top management.

Concrete Focus: The capability to work effectively with concrete details, to stay in touch with the facts of a situation

Systemic Focus: The capability to examine and question the underlying assumptions, patterns, processes and structures which influence overall organizational performance.

Production: The capability to create clear, effective, efficient, orderly procedures and processes for creating production capability

Innovation: The capability to be creative, to develop new products and services, to create new organizational structures and processes to meet the needs of novel situations.

Economics: The capability to foster enterprise-wide understanding of financial fundamentals and goals as well as widespread stewardship of financial resources.

Purpose and Meaning: The capability to retain the original motivating energy, purpose and passion that is behind the mission statement hanging on the wall.

319

Table 8

Definitions of Equilibration Capabilities (cont’d.) Performance Capabilities Adaptive Capabilities

Rational Thinking: The capability to constructively utilize objective, logical, rational criteria for making decisions.

Emotional Competence: The capability to incorporate subjective, values-based criteria into decision-making, to express a wide range of emotions in a constructive way, and to develop healthy, constructive relationships.

Internal coordination: The capability to smoothly coordinate action toward a goal that is shared by members of a team, by several work units, or major functions.

External Scanning: The capability to deeply understand customers, the marketplace, competitors and other environmental influences and to incorporate this information into planning and work.

Alignment: The capability to align individual goals with shared goals, and to gain commitment toward their achievement.

Differences: The capability to create an environment that is safe for people to express themselves freely, and that embraces a wide variety of differences.

Task Focus: The capability to focus energy and support toward task achievement.

Creativity and Play: The capability to encourage creativity, play and fun.

Scientific planning: The capability to incorporate logical, data-driven, scientific methods in planning.

Imaginative visioning: The capability to incorporate intuition, imagination, passion and creativity in planning processes.

320

Appendix E: Resistance to Equilibration ― Individual Level

This Appendix provides some additional explanatory detail regarding the sources

and dynamics behind individual resistance to ongoing equilibration (growth). The

importance of these individual characteristics is addressed in the section of the literature

review devoted to the development of human systems, when the practical consequences

of their existence on social dynamics is discussed.

Pre-Birth138

The state of ‘Pre-Birth’ brings with it certain critical characteristics:

Self-Object Non-differentiation and Poor Interpersonal Boundaries

First, “unconsciousness results in non-differentiation, or unconscious identity.

The practical consequence of this is that one person presupposes in the other a

psychological structure similar to his own” (Jung, 1954, para. 330). In this state, subject

and object are not clearly distinguished. Ego and interpersonal boundaries are unclear.

Thus, an individual in such a state will tend to have difficulty relating appropriately to

others, being unable to perceive or honor interpersonal boundaries or psychological

differences. Interpersonal differences are experienced as threatening, and will tend to

be unperceived, ignored, glossed-over, minimized or actively repressed, which results in

138 Pre-Birth is described variously in the literature as complete diffusion, ego-Self identification, unconscious wholeness, or simply as unconsciousness, depending on one’s point of view and language use. It is the psychic state preceding formation (birth) of a separated, individual, conscious ego, and corresponds to physical pre-birth, infanthood and very early childhood.

321

resistance, or barriers, to development, both at the individual and collective levels.

Non-differentiation of the Objective World and Subjective Experience

Second, as a consequence of its difficulty in distinguishing between subject and

object, there is a corresponding difficulty in distinguishing internal, subjective experience,

a product of the psyche, from external, objective reality. Inner unconscious contents are

experienced, through the mechanism of projection, as external ‘objective’ realities,

persons, powers, and events. In Jungian thought, everything of which we are

unconscious is experienced in projection upon an object outside us. Unconscious

contents are experienced indirectly, via projections of the Self onto the world. “In this

condition one finds his friends and his enemies, his hopes and his fears, his sources of

support and his threats of failure, concretized in outer persons, objects, and events”

(Edinger, 1992, pg. 174). In such a state, one is “in thrall” to, or even a victim of, those

aspects of Self that are not consciously integrated, and they are found in the world

around us. Kegan called this a state of embeddedness (Kegan, 1982).

In this state, individuals do not relate objectively to other individuals; rather, they

relate to internally created (subjective) images of the other individuals ― images

distorted and discolored by unconscious projections, and by affect bound up with them.

Inescapably, interpersonal boundaries are distorted and violated. This makes

interpersonal (social) development more difficult. At the same time, individuals tend to

resist reclamation of their interpersonal projections, because reclamation of projection

requires a direct, conscious experience of the (generally negatively loaded) affective

charge associated with the split-off, projected content.

322

Inflation: Arrogance, Self-Centeredness and Control

Third, Edinger uses the term inflation to describe the “attitude and the state which

accompanies the identification of the ego with the Self. It is a state in which something

small (the ego) has arrogated to itself the properties of something larger (the Self) and

hence is blown up beyond the limits of its proper size.” (Edinger, 1992, pg. 7) Since the

Self is the center and totality of being, the ego (totally or partially) identified with the Self

unconsciously experiences itself as a deity, assuming itself to be total and complete, and

hence a god that is all-powerful and can do all things. Such an ego tends to exhibit an

“egotistical” attitude, together with a tendency toward controlling behavior in relation to

the external world. In unconsciously experiencing itself as a deity, it also perceives itself

as the center of the universe. People, events and situations are experienced in relation

to the self, and even at times as extensions of the self. It is as though external reality

“orbits” the individual in such a state. Using common language, such a person is “self-

centered” or “egocentric.”

Thus, an individual in a state of unconscious wholeness, or who has a relatively

low degree of ego-Self differentiation, will tend to exhibit a distorted, self-centered and

controlling stance toward the world and toward their relations, but in all likelihood will not

be aware of it. The inflated/poorly-differentiated ego, unconsciously identified to an

extent with the internal imago Dei, will initially tend to resist becoming “humbled;” that is,

to recognize and come to terms with its limitedness - its lack of total control over its

experience and over its environment. Ego boundaries imply ego limits - there is an

“outer limit” to the ego, outside of which it has no control or power, and limits are

323

anathema to the inflated ego. Obviously, this creates a resistance to development, both

at the individual and social (collective or system) levels.

Birth

The process of Birth - initial ego formation as a product of Task One - has some

important characteristics that are noted in this section.

Ego Deflation - Giving Up The Throne

Initially, the ego tends to resist the process of its relativization - its deflation, or

dis-identification with the Self. The early, poorly differentiated ego is invested in its

sense of identification with the Self, or its godlike sense of itself, and with the sense of

omnipotence that comes with it. Encounters with external reality require the early ego to

experience frustration and alienation in its inability to impose its godlike intentions on

external reality, and thus to experience psychic splitting and wounding, as aspects of its

total potentiality must be renounced. This experience of deflation is generally resisted.

After all, who wants to give up the throne?

Psychic Wounding and Resistance to Healing

While achieving advancement in consciousness through withdrawal of projection,

at the same time initial ego formation also polarizes or splits the psyche through

suppression, yielding a vast domain of psyche that is in a sense blocked, or at least

defended, from becoming conscious and integrated. The fundamental wholeness or

integrity of the individual is violated or wounded. Aspects of the total self are in essence

rejected, which inevitably results in hurt and pain, to lesser or greater degrees. Often,

324

the conscious experience of wounding associated with the act of repression is itself

repressed, together with the primary material being repressed.

Psychic splitting enacts wounding and an inner need for healing and

reconciliation of the two domains; at the same time it also creates the grounds for

resistance to that healing. Healing the split requires consciously integrating, and thus re-

experiencing, the original wounding that occurred during the original suppression. This is

generally resisted.

Ego Formation as Ego Defense

Finally, initial centration of the psyche yields a provisional ego-centered identity,

survival strategy and survival competencies (self-world relational grammar), adapted to

the environmental context, or “life-world,” of the individual. During periods when this life-

world remains relatively stable, the individual is afforded the luxury of relating to the

world primarily through an assimilative response; that is, the individual can enact or

assert his/herself within his/her environment without fundamental alterations to their

ego/identity construction. Accommodation takes a back seat, as it were, to assimilation.

325

Appendix F: Resistance to Equilibration – Human Systems Level

Recalling that “every pattern of adaptation… is maintained in essentially the

same unaltered form and anxiously defended against change until an equally strong or

stronger impulse is able to displace it (Whitmont, 1969),” it is important to note that

assimilation takes on the form of ego defense — of defending against perceived threats

to identity and to modes of being in the world (Kegan, 1982, pp. 169-170).

Death and Rebirth

The process of ongoing psychic equilibration — triggered through the need to

face up to Task Two — has some important characteristics that are described in this

section.

Passage Through Chaos

Psychic re-centration is generally marked by passage through a period of

instability or chaos, which ultimately yields up a qualitatively new evolutionary balance

(Kegan, 1982, pg. 44). This passage through instability can also be understood as

movement into and through the “edge of chaos” or the “space for novelty” (Stacey,

1996).

Healing is Challenging

Second, ongoing recentration can also be viewed as a process of healing the

split — the wounds — in the psyche. Aspects of the self that were suppressed become

accepted — embraced — as integral parts of the psychic economy. During this process,

326

differentiation and integration of contents from the shadow, underdeveloped psychic

potentials, and archetypal contents takes place. This process, while powerful and

advantageous, is also challenging, since it involves reconnection with aspects of the self

that have been unrecognized, perhaps rejected and disowned, undeveloped and

generally carry a mild-to-significant wound which must be re-experienced (integrated).

Recall Whitmont’s admonition that “every pattern of adaptation… is maintained in

essentially the same unaltered form and anxiously defended against change until an

equally strong or stronger impulse is able to displace it” (Whitmont, 1969). Also, recall

that in any living system, the centrated domain will tend to block or suppress activity and

energy originating from within the more diffuse domain, in the interests of attending to

the current survival task, and of maintaining a primarily assimilative response strategy

and schema (Gray, 1996, pg. 217). Given that a Performance Response is equivalent to

adoption of an assimilative relational strategy at a system level, it may be appropriate to

assert that a Performance Response operates in a manner analogous to an ego defense

― a defense against perceived threats to identity and modes of being in the world

(Kegan, 1982, pp. 169 - 170). Thus, the model proposes that human systems with a task

responsibility, like individuals, will tend to resist development; that is, shifting from a

Performance Response to an Adaptation Response.

Recall that systemic development ― movement toward conscious wholeness ―

means movement toward differentiation and conscious integration of the following

contents within the Adaptation Domain (drawn from Section One, above):

327

• Individual and subgroup-level, conscious differences from the orientation of the

Performance Domain.

• Individual-level unconscious functions or capabilities, personal shadow, and

complexes.

• Undifferentiated systemic capabilities (see Spectrum of Capabilities, above)

• Systemic shadow and complexes

Integration of such material is clearly challenging, so it is not surprising that

resistance is the norm. There are several interrelated systemic issues that feed this

resistance. Some challenges relate to certain behavioral tendencies of the Performance

Domain, and some challenges have more to do with resistances to accessing and

integrating contents from the Adaptation Domain.

Investment Protection by the Dominant Coalition

An obvious and fundamental developmental challenge is the desire of members

of the dominant coalition, who have the strongest role in maintaining or changing the

Performance Domain, to protect their position, status, rewards, power and control

through maintenance of the status quo; i.e., to protecting the current configuration of the

Performance Domain.

Task Embeddedness

Another challenge might be called task embeddedness. The task responsibility

of a system establishes the relation ― the basis for exchange ― between the system

and its environment, upon which it depends for survival. Fulfillment of the task enables

328

the system to survive. As the external environment changes, the nature of the

environmental need fulfilled by the task may shift, and thus the task may need to shift as

well. However, groups and organizations that are strongly identified with their task (i.e.,

embedded in the task) will tend to strongly resist changing it, even as it becomes more

and more outmoded. Human systems that have a task - but are not totally identified with

it ― will respond more flexibly to environmental change (deGeus, 1997; Kegan, 1982).

The identity of a flexible, adaptable system is rooted more in the concept of community,

supported through task fulfillment, rather than in the traditional concept of task

organization.

The Performance Trap

Another developmental challenge might be termed the performance trap. It is a

systemic analogue to the concept of ego inflation at the individual level. First, it is

characterized by a widely shared core belief, perception or attitude, a sort of systemic

conceit, that no further development is required or necessary in order to remain

successful. It is an attitude that the Performance Domain is already whole as it is and

needs no further development. Second, it is characterized by over-reliance on the

differentiated competencies residing within the Performance Domain, and a repression

of capabilities that differ from those that are legitimated, emphasized and rewarded

within the Performance Domain.

The Culture Trap

The Culture Trap is systemic embeddedness in a particular constellation of

329

attributes (attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, competencies) that become over-valued to point

where potentially useful, complementary characteristics become inflexibly denigrated

culturally. A common example, which I have personally witnessed in almost every large

company I have ever worked with or in, might be called excessive rationalism or

scientism. This consists in exclusive reliance and focus on the masculine-oriented

performance competencies in the top half of the spectrum of capabilities, combined with

rigid repression of the more feminine capabilities in the bottom half of the spectrum. The

system becomes overly rational, anemic, depersonalized ― cut off from its archetypal,

feminine moorings in emotional connectivity, passion, creativity, vision, spirit and soul, all

of which are needed to support systemic development and continuing vitality. This

corresponds with the individual level phenomenon of becoming stuck in the stage of

ego-Self differentiation.

Diversity

Diversity issues pose another developmental challenge. Issues of structural

inequality related to race, gender, age, class, or other systemic biases block the ability of

the system to differentiate and integrate differences related to all of these factors.

Institutionalization

Another developmental challenge is that of institutionalization. One of the

dictionary definitions of institution is a structured pattern of behavior or of relationships

that is accepted as fundamental (Stein, 1988). Role-based, structured patterns of

behavior and meaning-making symbol systems in the Performance Domain become

330

inflexible and unchallengeable ― cast in concrete. At root, the Performance Domain is

simply a pattern of shared behaviors, beliefs, values and competencies that support task

performance and system/community development; thus its utility is solely connected with

its effectiveness in that regard. The processes of institutionalization take what should be

a temporary pattern of adaptation a step further, transforming it into an unchallengeable

mode of being: a core identity. Thus, it becomes something that has to be defended,

often at all costs, sometimes including the death of the system itself.

Bureaucratization as Social Defense

There is some evidence that organizing itself, when enacted through traditional

processes of bureaucratization, serves as an unconscious social defense against the

emotional challenges of development. According to Diamond, the institutionalized work

group (bureaucracy) seeks to contain systemic anxiety by constructing depersonalizing

and controlling social structures. Bureaucratization, ritualized behaviors and well-

organized task performance structures characterize this type of group.

Ritualistic behavior in bureaucracy arises from unconsciously motivated obsessional thinking and compulsive behavior aimed at defending one’s self from anxiety over losing control. This defense serves to contain anxiety, which is the unpleasant experience of a momentary loss of self and other boundaries or self-identity. (Diamond, 1993) Menzies’ study of the social defenses of nurses in a British institution is a case in

point. Here, “the social defense system has been described as an historical

development through collusive interaction between individuals to project and reify

relevant elements of their psychic defense system.” (Menzies, 1960) The individualized,

emotional relationship between nurses and patients is effectively destroyed through a

331

combination of highly ritualized task routines, fragmentation of work, rapid rotation of

work assignments, and collusive social redistribution of responsibility through hierarchy.

The purpose is to alleviate the anxiety of close, intimate contact with patients (which is

the actual boundary of the job role, and which might serve as a means for emotional and

professional development for nurses), but the price of protection from development is

anomie, depersonalization, demoralization, loss of job satisfaction, loss of skill involved

in discretionary activities, and high rates of turnover (Menzies, 1960).

Group Merger

A particularly powerful defense against development is the phenomenon of

unconscious “group merger.” Group merger represents the enactment of the

phenomenon of non-differentiation or unconscious identity at a social-psychological

level. In this state, “one person presupposes in the other a psychological structure

similar to his own” (Jung, 1954, para. 330). Group merger has the effect of exerting

tremendous, although generally unconscious, repressive social pressure on individual

members to conform to group norms, and to not differentiate or individuate. It also

motivates individuals to unconsciously attempt to enforce norms on others. All of this

serves to protect individuals from becoming aware of their own inner multiplicity, as

noted above in the section Individual and Human Systems Development Are Intertwined.

Direct contact with individual inner multiplicity brings its own challenges, as noted above

in the discussion of Resistance to Development - Individual Level.

Group merger hinders the system’s ability to differentiate and integrate inner

multiplicity ― individual and subgroup differences from the dominant norms of the total

332

system. Individual-level unconscious (repressed) functions or capabilities, personal

shadow, and complexes are projected onto others within the system or are contained by

group merger, or by bureaucratic social defenses. Thus, individual development (via

individuation) and system development are intertwined. As mentioned in an earlier

footnote, systemic development hinges on development of autonomous, differentiated

individuals.

Resistance to Shadow and Complexes

Groups and organizations are also generally resistant to reclaiming and

integrating systemic shadow and complexes, which run counter to the conscious, shared

orientation of the Performance Domain, and which contain a core of pain or shame. As

mentioned in Section One, systemic shadow is a set of integral system characteristics,

behaviors or dynamics which are unperceived or unacknowledged, and not consciously

integrated. As an unconscious content, systemic shadow is projected. Projected within

the system, it manifests as scapegoating or blaming of individuals and/or subgroups for

difficult and unacknowledged systemic issues/problems. Projected outwardly, it

manifests as the identification of enemies or hated/envied competitors.

Systemic complexes are embedded, yet largely unacknowledged dynamics,

generally counter-productive or even pathological in nature, the roots of which can be

traced to critical events or key persons in the system’s history. As an example, I

consulted with a medical products company that was massively sued by the U.S. federal

government, perhaps 12 years earlier, in connection with a defective product that

caused several deaths. The product defects were a result of a multi-year period during

333

which FDA-approved product development processes were followed somewhat too

loosely. Twelve years later, because of an overarching focus on following the process in

great detail in an obsessive desire to eliminate any potential for risk, the company could

not get new products out the door. Executives never discussed the original incident, or

its potential effects, openly within the company, and instead, the company unconsciously

created an over-compensating reaction formation to the original systemic wound.

This Appendix provides a list of assumptions about human systems with a task

responsibility. The list is both a distillation and a decomposition of the model built in the

literature review. The assumptions provide the basis for understanding, assessing, and

intervening in a human system, which is the focus of the program of action research.

334

Appendix G: A Summary of Model Assumptions

Structure

1) A human system, whether a group or organization, contains a large reservoir of

resources, resident within the members of the system, that are available for task

performance and for adaptation ― i.e., for change, development and renewal. This

reservoir is termed the systemic totality.

2) The need for a system to fulfill a shared survival task enacts a suppression (or

repression) of contents not aligned with the current shared survival task, and thus

splits the systemic totality into two domains: the Performance and Adaptation

domains.

3) The Performance domain (PD) is characterized as follows:

a. The Performance domain is the set of resources that is conscious, shared

across the system, and provides the medium through which ongoing

equilibration of the system can take place. It represents the structural

configuration of the system at a given adaptive plateau, or functioning

adaptive relationship with its environment (i.e., at an equilibrium).

b. The Performance domain is comprised of the following sets of elements:

i. The first set of elements is termed the “task focus” and includes the

stated mission or purpose, vision, strategy, and goals of the system.

ii. The second set of elements is the “task structure” and includes the

organizational structure, organizational and job roles, management

335

and work processes or procedures, and management systems (e.g.,

reward systems, compensation systems, hiring, staffing, promotion,

etc., systems).

iii. The third set of elements is termed the “culture” of the system, and

includes shared behavioral norms, values, patterns of relationship,

ideology, collective notions of systemic identity, shared ‘rules’ or

strategies for success (at both the individual and organizational

levels), and a shared symbol system. This set of elements serves as a

collective foundation for appropriate meaning-making and action.

iv. The fourth set of elements is termed “differentiated competencies”

and refers to the set of capabilities that are collectively focused on,

developed, rewarded, and which support execution of the primary

task.

c. The Performance domain is functional to the extent that:

i. The current collective/shared purpose or task fulfills a real need in the

system’s environment.

ii. The contents and configuration of the Performance Domain

appropriately support the execution of the current shared task.

iii. System members are genuinely committed to the current boundary,

contents and configuration of the Performance Domain in general,

and to their individual role within it.

336

4) The Adaptation domain (AD) contains latent resources, suppressed/repressed by the

Performance domain, available to the system for adaptation. These resources are

either not shared, that is, not aligned with the current shared focus, intent and

conscious identity of the system, or are unconscious. They are systemically

undifferentiated.

a. The orientation of the Adaptation domain is complementary to the conscious

orientation of the Performance domain; i.e., the Adaptation domain provides a

potential corrective to the overly one-sided perspective and capabilities of the

Performance domain.

b. The Adaptation Domain is not an inert container of split-off materials. It is a

powerful, creative force to be reckoned with in its own right, operating

autonomously from the Performance Domain, with the purpose of movement

toward conscious wholeness of the system and its members.

c. The Adaptation domain is comprised of the following sets of elements:

i. Conscious material, at the individual and subgroup level, which differs

from the collectively shared material that comprises the Performance

Domain. Diversity issues would be an example of this.

ii. Material resident within the personal unconscious of the members of

the system which does not ‘fit’ with the orientation of the Performance

Domain

iii. Latent, undeveloped systemic and individual capabilities

337

iv. Systemic shadow ― characteristics, behaviors or dynamics which

are an integral aspect of system behavior, but which are unperceived

or unacknowledged, and not consciously integrated

v. Systemic (organizational or group) complexes

vi. The aggregate of unconscious, individual-level identifications with the

system

vii. The ultimate foundation of the Adaptation domain is the archetype of

Conscious Community, a systemic analogue to the Jungian archetype

of the Self. This archetype is a motivic element in the system, working

toward conscious realization of total systemic capacity.

Development

1) System development is unconsciously motivated and ordered through the

autonomous activity of the archetype of Conscious Community. The archetype of

Conscious Community operates, in ways that are for the most part beyond rational

understanding, with a purposiveness of its own, directed toward the completeness

and wholeness of the system and its members (Jacobi, 1973, p. 35), also known as

conscious wholeness.

a. Systemic conscious wholeness, theoretically, would ultimately manifest as a

state in which the total spectrum of systemic resources are fully differentiated

and consciously integrated within the purview of the Performance Domain.

This theoretical state is not fully (or even closely) attainable in practice;

338

rather, it establishes the direction toward which development points.

b. Interpersonally, systemic conscious wholeness would manifest as a group

with two equal foci: first, fulfillment of the shared task or purpose; second,

development of a relational context that fosters the individuation of its

members as well as the development of the group itself, in other words, that

fosters development of conscious community. 139

c. Structurally, systemic conscious wholeness would manifest through a

comprehensive spectrum of differentiated (specialized) groups, capabilities,

processes and subsystems, which are coherently integrated and focused on

the shared task or purpose, together with the capability to dynamically

refocus and reconfigure this structure with relative ease.

d. Systemic conscious wholeness would yield a significantly improved capacity

for the system, via conscious access to the full spectrum of its available

resources, both to fulfill its current task or purpose, and to dynamically

reconfigure or renew itself in response to changes either in its survival task or

in the needs of its members. These two capacities are subsumed under the

term resilience.

139 “The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind. Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of humanity. Once the individual is thus secured in himself, there is some guarantee that the organized accumulation of individuals… will result in the formation no longer of an anonymous mass, but of a conscious community” (Jung, 1954/1966, para. 227).

339

2) Because the Adaptation domain is essentially complementary to, and autonomous

from, the conscious orientation and capabilities of the Performance domain, the

relationship between them is dialectic in nature. This dialectic relationship yields

intra-system tensions that must be continually resolved. Mediating the dialectic

between domains can be done through mechanisms either of repression or

suppression.

a. Systemic repression is a product of a variety of political, social and social-

psychological defenses against the pain and difficulty of development and

change. Systemic repression precludes the possibility of resolution of intra-

system tensions. These defenses include:

i. Protection of the vested interests of the dominant coalition

ii. Structural inequalities and diversity issues

iii. Institutionalization: The PD becomes a fixed, unchallengeable

systemic identity

iv. Bureaucratization: a rigid, socially constructed, unconscious

reification of psychic defense systems via depersonalizing, controlling

social structures

v. Group merger phenomena: a social-psychological enactment of non-

differentiation or unconscious identity

vi. Projection of unconscious, unacknowledged systemic issues via

processes of scapegoating, blaming, and enemy creation. Materials

often projected include:

340

1. Undifferentiated systemic capabilities

2. Systemic shadow

3. Systemic complexes

vii. The ‘Performance Trap’

viii. The ‘Culture Trap’

b. Systemic repression manifests through a nearly impermeable boundary

between the Performance and Adaptation Domains, through a steadfast

refusal to change, and through a refusal to consciously and openly resolve

intra-system differences.

i. In a repressive system, system-wide alignment with the PD is

enforced through the mechanism of compliance. 140

ii. Repression and compliance activate energies in the Adaptation

Domain that work in a compensatory, potentially subversive manner,

often provoking disruptive or dangerous ‘irruptions’ connected with

systemic shadow or complexes. The system becomes incoherent -

internally fragmented and oppositional - which creates internal

dysfunction, stagnation, and possibly early death.

c. Systemic suppression is a stance that fosters the ongoing resolution of intra-

system tensions arising from the PD-AD dialectic. Systemic suppression is

defined as, and characterized by:

140 Compliance: the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding (Stein, 1988).

341

i. System-wide, shared awareness and acknowledgment of the ultimate

worth and validity of system contents (subgroups, needs, issues,

capabilities, etc.) seeking expression and integration (i.e., crossing the

boundary from the Adaptation to the Performance Domain), together

with either:

ii. Conscious moral choice:

1. To address it presently, and consciously work through the

issues, needs, emotions, etc. and the practical changes

needed to integrate it (into the Performance Domain), or:

2. To postpone addressing it in deference to other, more

immediately pressing issues. The tension, anxiety and conflict

are borne until the time seems right to deal with it, and/or until

a transcending resolution emerges.

iii. At root, suppression is characterized by a conscious taking of

responsibility for the systemic totality by the community and its

leaders, combined with the willingness to “do the work” to consciously

integrate it into the PD over time. It is a basic commitment to grow,

even while dealing with environmentally-driven survival concerns.

d. In a suppressive context, alignment with the boundary, contents and

configuration of the shared PD is achieved through relational contexts and

communications practices that foster ‘whole person’ commitment.

342

i. Commitment represents, at a minimum, conscious, ‘whole-person’

engagement with the shared systemic purpose/task, with the PD in

general, and with the individual’s role in the PD.

ii. Ultimately, alignment with the PD in a suppressive context depends

on conscious, ‘whole person,’ engagement in ongoing co-construction

of the PD by the entire community. In other words, the totality of the

PD becomes an object of ongoing reflection, mutability and expansion

by a conscious community of whole persons. Practically, this may not

be an achievable end state, but conscious commitment and effort to

move toward it has significant positive effects (below).

iii. Suppression, and the ‘whole-person’ commitment-building processes

that stem from it, foster a cooperative, coherent relation between the

two domains. This mitigates the unhealthy internal fragmentation,

dysfunction and destructive opposition engendered by repression and

compliance.

3) Development (making incremental progress toward systemic wholeness) occurs

through a dialectic process of accessing contents within the Adaptation Domain,

supporting them in becoming differentiated, and consciously integrating them into the

Performance Domain.

a. In practice, this means accessing and integrating differences from the current

PD - at both the individual and sub-group levels, both conscious and

unconscious - into the purview of the Performance domain. Integration of

343

such materials from within the AD calls upon the system to deal with the

following issues:

i. Resolution of issues of structural inequality and diversity

ii. Embracing of conscious, individual and sub-group psychological and

cultural differences

iii. Mitigation of unconscious group merger phenomena through

enactment of accurate interpersonal boundaries and individual

differentiation, and through withdrawal of projection at the individual

level

iv. Withdrawal of inter-group projections, blame, scapegoating and

enemy-creation processes

v. Access to emergent system-level archetypal information seeking

expression and integration

vi. Differentiation and integration of undifferentiated systemic

capabilities

vii. Integration of systemic shadow and complexes

viii. Individuation:

1. Integration of individual shadow and complexes via withdrawal

of projection

2. Differentiation of undifferentiated capabilities

3. Access to, and integration of, archetypal information emerging

from the Self

344

b. Incremental progress toward wholeness yields improvements in systemic

resilience, achieved through a broadening of the adaptive repertoire of the

Performance domain, and through system-wide, whole person commitment to

the aims and purposes of the system.

c. Incremental progress toward wholeness requires ongoing reconfiguration

(either slight or significant) of the Performance domain

4) Significant reconfigurations of the Performance domain141 are marked by intervening

periods of instability, indeterminacy, and subjectively-perceived chaos. Dealing with

these periods effectively requires that the system differentiate and integrate certain

suppressed/repressed capabilities that support change and learning, 142 and which

complement a pure performance orientation within the PD. These include:

a. Capacity to manage ambiguity ― to learn to cope with it, to remain in it, and

move through it without prematurely resorting to organization as a defensive

coping mechanism. This is related to the capacity to trust oneself, others, the

process, and perhaps life itself.

b. Capacity to manage emergence ― In this context, emergence refers to the

fact that in a complex adaptive system, the notion of linear causality and

prediction evaporates in a complex network of feedback loops and mutual

141 Such reconfigurations are equivalent to movement between adaptive plateaus within a complex system (Stacey, 1996), to a shift from an assimilative adaptive strategy to an accommodative one, and back to assimilative (Piaget, 1970), or to movement through the archetypal cycle of Birth, Death and Rebirth.

345

system-member adaptations. This requires system members, and leaders in

particular, to disembed themselves from over-reliance on a planning and

control mentality, so that they can respond effectively to unanticipated events

that deviate from the expected, planned outcome.

c. Emotional competence ― to deal effectively with the anxiety, pain, grief, etc.,

of change.

d. Relationship competence ― to build a supportive community, and to build

relationships that support change, growth and development.

e. Capacity to learn ― this requires a letting go of the need for visible

competence, mastery, achievement or control, combined with the willingness

to deal with the awkwardness and/or shame of incompetence, willingness to

not know, acceptance of mistakes as part and parcel of the learning process,

willingness to take risks, and a letting go of a blame mentality.

f. Reflection ― the capacity to disengage from the performance-oriented

tendency toward constant action and activity, and to inquire into the

effectiveness and/or appropriateness of the contents/configuration of the PD,

which is the embodiment of the system’s current theory-of-action (not

espoused, but actual).

g. Systemic thinking ― the capacity to disengage from the performance-

oriented detail and material focus of daily activity and management, and to

142 The capabilities are consistent with the Jungian conception of the feminine principle (see Appendix D:The Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities.

346

see the big picture ― the current boundary, contents, and

structure/configuration of the PD. Systemic thinking and the capacity for

reflection are viewed here as two sides of a single coin.

h. Creativity and Innovation ― the capacity for creativity and innovation to

complement the repetitive production and prediction orientation of a purely

performance orientation.

i. Play ― this refers to the capacity to disengage from a purely performance-

oriented tendency toward constant work and a nose-to-the-grindstone

mentality, and to recharge and re-create the psyche and the community

through fun, play, laughter, humor, and other non-work behaviors.

j. Purpose and Meaning ― this refers to the capacity to remain in touch with

the passion, energy, and commitment that undergirded the original formation

of the system, and to avoid become embedded in a performance-oriented

tendency to focus purely on financial and bottom-line considerations.

k. Intuition, Imagination, and Vision ― this refers to the capacity to access and

incorporate non-rational aspects of the psyche into planning, leadership and

management processes, and to avoid becoming embedded in a purely

rational/scientific (control-oriented) mentality.

l. Subjectivity and Values Orientation ― this refers to the capacity to

incorporate subjective, human needs and values criteria into decision making,

and to avoid becoming embedded in a purely objective stance.

347

Appendix H: Interview Protocol

Questions related to the model - Loop Two Inquiry:

As you know, the work that you’ve been involved in for the last few months was

guided by the model of organizations that you were initially trained in. I’d like to ask you

some questions about that model. I’d like to start with the basic assumption we used to

help us develop the action plan we used, namely that “Assumption……….”

1. What are the strengths of this assumption in terms of its ability to shed light on

how the Department operates? In other words, in what ways does this

assumption “fit” with what goes on in this department/group/organization?

2. What are the limitations of this assumption, in terms of its ability to shed light on

how the Department operates? In other words, what activities or dynamics do

you see in the department/group/organization that the model does not capture?

3. How might it be improved?

4. What are the strengths of this assumption in terms of its ability to shape an

effective change program?

5. What are the limitations of this assumption in terms of its ability to shape an

effective change program?

6. How might it be improved?

These questions will be repeated for each assumption used as a basis for action

by the team. These questions are a guide to the interviewing process. If an answer

seems to open up a related area of potential interest, I will pursue it.

348

Appendix I: Principles of Differentiated Discourse � Profound Respect for:

o Shared Humanity, Group Purpose & Values o Subgroup & Individual Differences, Stories & Experiences

� Describe Experiences and Stories: o Describe the Behavior of the Other

� Not interpretations, assessments, attributions o Describe the Impact of that Behavior on You

� Thoughts, Perceptions, Interpretations � Emotions � Wants, Needs & Intentions

o Own the Impact - take responsibility � No dumping, blaming, attacking, labeling (making attributions)

� Inquire About the Other’s Experience and Story o Genuine curiosity o Listen - don’t prepare a rebuttal or defense o No defending or rebutting

� Own Any Truth � Co-Create a New Story and Future:

o Own Our Power to Create o Own Our Responsibility to Each Other o Access / Build Hope & Trust o Move Into Joint Action o Make and Keep Commitments

� Time-Outs are Okay to Step-Down Difficult Emotions

349

ODT GOALS � Deepen the work of building a Resilient Team:

o Commitment to the Shared Purpose, Vision and Task o Leverage Differences as a Source of:

� Strength � Creativity � Breadth

o High Performing & Highly Adaptive o Release untapped potential within the group

� Build a foundation for continuing the work

350

Appendix J: Subgroup Healing Process

ODT Healing Process Key Questions

CONTEXT & BACKGROUND "#Write a brief description of the context of the relationship between your group and

the other two subgroups. What is the current situation? What is the history/ background of this relationship? What is your subgroup’s role within ODT? What is the role of the other two subgroups?

STORIES ABOUT THE OTHER SUBGROUPS "#Level One: Your story about each of the other groups

“Look out” at each subgroup, and don’t worry about editing yourself. Just try to be honest and complete about your story of the other two subgroups ― including your judgments, inferences, and attributions (labels). It would be very helpful to our healing process, if you would be willing to do so, to write your story about each subgroup’s strengths, positive qualities and contributions, as well as the subgroup’s troublesome, difficult, or problematic qualities.

"#Level Two: Your story about your group, in relationship to the other groups

“Look inward,” and write about your “inside” experience in relation to the other subgroups. What are your feelings in connection with your relationship to the other groups? What do you think and feel ― about yourself ― in connection with that relationship? What actions have you taken in your relationship with the other groups? How have you responded to them? Why? What would you like to accomplish with, or receive from, the other subgroups?

"#Level Three: Your story about your group, as informed by the past

Does your interaction with the other subgroup(s) stimulate any memories from the past? Have you been in any similar situations before ― either in a work setting or a non-work setting? What happened then? What did you do? How young were you? What was the context? What was your role, or your group’s role? What was the role of the other group, or individual (if that is the memory)?

351

STORIES ABOUT YOUR SUBGROUP

"#From your perspective, what are your subgroup’s unique strengths, positive qualities and contributions? What value does your subgroup bring to ODT? What is your subgroup especially proud of?

"#From your perspective, what is the history of your subgroup? "#Pretend for the moment that you are a member of each of the OTHER subgroups.

Put yourself in their shoes. As a “temporary member” of that subgroup, write a Level One story about YOUR subgroup. That is, how do you believe members of the other subgroups view YOUR subgroup? What do you believe might be their experience of being in relationship to YOUR subgroup? Try to be as honest as possible about how they might see YOUR group - your group’s behaviors and actions - both positively and negatively.

"#What truths about your subgroup are you willing to “own up to” in order to facilitate

the healing process and improve relationships within ODT?

GOALS, ACTION STEPS AND COMMITMENTS "#What are your goals with respect to each of the subgroups? What outcomes do you

want that you believe are critical in the context of each relationship? Please be a specific as possible.

"#Outline what you think needs to happen to achieve those goals. What action steps

will YOU commit to taking to achieve those goals?

352

Appendix K: Resilience Assessment Questionnaire

General Questions: What is your role in the company? Performance System Questions Critical Strengths & Success Factors: o What are the critical success factors for this type of company? o How would you rate this company’s degree of capability for each of those? o What competencies and capabilities are critical to success for the company? o To what degree does the company possess them? o What capabilities does this company have that make it unique, different - capable of

carving out a place for itself in this marketplace? o What issues need to be dealt with for the company to continue to survive and to

grow? Task Focus o Are the mission, vision, strategy and goals of the company clearly defined and

written? o How well do you understand them? o Do you think they are missing anything? o Do you think they are appropriate to marketplace needs? o To what extent do you personally “buy-in” to them, or support them? o What is the central motivating “passion” that energizes this company? Task Structure o Are all organizational and job roles clearly defined? o Are there effective, well-understood core business processes defined? o Is there a teamwork orientation and ethic?

What is the role of leadership? How effective is leadership?

353

Culture o What are the behavioral norms in the company? What are the rules? o What are some statements that would capture “the way we do things around here”? o What are some of the cultural factors or elements that are central to this company’s

identity? o What core values drive the day-to-day operation of this business? o What sort of person would fit in and do well here? Adaptation System Questions o Tell me about the degree to which you feel….

- A sense of safety to “be yourself”

- A sense of being valued for who you really are

- A subjective sense that you can grow and develop in this organization - that you’re not “stuck” in a dead-end job

- Safety to say whatever you want ― don’t feel excessive pressure to censor yourself

- Safety to talk about the feelings you have in connection with what is happening ― to you, and within the organization or company as a whole.

- Safety to talk openly and honestly about your needs in connection with your current job, and in connection with your development.

o How open and honest are people here in terms of providing feedback to co-workers?

o Is there room for playing and having fun here?

o How creative is this company?

o How would you characterize working relationships here?

o How does the group deal with anxiety?

o How does the group deal with conflict and tension?

o How does the group deal with interpersonal differences?

o How are mistakes dealt with around here?

o How much time is spent “standing back” from the daily grind to examine “the system” ― that is, how you do things, how you are organized, what your operating assumptions are?

354

Appendix L: AR Loop One Output – ST-ODT

DRAFT143 Organization Development and Training

State Department of the XXXXXX Mission Statement - 7 Year Time Horizon

11/12/02 Our vision is to provide training, education and development opportunities necessary to create the best Department, now and for the future. To achieve this vision, we will offer these services: • Cultural Transformation • OD Interventions • Process Improvement • E-Learning • Training (management, leadership, staff) • Coaching • New Hire Training Plans and Orientation • Goal Setting • Instruments (assessment) • Retreat Planning To these customer groups: Internal - • Divisions • Regions • Support Staff • Leadership • Headquarters • New Hires • Public • Volunteers Our customers find special value in our: • Big picture (state-wide) perspective • Insider understanding of Department’s culture and inner workings • Share in common purpose, values, and realities • Specialized skills 143 Edited to remove any identifying references.

355

• Customization • Resourcefulness • Central repository Our customers also value our: • Experience • Credibility • Professionalism • Free - no direct cost • Accessibility • Visibility Our success will be assessed through the following measures and specific criteria: 1) Kirkpatrick Evaluation levels 1 through 4. Evaluations from the after course smile

sheet to post evaluations. (External assessment tool) 2) Requests for training and OD interventions- track frequency, target audience,

programs requested, and interventions used. !"Track these requests to ascertain whether the trends are positive or negative. !"The flow of requests should indicate something if attendees are repeat

customers for the same courses or if new people are requesting existing programs.

3) Budget- money follows priority. If it is a priority in the organization and the organization

considers it to be important it will be funded. How money is spent must be strategic and in alignment with the organization’s goals. This is especially true when funds are limited and the budget is severely restricted.

4) Retention- (See HR)- How many people are leaving the organization and for what

reasons? What can we provide:

• Educate awareness of system up front • Educate new team leaders with Management/ Leadership

5) Succession Planning- What can we provide:

!"Leadership development !"How can we support Human Resources?

6) Internal Consulting- assist other departments in developing their sections infrastructure-

service and measurement 7) Review Executive Report to see status of performance of division or unit previously used

in any OD interventions.

356

8) Develop ‘long term’ assessments related to health and wellness of the organization.

Need to ask and answer the following questions: !"How healthy is the soul and heart of the organization? !"Does staff have a sense of purpose and fulfillment? !"Are the core values of the organization in evidence and are they practiced?

Our Core Values and Principles As we serve our customers and interact with each other, our behavior will be guided by these values and principles: • OD&T is committed to the Department’s core values of:

◊ Quality service: Timeliness, caring, follow-up, produce the right product and be enthusiastic

◊ Integrity: Your word is your bond. People trust you when they see your consistent

behavior, which is professional and of high standard. ◊ Fairness: Equal treatment for each other and our customers ◊ Independence: Freedom from political influence centered on real issues, objective, not

swayed, impartial.

• OD&T is committed to improving and/or serving the total well-being of the Department and its employees.

◊ We are the conscience of the Department: We must tell with sensitivity and honesty

what we see, feel, hear, and sense. We must show and tell what research and data collection reveals. We must represent positively the Department.

◊ We care for the soul of the Department: Ensure that we do our part to model positive ethical behavior. Hold each other and ourselves to the highest standard of conduct.

◊ Our hands-on approach allows us to have a pulse of the organization: Continuously receive feedback, face time dialogue, listening.

• ODT is committed to high-quality relationships with our customers and with each other.

◊ Honesty: Truthful, accurate reflection of our perception

◊ Sensitivity: Understand issues, listen, show empathy

◊ Authenticity: What you see is what you get, not masking, if you disagree, you disagree.

357

Say what you believe - being who you are.

◊ Objectivity: Open, weighing, balancing both sides

◊ Confidentiality: Trustworthy, keep things to yourself. • ODT is committed to the learning, growth and development of the group and its members.

◊ Self-renewal: Attend training sessions - professional development

◊ We research, learn and grow: Study the industry, just in time, creative. We will hold each other and ourselves accountable to these principles of behavior, and we will use them as guides to our learning and development. They will serve to guide development of our group norms. Our Overall Product and Customer Priorities When we compare our products to our customers today and seven years from now we: Customers (from today’s perspective) Products Existing New Existing 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 2, 3, 4, 4, 4 New 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 2, 4, 4, 1, 2 Customers (seven years from now) Products Existing New Existing 2, 4, 4, 4, 4 1, 3, 3, 3, 3 New 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 2, 3, 4, 1, 1 Our Assumptions About the External Environment

1. Decreasing budgets, and being asked to increase services

Given the current economic condition in the state, we can no longer expect a rubber stamp of OK on Department budget items. In the past, it was not difficult to extend the Organizational Development & Training budget to encompass all the necessary items that we felt we needed. As the budget noose tightens, our requests will fall under more and more scrutiny. Personnel cutbacks may force us to get by without staff additions and all of the technology updates we so much desire. Pathlore will be an increasing important weapon in our war with budgetary restraints. Once the system is up and running, it will cut down on the clerical work involved with record keeping, report issuing, class registration, and much more. This will

358

free up some of the support staff to take on greater roles as backup resource people to the trainers and OD&T staff. This redistribution of duties will increase our worth to the Department and provide more time to take on additional assignments. Economic times are cyclical and hopefully an economic resurgence will take place before our seven-year plan concludes. In the meantime, we will need to work very closely with support groups and management to provide the requested services.

2. Language and cultural barriers

Based on the year 2000 census, the state is becoming more and more a “melting pot” state in the United States. As the State Department has got to learn how to deal with this on a large scale, so too must the Organizational Development & Training Unit learn to deal with this new opportunity. New initiatives must be forged to work hand-in-hand with a population that is becoming more diverse with each passing day. Now we advertise for bi-lingual workers and translators to assist us in getting the cases through the system. The OD & T Unit should really be involved in offering classes (taught by consultants) in various foreign languages to provide a larger bi-lingual base or at the very least, workers who have a limited knowledge of the foreign languages spoken by and cultures of our customers. As the years progress, we may want to take another look at this problem and revise our game plan. Instead of offering programs to teach workers to speak and/or understand a foreign language, it may be to our advantage to revise this thinking. Perhaps we should be involved with arranging ESL (English as a Second Language) classes to instruct foreign-born employees how to communicate with us. This would solve some of the cultural barriers at the same time. So for the future, I see a Department with employees as diverse as our customer base, with OD & T providing the services to assist.

3. Changing family structures

In order for our employees to function efficiently and effectively, we must address the problems that arise in the family structure. Some of those problems are:

Coping as a single parent, problems with daycare, financial problems (one or two parent families), having to work a full time job and a part time job while raising a family. Domestic Violence plays a large part in some families. Drugs and alcohol abuse, gambling problems, juvenile delinquence, adolescent abusive behavior towards parents, others. Aging parents - roll of caretaker. The juggling act - work, home, kids, errands, etc. Pressures at work, pressures at home.

By offering some of the following classes, we can assist our employees: Emotional Intelligence, The New Generation Employee - X and beyond, The Power of Attitude, Time Management, What Does Service Have to do with the Courts and Stress Management.

359

4. Terrorism and violence

As one of several societal issues affecting our work, terrorism and violence need to be

considered as the Organizational Development & Training Unit plans for the future.

We have seen a recent increase in the amount of violence around us just by being aware of current events: school shootings, bias crimes, domestic violence, child abuse, and more. While world terrorism has been a part of the news for many years, it recently took place “in our own backyard” and made a significant impact on us as Americans. We see the results in the cases our system processes related to these acts of violence, or even terrorism.

The OD & T Unit needs to help prepare staff for handling these types of cases, where sensitivity is so important and confidentiality is a key concern. These cases can be difficult and do have special needs, so staff must understand how to respond appropriately while still providing quality service. We also need to focus on training needs (and related policy development) to ensure that our workers feel safe on the job.

5. Life balance emphasis The Organizational Development and Training Unit will face challenges in availability of

employees to attend training. Technology is helping employees balance work and family however, it is also lengthening the workday. This means that employees are sometimes expected to work on “their own time”. Working on their time may include training. i.e., from home or a remote location. Typical course offerings during the 9:00 to 5:00 work day may need to be offered at other not so typical times or typical ways.

Course offerings on how to balance work/life to ensure that the organization is getting a fair return on their investment will be required. Since this is a new way of thinking, management will need to receive training on how to handle this issue of keeping the workplace and the employee’s needs in balance. Human Resources will require training on how to handle this balance issue as well.

For the Department this is a whole new mindset and culture, which will necessitate interventions, communication and supporting mechanisms in place to ensure its success.

6. Public perception of the Department

Public Trust and Confidence are foundational to the effective operation of the Department. Public Trust and Confidence are a key component of the nationally recognized Departmental Performance Standards. Public Trust and Confidence has everything to do with the manner in which all users view the Department, whether the public views the Department as fair, timely, and efficient. This perception can help or tarnish the daily function of the Department. The Organizational Development and Training Unit has a vital responsibility to educate, train, and assist Departmental employees to function more efficiently and effectively.

360

Appendix M: AR Loop One Output – Life Transitions

Following are the client’s perceptions of the results of the work done during the

AR cycle at Life Transitions, as provided to me in a recent letter:

Although we had become singularly focused on our first product, we hadn’t fully appreciated how “stuck” we had become due to the lack of capital and the attendant fears that this has caused. In fact, we had started this company in order to produce learning products that would help all people during moments of transition to find success and happiness. Consequently, we really believed that we could change the world. But, the anxieties of under-capitalization had allowed us to forget about this noble quest and to cling to the minimal revenues of a single product, as an end in itself. We were acting as though this one product was the only one that we could foresee and we had become very driven to concentrate only on this line of business in a narrowly performance-driven fashion.

What we learned about ourselves was that we all harbored a deep desire to return to our mission and you invited us to restate that vision. This refocused us on the bigger picture. It was in the process of this refocusing and visioning that our energy level shifted and accelerated. We seemed to transform ourselves back into the idealism that had driven our original visions.

As a consequence of this new energy, we undertook several bold initiatives. From a performance perspective: $# We restructured our sales approach to encourage our customers to order in bulk,

rather than one package of product at a time. The customers immediately agreed which significantly lowered our cost to fulfill due to the efficiencies of mass production.

$# We also reassessed the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful at selling

our broad range of products and replaced our Head of Sales who only understood the initial product but was unable and unwilling to expand to the new (original) vision. Sales immediately doubled over the last quarter of 2002.

$# In the area of order fulfillment, we shifted our system from an order process driven by

order placement from sales team members only to a toll-free access and email and web site access directly to our fulfillment team. This has stream lined the ordering process enormously and has both cut costs (down from 3 full time employees to 1 manager and several part timers on an as-needed basis). Also, our customers have expressed universal acceptance of and preference for this process.

361

$# And, from a product development perspective, we are now boldly planning an array

of products that will drive from a “menu” developed in the structured dialogues. This allows us to talk to our customers in a very different way and to ascertain their feedback and buy in. I feel as though we are now “leading” our customers rather that reacting to their requests (all of which centered on the existing product’s features).

In terms of adaptation:

We are clear about our vision and speak constantly about the “bigger picture” which keeps all of us more centered and energized. I described this to you privately as a phenomenon that reminded me of Clark Kent vs. Superman. It had seemed that as long as we were myopic in our vision we had become reluctant to reveal our true identity as saviors for generations who struggle with the effects of change during times of transition in life. But, now, this is how we describe ourselves right from the beginning when meeting a new customer or a potential investor. Well, I won’t entertain the question as to whether this will change anything. It already has changed something in each of us. Measurable outcomes:

It hasn’t been very long since we conducted this process with you, Dean. But, already the following results are traceable to your work and the work of our team: $# We have realigned competencies

$# Restructured Order fulfillment, saving nearly 50% of production costs

$# Switched to Outsourcing of several processes saving time and money

$# Our EBITDA went from the Red to the Black for the first time in the 4th Quarter of 2002

$# We are boldly renegotiating our debt and finding our creditors amazingly cooperative (at least one has identified a “softening” due to the new (to them) vision that we are portraying.

$# Sales for 2002 increased by 23.6% over 2001 due to an outstanding 4th quarter.

362

Appendix N: Loop Two Discussion: Themes and Relevant Data

The key themes for in-depth reflection, interpretation and learning in the

discussion chapter, which require supportive data, include:

o Wholeness, Splitting, Pain and Healing

o Alignment: With the PD, With Self, With Community, With the Greater Good

o Death and Rebirth

o Building the Enabling Container

o Intimacy and the Resilient Human System

o The Differentiated/Integrated System: Conscious Community

This Appendix provides that data. It is organized in exactly the same order as the

discussion chapter.

Wholeness, Splitting, Pain and Healing

Wholeness

J: When you can connect things in conversations, and you have relationships with people that extend a couple of years now, you’re able to piece things together and kind of understand why they behave as they do. This allowed that, looking at some of the adaptive…I don’t know if you call them competencies or subsets. You can see what’s missing, and when you get many missing, missing, missing pieces, there’s a problem at all levels.144 D: This shed light on the full spectrum of humanity, and you’re seeing that there are big chunks missing? J: Absolutely.

144 This participant is referring to the Spectrum of Equilibration Capabilities, found in Appendix D.

363

D: What’s the traditional concept [of performance]? J: Which would be defined as very task oriented, very fixed on production, efficiency, automation, kind of a rote continual stream of performance. D: What about that concept? J: It doesn’t take into account the human factor, and that’s what can derail, sabotage, or make something excel. That’s why I’ve always had difficulty with the performance side, but I think you defined it beautifully. D: But by itself… J: By itself. D: Oh, I see what you’re saying. J: And that’s why adding the adaptive piece, which is often overlooked and you’ve defined well, is the key to make both succeed. D: So you have to integrate the two? J: Absolutely, and you’ve done that. E: It’s like a marriage: You have the husband, who can be a driven person, always wanting to go, go, go, get this and that done, but work and be very driven. That could be your performance [domain]. Then you have the wife, who is more adaptive, more innovative in bringing balance to the other person, who wants to move forward and wants to continue to go and not really taking time to think of consequences, not taking time to look at the big picture. But the wife is more adaptive because she brings a balance. She says, “Slow down,” and “Have you looked at the big picture?” What it does is it brings balance because together it works. Together, what you have is a balance, and that allows, if you are looking at the husband in my example, it allows the husband to be different and it’s okay to be different. It allows the wife to say, “You are moving fast, so just slow down,” and it’s okay for her to say that. But together it works.

364

Splitting, Pain, and Healing

C: I think we might be divided, as far as the unit is concerned and the people involved. There’s some compliance and then there’s some commitment. Some are more committed than others. There are some that are just compliant. I’m here; this is my job; I’m supposed to do a, b, c, d, and that’s what I do. D: Commitment …comes from within. …Compliance is imposed from without: I’m conforming. It’s external motivation instead of internal motivation. C: I think that there is a division, that some do not have that internal motivation, and it could be because they’ve been here so long. … The energy level is down with the compliant ones. With the committed, they are bursting with energy, bursting with new ideas, want to try new things, want to take the challenge. They’re not always saying, “Oh no, in the past we didn’t do it that way.” They’re always negative. D: The compliance ones are negative? C: Yeah. D: What is your take on the principle of commitment-based alignment versus compliance-based in OD&T, whether that plays out? M: We have definitely seen that. I would look at our sub-team. One of the things I might have liked to put under the Newbie’s would have been commitment. One of the things I might have liked put under the other two was compliance. D: Do you discern any energy differences between the subgroups? M: Absolutely. The high energy comes from the group that’s got the commitment; that is doing things from that commitment. Low energy comes from the compliants, and I could see that. I could see why operating completely out of the compliance mode would be a drain. How do you get excited about that? How do you get excited about coming to work if you are thinking “I have to go to work”? M: I think it is a lot easier to be repressive than to be suppressive. D: Much; that’s why it’s the default setting. M: Exactly, so if someone is not willing to work beyond what they have to do, and

365

that translates into knowing exactly the minute they walk in and exactly the minute they walk out, knowing exactly when break happens and knowing exactly how many days they have left to retire. …I think then that they are not going to want to put the work in that it is going to require. If we look at our unit honestly, we continue to have conflicts over those who are willing to do it and those that are not willing to do it. I’m not sure it’s a skill set question. I think it’s a behavioral attitude question. D: One is a learning posture and the other is a non-learning posture? M: Yes. D: What I hear you saying is the organization itself, ODT, isn’t integrated yet. There’s a performance piece and an adaptive piece [the subgroups], but they haven’t yet developed a way to organically integrate those. J: I agree with that, and that all comes under the auspices of the team, a fully functioning, high performance, high-adaptive team, and we’re far away from that.

J: And from [the] adaptive [side], some people just don’t want to go there, have no interest at all, and even listening to you was painful. On some levels, it was just very uncomfortable. D: What do you think the pain was? J: I think its self-awareness, and moving, and having this expectation that there’s a different way to do things. … A lot of people I see are in pain and they don’t have the emotional competence, or the adaptive [competence]… same thing really. How to get out of it, how to deal with it, how to regulate it, how to motivate it. I just think that’s unfortunate. The model, the adaptive piece, can get you out of that pain. D: How? J: By being cognizant of those components. It’s like emotional intelligence, being cognizant of the competencies. D: That underlie emotional intelligence? J: And try to get some mastery; self-awareness is the root of it all.

366

Alignment & Commitment: With the PD, Self, Community, and the Greater Good

Data Segment One E: What happened is the group tended to identify with task, with jobs, and stay there, in terms of the performance system. … The picture I get ― and this is why I like the iceberg image ― is we think that that little piece we see on the top ― which is performance-driven ― we think that is the way to function, day-in and day-out. I see the organization as a unit, and underneath that, some of us can do much better than what we are doing. …Some us can be creative, can be innovative. Data Segment Two M: One of the things that you explained in the model is that in the performance mode, the differences between individuals become points of problem, and it’s an incredible problem, because how else are you going to align with each other and move forward, if you’ve got people that are over here and they’re out of the box. But the fact is that if we’re going to do what our super nature wants to do, then we need to be out of the box a little. We need to be in the thought-leader role. As an industry we have tended to define success as the amount of product that we have sold to human resource directors. I would suggest that that is fine for short-term success, but long-term success… Long-term success is: Can we as an industry find the set of processes that are our core competencies, and find the recipients of those competencies who are most needy, and then figure out the way to get that to them. D: That’s more aligned with the purpose and the meaning of the activity, rather than the vehicle through which it’s delivered. M: Yes, and that’s one of the messages that I would like to convey to the industry, to awaken to our real missions. Data Segment Three D: The assumption of the model I’d like to test to see if it’s true, see if that engagement comes from a genuine alignment between the organizational vision and where it’s sort of going and what is your own personal. M: I would agree that engagement does come through that alignment. If I didn’t agree with, and buy into, and totally support the vision of this organization, and

367

I’m talking about the Department as a whole, what it feels it must do, and what it feels its role is in serving the public. I always think of the tremendous consequences of what we do. People’s lives hang in the balance, people’s happiness. It’s pretty amazing, that kind of responsibility. I used to have that kind of commitment I’m talking about for a personal products company. At one point I realized again that there was a cost involved, and I started thinking about it, weighing it with “What is the value of what I’m doing.” Yes, I’m valuable to the company, and yes, I’m making sure that employees get what they need, and I’m doing my best to be leader in an organization. But in the end, if it comes down to what this company is supplying is personal products, my commitment and my dedication require more than that. I think that is why when I came to work for the Department, I thought immediately that this is something I can commit to, put all the time in and feel good about it. This makes a difference. “How Do I Make a Difference” [a training program this participant developed] probably is born from me wanting to give myself to something that does make a difference. D: That is bigger than you? M: Yes, it has to be bigger than me. It has to be bigger than just me. D: I hear you saying that it’s about service to humans? M: Yes, to the public and to society. Data Segment Four E: [We have] a level of commitment to each other. I’m not sure we will get a level of commitment towards the organization. I just don’t see it at this point, but I think to each other. D: As human beings? E: Yes, and if we expect that I’m going to give you the best that I can give you in a product, and I’m going to do it because that is what you expect of me and that is what I expect of you. That is what will get us to produce work at that level, consistently. But I don’t think it’s with the organization in mind. The organization will benefit, but what it comes down to is the level of commitment and alignment we have in the unit, to each other.

368

D: Based on what? E: It’s based on respect and trust, and it is based on the respect, trust and desire to individually give my best. Now I will align that with the organization. We want the organization to represent something that is a positive. We want the organization to be very consistent with a lot of the programs that we present, as a team. It will be based on those things. D: They are sort of trans-organizational, to transcend those principles, the trust… E: And respect… D: And respect, are sort of trans-organizational. They don’t depend on any particular organizational construct. They are more purely at the level of healthy community. E: Right, and I think for us, in this unit, that is where we see the most benefit. All of us have found issues with the organization in how the organization is structured. In some respects, some of the mindset of the old leadership is still in place, so we know that. It is almost like you remove yourself from the organization, and we are going to do a good job because I respect you, you respect me, and we’re capable of doing a good job. I don’t want to give you less, give the organization less, than I know I’m capable of dealing with. Data Segment Five G: A friend of mine... said, “How do you live without a stable paycheck?” … I said that I was so miserable all the time that I hung my hat on that steady paycheck, bigger and bigger every year. I love my life now more than ever, and it’s so strange because, in a very bizarre way, I have more money. And in a strangely bizarre way I have a better life. The thing that’s really most important to me is being who I am, and in control of my life. D: What controlled your life [before]? G: Fitting in. Not being who I am and molding into this… D: Yes, the role, the rote, the cog, you were a very good cog. G: I’m an excellent cog. I made it all the way to a certain level, and then things

369

fell apart. …Yes, I couldn’t do it. D: That’s what this model is about ― in an organization. G: Yes, I couldn’t do it. Data Segment Six G: I don’t know if I shared this, but when I talked with a guy in Detroit, he actually used the words “life, learning and transition,” where the stuff mirrored who we were. D: He came up with that independently in talking about your company? G: Yes, talking about our… The dialog was around they want to use our web site ― …that second life transition. He was so praising, and said that they were finding that this move towards life, learning and transition is really the most valuable. I said I’m glad you mentioned that, because we see ourselves as a life transition company. D: Another synchronicity. …That’s because you were clear about your core identity.

Death - and Rebirth

Data Segment One G: It was like a family came together and had a baby (Career Discovery), gave birth to something that some people knew something about, while the rest of us knew nothing about it, and that escalated; this “who is in the industry and who is not in the industry” was a huge differentiator ― it separated parents and children - from the very beginning. That was kind of the “birth.” Through the aging process that model died, just the way parents die. D: That image popped out, and it was like Life Transitions was reborn as Life Transitions, instead of Life Transitions doing business as Career Discovery, or Career Discovery doing business as Life Transitions. G: Exactly. Exactly.

370

Data Segment Two C: If an organization integrates into its thinking, its being, its living, the concept of death, it can regenerate itself; but if it’s unwilling to face death… Life, death, rebirth: it happens. Let’s understand the concept. Then, understanding the concept and accepting the concept, then put it into context here, so that you’re always looking for …what has to die, so you’re always looking at that. If you’re always looking at that, that’s a whole different perspective than “let’s survive.” That attitude of “let’s survive” has you holding onto things that need to die. Let’s entertain the possibility that in 2004 Career Discovery won’t exist any more. …If that’s impeding other possibilities. D: If that’s impeding the real identity. C: Then maybe we need to kill it. …What comes to mind right now is drug addicts. You think heroin allows you to survive, but it’s really killing you. But [when the matrix was created and displayed] …I began to really see, rather than just lip service, I began to see a broader vision being bought into by everybody. That energized me because then I felt, “Yeah, I can be here. … I can help make this happen, because these people want what I want.” D: You became personally committed, using the language of the model. C: Yes, I became personally committed. …Here’s the distinction. That’s why I don’t think it’s so much the matrix. There’s a distinction between understanding something in theory and living it: the distinction between something coming to life for people, versus hearing it, versus just saying it. You may have heard people say that, but people didn’t live it. People didn’t understand it with their being, to the extent that they wanted to really create it. It was just a theory. D: It was like words that we spoke to each other, but we were actually a Career Discovery Company? C: Exactly. It was just theory. At least in my mind, that’s what I surmised. D: I said, “Who are you? Do you do this, do you do that?” I felt like I was holding up a mirror. I created a mirror by asking that series of questions. Remember, I even said, “Is this you or not? Who are you people?” And then something happened: Boom. C: Yeah, one of the things that may have been going on at that point was, yeah,

371

we faced the reality of, if we kept going the way we were going, it would die. You either had to leap or get consumed in the fire. D: You all looked at that straight on. And then what happened? C: And then we began to generate energy around new possibilities. …We began to take responsibility for creating this company that we have been giving lip service to. D: It’s so odd that what you got reborn to is who you were, or who you said you were. C: That’s not odd at all. I think it happens all the time. People pretend to be what they want to be, but there’s a difference between pretending what you want to be and realizing you can really be what you want to be. D: And claiming it? C: And claiming it, because when you’re pretending you’re what you want to be, you’re hiding the fact that you really don’t believe it. Data Segment Three H: What we are doing today [i.e., selling Career Discovery] is really a small piece of who we are. Where before, it seemed like the other way around. We were so focused on this small piece that we didn’t see what we could become. D: That was Career Discovery? H: Yes. D: Now I think I get what you are saying. That’s very interesting. You lost sight of your identity. H: Yes, too busy worrying about today and tomorrow, rather than what we really set out to become. D: When I put the matrix up, and held it up and asked, “Is this who you are?” It forced it and something happened in that group that changed. What happened? H: We decided that’s who we were. Before, we were so focused on getting revenue out of this Career Discovery. The formula that I think of is, and everyone had grown accustomed to, from stepping back and looking at it, was “We have

372

no investment; we have a growth through revenue [strategy]; this is our current product; we have to increase the sales of these units, one-by-one;” which was an insurmountable task. …But when we saw that matrix, of all the things that we really wanted to be, that we all were talking about, but had never been focused on, and it was like it didn’t matter what happens with Career Discovery because it’s such a small piece of what we’re going to be. Data Segment Four M: I think that was very, very valuable. It was valuable for me. It’s part of what put energy back into us as a group, meaning identifying our mission again and quantifying it in a way that is… It’s the same old that we always knew, but we never talked about it. It was a quiet... the best-kept secret in the company, kind of Clark Kent and Superman. We were being a good Clark Kent by being the Career Discovery Company, something that everybody recognized and nobody is going to throw a stone at because after all, it’s been around for 10 years. It’s a tried and true product, and that’s who we are. But actually, beneath it all, we are a super innovative, thoughtful group. We’re not going to tell anybody about that. D: You were afraid to own that? M: We were.

Building the Enabling Container

Data Segment One D: How about the issues related to breaking up the phenomenon of group merger, through differentiating and allowing people to be fully who they are, as opposed to going with that silent group-think, group merger thing. Is that something that you think is important? G: At our company groupthink is always disastrous. D: Yes, instantly disastrous. G: Instantly disastrous, yes.

373

Data Segment Two M: I think you are constantly reinforced with that. D: What is “that”? M: “That” being that if you say something that a group doesn’t agree with, or that isn’t the norm, it’s pretty clear, pretty fast, that you’ve done so. And there are varying degrees of consequences. … College tries to free you a little from that, and I think it does to some extent. …You just get to the point where you think that maybe in college I can be who I want to be, and my professors encourage me to think, and we have gotten outside of some of these boxes, and I’m going to hit the world in that mode. But the world might not be ready for that, and it’s that kind of agreement - you’re not playing by the rules, and we’re going to teach you the rules again. Data Segment Three C: I think it [working on differentiated communications] was helpful, but I don’t think we did enough of it. Maybe we need to review it again, because if I’m not mistaken …when [Gail] gave her comments, she was jumped on by the other members. So it didn’t quite get through. …To me it shouldn’t have been that way. D: We didn’t really follow rules. If we had followed the rules, what do you think would have been different? C: I think they wouldn’t have just reacted to what she said so quickly… stepped back and at least listen to her point of view and analyze it a little bit before giving a response, or come back with, “This is how I took your response.” Data Segment Four M: I thought I was fairly good [at] reading things that weren’t there. D: Did they come out of your story? M: They came out of my story: that is, someone is frowning when I’m talking to them ― that they are not receiving well what I’m saying to them ― I’ve come to realize, at least on an intellectual level ― I don’t know that I’ve gotten there emotionally yet - but it might have nothing to do with what I’m saying. It might have to do with their own story. It might have to do with mourning, or with their

374

mother being in the hospital. It could have to do with their feelings coming out when I’m talking to them. It could be many things. It doesn’t necessarily have to be focused at me, and what I’m saying. Again, I realize it on an intellectual level. I’m not sure I’m there on a subconscious level. …I’m still not comfortable doing it, but I’m comfortable with the process, with the thought of doing it, which is checking the assumption, checking why someone is responding the way they are. D: Inquiring. M: Inquiring: “I see that you are frowning. Is it what I’m saying to you, did you understand it; did I say something that’s bothering you?” I’m making inquiry versus making assumptions, even if I thought they were pretty well-founded assumptions. D: That is key. M: Right, so I think that had a tremendous impact on me. …I am struck by how every conversation I have with someone could either further an agenda, stop one, or cause it even to fall backward. That is a tremendous weight, and if you think about that, the communication skills become all the more important, and you need to fill out [the picture] constantly. You need to seek out more and more dimension, which is what you got with that program. I’m not sure there is a lot that is routine in anybody’s interactions. What we might see as routine can have incredible ripples. The day that somebody gives me a comment, and I fall back to something offhandedly and think, ha, ha, and move on, I don’t know that that comment just stopped someone from being able to reach out to me in a different way. I’m not sure there is a lot of, what I would call, routine, when I’m not operating on a level that I need to, to be totally perceptive. Data Segment Five D: What I’m hearing you saying is that Simon’s group is slowly differentiating from the culture, the embedded culture. M: I would absolutely agree. D: First of all, he [Simon] has to take the lead somewhere, but the difference being deepening the dialogue in the inquiry and the relationships, at levels that need to be had around what is going on here, how we are differentiating, and whether the organization really can go there.

375

The key to differentiation is sort of like combining backbone with heart (O'Neill, 2000). So you are having a backbone ― you are routing away and setting a new course that is internally directed ― but if you don’t maintain relationships, and even work harder on them, you differentiate yourself out of existence. M: Yes, I would agree with you, and my feedback is I think you are right. …We are really doing a lot of things at once that are changing things. We are pushing the organization, and at some point, they are pushing back. D: And the idea is to remain in dialogue and deep. M: Yes, and I know Simon is capable of doing that. I don’t know how willing, the deeper level dialogue he will receive up there. I’m not sure.


G: I personally believe that you have to find the individual’s wants, desires, whatever you want to call them, that allows them to bring commitment. So it isn’t just about the big vision; it’s not just about the future stocks. I find that the greatest challenge is... I only know how to do it [build commitment] on a one-to-one basis. D: What I hear you saying is that the commitment is achieved through involving with a person’s whole being, in the process, and their needs, and where they are coming from, versus, like, shoving the vision on them. G: That’s my approach…in my own mind it was like, well, that’s really a good thing. D: That’s what I’m trying to envision, is a community of differentiated persons, who are mutually engaged in some sense, their whole being is. G: Right. D: Do you think that has happened with the executives? G: Absolutely, I think that has happened in the executive team. …There is a tremendous amount of effort that goes into building those kinds of relationships that build to commitment. D: Yes ― that’s why people don’t do it.

376

G: It’s huge. …What I don’t know is: what is my span of ability to do that, and how many people can you run in that way? …In one way, in a theoretical sense, I believe that if you can create more empowered individuals, you get that stage. It’s like this idea that if you help 20, then 20 will help another 40, and you get this natural expansion and you are able to get an organization going so that there is kind of comfort place that allows for this... “What about a blah-blah,” and that you can have a certain number of… I mean not everybody can be off on Tuesday. Obviously there will be some kind of limitation. D: I see in the team the possibility of bringing out what’s in your gut onto the table to see if there is possibly room for that. S: Room for? D: Instead of just assuming that I’m not aligned, because in my gut I feel as if something is missing, and I move on [leave]. I can bring it onto the table the group, and maybe the group will accommodate me. S: That is true, right. D: That’s like the other side of the coin. S: Exactly, in a smaller environment, i.e., numbers, yes. D: I see it in Life Transitions. S: Yes. That’s much more realistic. When I made that statement, I was really thinking about the big entity, but absolutely in a smaller number (and therefore everything would be smaller) and the only reason that is.


Data Segment One N: We [ST-ODT] used the phrase somewhere along the way about “one big happy family,” but I don’t know that we ever will be, and I’m okay with that. I don’t know that everybody here is okay with that, but I want to work well with people here. I want to feel that they respect me, and I want to respect them. But do we all have to like each other 100% and say we are terrific buddies? I don’t think that that is necessary.

377

D: I think the family is a very unhealthy image to adopt, because it’s parents and children. …Families are role-bound; in fact, they are usually very enmeshed, and the goal of this work is to break the enmeshment, and let each person be a completely separate, adult, individual human being, and let that be okay. So that is completely opposite. N: Right, in that sense, but it is easy to say “one big happy group.” I don’t know that we will ever be one big happy group in that sense, either, because there is always going to be personalities and different styles. … We can get much better at working together and still have things that we don’t like about each other, and that’s reality, but it’s a matter of how you deal with it. Data Segment Two J: Another revelation that came to me, and this was a while ago with you: I used to start out at commonality. I really thought, until I took a diversity course, that we’re all the same. Now I realize, I think, that’s kind of a naive take. It’s insulting at some level, and it’s very inappropriate. What I think I learned from this differentiation that we talked about, is that it’s better to start at the differences, and there are ways to do that, and that can be an OD intervention. Then you find out the commonalities and you bridge that gap. That’s been very helpful, and I’ve done that in a team-building setting. But I now believe, and this is a new shift for me, to start out at the differences. Data Segment Three D: It’s a very strange paradox that my work is based on. I want to talk to you about that, and you just got right to it. It is alignment within a group that allows for differences, which is usually… E: That’s right, you would think it’s the opposite. But what happens when you become aligned, and it’s understood by each and every member, is we become more accepting of the differences. It’s not so much the differences, it’s the fact that we are aligned. I think that is the key issue ― that we are all moving and serving for the same purpose of what we want to bring to the organization. Now that we know that we need each other, how do we work together? D: You need each other as different individuals? E: As different individuals; it’s okay to be different. That was great, too, because

378

we had never discussed that. Data Segment Four D: It’s like the more you let those differences be alive and living, the more cohesive you got as a group? G: Yes. That’s right. D: How does that happen? That’s a mystery, but what I hear you saying is that that is just what happened. G: That’s exactly what happened. … I think that as people become more comfortable with others’ differences, they become more comfortable with theirs. They can see how their strengths or weaknesses or whatever ― their character ― plays into it, and you can take ownership around it. I did for myself.

Appendix O: Pattern Archetypes, Model Constructs, and Theoretical Constructs and Languages

Theoretical Domains, Constructs and Languages

Model Constructs Life Process & Tasks

Focus

Pattern

Archetype Individuals Human Systems

General Systems Theory145

Piagetian Theory146

Complex Adaptive Systems Theory147

Organization

Theory148

Jungian

Theory149

Living Gestalt

Survival, Development, Adaptation, Evolution

Birth !!!! Death !!!! Rebirth Cycle

Equilibration or

Individuation

Equilibration Equilibration Equilibration Equilibration No construct, except perhaps

for survival

Individuation

Task One

Responding to a context

Birth

Initial Ego Formation or Ego-Self

Differentiation

Performance Response

Centration

Assimilation

Development & enactment of a dominant

symbol system

Organizing; organizational performance; organizational

enactment

Initial Ego Formation

(childhood & early adult-

hood)

Task Two

Responding to a change in context

Death and Rebirth

Ongoing development;

Cycle of Libido

Adaptive Response, followed by

Performance Response

Recentration

Accommodation

followed by Assimilation

Adaptation, Evolution,

Development; “edge of chaos”

Change, Development,

Transformation, Renewal

Ongoing development

Cycle of Libido

145 (Bertalanffy, 1969; Gray, 1996) 146 (Piaget, 1970; Kegan, 1982; Miller, 1993) 147 (Stacey, 1996; Waldrop, 1992; Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1995) 148 (Weick, 1979) 149 (Jung, 1954; Jung, 1960/1969; Jung, 1978; Donlevy, 1996)

BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: CREATING DOUBLE-LOOP ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THROUGH APPLICATION...

Documents

Transcript of BUILDING ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE: CREATING DOUBLE-LOOP ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THROUGH APPLICATION...