social psych depth for scribd 043012

8/2/2019 Social Psych Depth for Scribd 043012

1/24

HOD706Social PsychologyIn Depth Paper

Introduction to Theory U: Blind Spots, Attention and Emergence

Cynthia Cavalli

Dr. Jerry Snow, Faculty Assessor

Dr. Charles Seashore, Cricket Master

Fielding Graduate University

August 7, 2010


2/24

Cynthia Cavalli: KA 706In Depth

2 of 24

The doctoral journey is an opportunity for me to transition into the latter part of

adulthood, into elder-hood so to speak. As such, I am using my studies to help me digest

and integrate the major aspects of my life experience, from work and career, to personal

inquiry. The following are major sectors of my life experience thus far, that I seek to

synthesize: my overarching life question (the evolution of consciousness and how

consciousness manifests reality), my dissertation interest (what the manifestation of

reality by consciousness looks like in corporate environments), my corporate experience

(can systems theory and learning organizations offer corporations enabling capability),

and my personal development (Jungian analysis and shamanic dreamwork).

Theory U is founded in systems and social theory, and aims to facilitate

leadership "from the future as it emerges." "Where the future emerges" sounds like

another way to say "where consciousness manifests reality" so I have chosen to explore

this framework as an integration point between some of the major elements of my

inquiry, for this KA 706 Social Psychology depth paper.

Theory U was developed by MIT senior lecturer Otto Scharmer, as the social

technology framework forpresencing, a term also devised by Scharmer. The term comes

from the words "presence" and "sensing," and combines the meanings behind both words,

to sense, to tune in (Scharmer, 2007, p.8), to focus attention on a certain quality of

awareness in experiencing the present moment (Scharmer, 2007, p 39).

Scharmer proposes that this kind of awareness allows us individually and

collectively to connect directly with our highest future potential, that is generative and

more authentic (Scharmer, 2007, p8).


3/24


3 of 24

Because the theory is quite extensive, this paper primarily addresses two key

concepts in addition to the basic framework of the theory itself. Blind spots and the

structure of attention are related concepts that are foundational to Theory U. They are of

particular interest to me because they form a nice bridge to my personal development and

experience in Jungian psychology and shamanic dreamwork, but at a group level.

Additionally, Ive highlighted my understanding of emergence in this paper. It is a

phenomenon that has become increasingly unavoidable in my study of systems and how

reality manifests, and Id initially sought to focus on it exclusively, for this in-depth. But

I kept getting tangled in adjacent topics and decided to focus on Theory U instead, which

incorporates the concept of emergence.

There are other important aspects of this theory, including the concept of

presencing, which I hope to explore further, in future knowledge areas.

Blind Spots

One of the more intriguing questions Scharmer poses in his book theory U,

concerns the origin of our actions. He applies this to the actions of leaders. There are

numerous studies which examine what leaders do; more recently this has shifted to

studying the processes leaders use (Scharmer, 2007, p.70). But what remains for

consideration is the source or origin of the actions leaders take. From what source do

leaders operate? Scharmer contends that the source of our action (whether we are leaders

or not) is hidden to us, so hidden that we do not even think to inquire about it. We are not

generally aware of the source out of which we operate, of what drives us to act in the way

that we do. The origin of our actions is the place from which our attention and intention

originate, and it lies in our blind spot.


4/24


4 of 24

Knowing whatis done and understanding how its done have value. But it seems

clear that we cannot get a different result if we do not change what we do, or how we do

it. Our actions arise out of our thoughts, which is to say, our thoughts are the source of

our actions. Therefore, the only way to get different results is to change the way we

think.

But this is easier said than done. Simply saying I will change how I think

doesnt accomplish it. If we have made up our minds already about what is going to

occur, the field of possibility becomes limited by our thinking. It is only by changing our

attention, and our intention, that we give other possibilities a chance to come into being.

In Jungian psychology, there is the concept of the shadow, the aspect of the

psyche closest to consciousness containing more of a persons basic animal nature than

any other archetype, the source of what is best and worst in a person. Some suppression

of the shadow is necessary to integrate normally in human society; however, this is

accomplished at some expense to creativity and deep insight. The shadow is invisible to

the individual but can be revealed through dream depictions of the shadow content, or

when encountering individuals in waking reality who personify the shadow content for

us. Relationships with others can also mirror back to us our shadow aspects, which would

otherwise be hidden to us. The shadow includes whatever we are loathe to admit about

ourselves, and all that we did not become (good and bad), our unlived life. Because the

shadow contains such a rich reservoir of repressed material, it also offers excellent

opportunities for growth through the transformation of the shadow contents and their

eventual (conscious) reintegration into our personalities. This process of transformation

requires first becoming aware of the shadow content often as a projection onto another,


5/24


5 of 24

recognizing it as belonging to ourselves, examining the content to learn how it came to be

repressed, and working with it so we are able to own and reintegrate it into our conscious

awareness, instead of hiding it in our unconscious. (Hall, 1973, pp.48-49).

The shadow entails a deeper level of complexity than my understanding of how

Scharmer leverages the concept of the blind spot, but they nevertheless seem related to

me. Both become powerful leverage points for effecting change once they move into

conscious awareness.

Whatthe blind spot is, differs with the situation, and between individual and

collective. It is generally an aspect of the interior dimension, an arena that in our

externally focused culture, is easy to overlook, ignore.

For example, the cognitive scientist Francisco Varela, with whom Scharmer

studied, believed that western methodology emphasizes objective observation as if it

captures the whole story, to the exclusion of personal experience. He believed that realm

of personal experience is precisely where the blind spot lies.

In my own experience, Ive observed this same bias towards subjective

experience, as if what was going on for the observer was immaterial to what was being

studied.

The first step in being able to leverage the blind spot is to become of aware of it.

But how do we become aware? And can the process of becoming aware be cultivated as

an ability? Varela, who died in 2001, was exploring psychological introspection,

phenomenology, and contemplative practice in conjunction with each other to learn what

is common to these three traditions about the human experience of becoming aware.

From this exploration, he determined (what he describes as) the three gestures of


6/24


6 of 24

becoming aware: suspension, redirection, and letting-go. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 35). These

three gestures form the basic initial structure of the U process (see Figure 1).

PRESENCINGConnecting to Source

WHO IS MY SELF?

WHAT IS MY WORK?

DOWNLOADINGPatterns of the past

PERFORMINGAchieve results through

practices, infrastructures

SUSPENDING EMBODYING

SEEINGWith fresh eyes

PROTOTYPINGCo-create strategic microcosms

SENSING

From the field

CRYSTALLIZING

Vision and intention

REDIRECTING ENACTING

LETTING GO LETTING COME

ACCESS

YOUR

OPEN

MIND

OPEN

HEART

OPEN

WILL

VOJ

VOC

VOF

Figure 1. Theory U basic framework, adapted


WHO IS MY SELF?

WHAT IS MY WORK?







SENSING

From the field

CRYSTALLIZING




ACCESS

YOUR

OPEN

MIND

OPEN

HEART

OPEN

WILL

VOJ

VOC

VOF


WHO IS MY SELF?

WHAT IS MY WORK?







SENSING

From the field

CRYSTALLIZING





WHO IS MY SELF?

WHAT IS MY WORK?







SENSING

From the field

CRYSTALLIZING




ACCESS

YOUR

OPEN

MIND

OPEN

HEART

OPEN

WILL

VOJ

VOC

VOF

Figure 1. Theory U basic framework, adapted


7/24


7 of 24

Insuspension, habitual patterns of thinking and behavior are suspended. In

redirection, attention is redirected from the external arena to the internal arena. In letting

go, Varela suggests an attitude of acceptance towards whatever our experience is.

Scharmer extrapolates this process to group work, where the first gesture might

become helping a group suspend habits of judgment and standard patterns of thought.

This is meant to enable them to see what they are facing more objectively, and what their

challenges are free of their preconceptions.

The second gesture would become helping the group redirect their attention from

an end action or object to the process involved in collectively co-creating it. In systems

terms, you help them close the feedback loop between the system on the behavioral level

and its invisible source of thought (Scharmer, 2007, p. 55). This systems perspective

includes themselves in the system and their contribution to the situation.

You know you have accomplished this gesture when while in the process of

identifying the interfaces, margins and feedback loops that comprise the system under

discussion, the undeniable realization occurs that we studying the system are part of the

system, and have been contributing to the very pattern of behavior that is causing such

distress.

This is also the step where the attention is redirected from focusing externally to

focusing internally. In my own experience, this step brings a profound shift in the group

dynamic. The realization comes: There is no they out there responsible for causing

all our problems, there is only us and we in here with a collective will and ability

to change the way we work together.


8/24


8 of 24

The final gesture in the group context would be to shift the quality of collective

attention by completely releasing (letting go of completely, not just suspending) previous

identitiescollectively and of their individual roles within the groupto allow

something new to enter, an emerging future identity and purpose (Scharmer, 2007, p.

36). In this space, the group can begin to connect to new possibilities.

The structure of the U. These three gestures form the basic structure of the first

half of the U process, as thresholds that must be passed to progress through the U.

(Scharmer, 2007, p. 38). The actual corresponding process can be described as moving

from downloading -> seeing -> sensing -> letting go.

Downloading refers to our normal, habitual modes of processing information

Seeing refers to a new way of seeing, with fresh eyes and can happen only after passing

the threshold ofsuspending our judgment or habitual ways of downloading information.

Sensing the larger field of potentialities and opportunities is only possible after

passing the threshold ofredirecting our attention from the outer world to our inner world

and recognizing our participation in the whole system feedback loop.

Letting go is the threshold we must pass in order to move towards the place of

presencing, where we can connect to our deepest source, out of which the field of the

future emerges. (Scharmer, 2007, p.39).

It has been pointed out to me that these sound like developmental stages, but I

dont know that the process has been empirically verified as such. My understanding is

that the thresholds are so called because it is not possible to move through the process

without first achieving that frame of mind. For example, it is not possible to see with

fresh eyes until previous judgments and habitual modes of perception have been


9/24


9 of 24

suspended. Once it becomes possible to see in that fresh new way, we must pass the

threshold ofredirecting our attention (which must turn from external focus to internal

focus) to beginsensing in the larger field of possibilities, now unfettered by the habitual

modes of perception previously employed. The process can stop at any point and will not

necessarily move on to the next step unless the thresholds are passed. For example, it is

not possible to move to the state of mind known as presencing without redirecting

attention from the external world to the inner world. Other disciplines may describe the

process of coming to the point of presencing in different ways, with more steps perhaps,

or less, but from my study of meditation and dreamwork, these are the basic points along

the way to the state of mind found in presencing.

The vertical axis of the U moves progressively top to bottom from shallow to

deeper levels of response, from reacting to regenerating. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 50).

The horizontal axis of the U moves from perception on the left side, to action on

the right side. To complete the U, each step of the descending process of perception on

the left side (from downloading to presencing) is mirrored with a corresponding

ascending action on the right side of the U.

The threshold ofletting go moves throughpresencing and is mirrored on the

other side to become the threshold ofletting come. Moving through this threshold leads

to a space where vision and intention arecrystallizedfrom the perspective of the future

that seeks to emerge. The threshold ofredirecting from outer perception to inner

perception (on the way down the U) now becomes the threshold ofenacting our inner

vision in the external world on the other side of the U.


10/24


10 of 24

Arriving at this point in the process makes it possible to move on to the threshold

ofembodying. Scharmer suggests, at this point, prototyping as an approach to bringing

ideas into concrete reality quickly. This enables us to explore future potentialities in

concrete reality, or as he puts it, being in dialogue with the universe. (Scharmer, 2007,

p. 39).

Scharmer makes five proposals that summarize the basis of Theory U.

1. We need a new social technology based on tuning three instruments (open mind, open

heart, open will). Scharmer believes this is necessary in order to achieve something

different than the usual restructuringredesignre-engineering efforts commonly found

in corporations today, which generally dont result in sustainable change. By social

technology, I understand him to mean an application of social processes in a new way

(for the development of leadership, for example).

He suggests the cultivation of three instruments already in the possession of every

human being at the individual and collective levels. These instruments, or capacities, are

open mind, open heart, and open will.

Open mindrefers to our ability to access intellectual intelligence, to be open to

new information in a fresh way, as if seeing it for the first time. Open heart, refers to our

ability to access emotional intelligence, to empathize with those around us, and to see

situations from different perspectives besides our own. Open will, refers to our ability to

access our core authenticity, our intention, or spiritual intelligence.

Notice how these three instruments correlate to the three gestures described

earlier. Open mind is operative at the level of suspending and embodying. Open heart is

operative at the level of redirecting and enacting. Open will is operative at the level of


11/24


11 of 24

letting go and letting come. These capacities can be cultivated at both the individual (or

subjective) and collective (or inter-subjective) levels. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 40).

2. The most important leadership tool is your self. By self Scharmer is referring

to the person (or community) we can become as we grow into our future, our highest

future possibility. Scharmer suggests that our future highest self (or Self) and our current

self can communicate and transfer meaningful information when we spend time at the

bottom threshold of the U. It is here that we must completely drop our ego and habitual

self in order to allow our higher Self to manifest.

Here again there is correlation to Jungian psychology which also uses the terms

self, and Self, to denote similar but somewhat different aspects of ourselves. Scharmer

uses selfto mean the person we have become as the result of our past.In Jungian

terminology, the selfrefers to our individual aspect that acts in the field of time as our-

self; it is distinct from the Self which is the archetype of wholeness and completeness, the

organizing principle of the psyche. Again they are different, but not unrelated. [from

http://www.marthablake.com/individuation1.html

Post-Jungians tend to use selfto mean the individual centerand circumference,

and Self to indicate the collective center and circumference. The collective unconscious

may be thought of as psychic contents that belong to a group, community or to all

humanitythe inherited or shared elements: The collective unconscious contains the

whole spiritual heritage of mankinds evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every

individual.]

3. The Leaders interior work deals with meeting and mastering three enemies . Scharmer

likens the passage through the thresholds of the U using the Biblical terms of passing

through the eye of the needle. Difficult inner work is required which is why it is the road
http://www.marthablake.com/individuation1.htmlhttp://www.marthablake.com/individuation1.htmlhttp://www.marthablake.com/individuation1.html


12/24


12 of 24

less traveled. On this journey, he names three enemies that we will meet, that block the

way through these thresholds. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 42).

The Voice of Judgment (VOJ) is the first enemy, blocking the gate to the open

mind. We must successfully shut down our voice of judgment or we cannot gain access to

our authentic creativity.

The Voice of Cynicism (VOC) is the second enemy, blocking the gate to the open

heart. It is not possible to get to the place of presencing at the bottom of the U unless we

can become vulnerable. The voice of cynicism is often a defense against vulnerability and

must be overcome in order to reach the authentic Self at the bottom of the U.

The Voice of Fear (VOF) is the third enemy, blocking the gate to the open will. It

can appear as fear of economic insecurity, fear of not fitting in, or fear of death (or even

other things). Scharmer suggests that the only way to move into the possibility of a new

self is by meeting and working through the voice of fear.

4. The U is a living field theory, not a linear mechanical process. In order to speak about

it and to share it with others, Scharmer uses a sort of spiral development heuristic format.

Although Ive shared steps of the process, in somewhat linear fashion, the actual

processes themselves are far from linear. Self-knowledge and growth are dynamic

processes and non-linear approaches are necessary in working with and applying them.

To facilitate implementing such a dynamic theory, Scharmer recommends

establishing three different infrastructures and kinds of places to enhance resonance with

the U and the deeper fields of emergence. These are:

Places that facilitate shared seeing and sense-making (co-sensing) Places that allow deep reflection, silence to facilitate deep listening and

connection to the source of authentic creativity (co-presencing)


13/24


13 of 24

Places (and resources) that enable hands-on prototyping of new ways of operatingto facilitate exploring the future by doing (co-creating)

5. The rise of the social space of emergence and creation (cycle of presencing) is

connected to the dying and transformation of social space of destruction (cycle of

absencing). Scharmer observes that the rise of violence and fundamentalism is occurring

at the same time that we see openings in the deeper layers of the social field. He believes

this double movement of the opening of deeper levels of emergence concurrent with the

enhanced power of destructive forces as a defining feature of our time. This proposition

offers the perspective that these two apparently contradictory movements are in fact

aspects of a single evolutionary movement.

This is a simplistic version of my understanding of the most basic structure of

Theory U. Theory U reveals the elements of our participation in the future that emerges,

and offers a process that enables our participation to be conscious. The truth is that we all

participate in the future that emerges, moment by moment, whether or not we are aware

of it, and whether or not our participation is conscious. Scharmer suggests that we dont

fully understand this process of social reality creation because it is connected to our blind

spot (Scharmer, 2007, p. 232). Theory U is a process through which we can become

aware of the source from which our attention, intention, and action originate when

interacting with ourselves and others.

Structure of Attention

Because it draws from systems theory, social psychology, eastern meditative

practice, philosophy, phenomenology, and cognitive science, it is possible to apply this

basic framework across the multiple dimensions of inner and external reality, both at the

individual and collective level. Theory U offers an approach that shifts the field of


14/24


14 of 24

possibilities, by shifting our awareness and the way we attend to the world. The concept

of presencing is at the heart of this approach, which offers the world a social technology

for leading profound innovation and change.

Scharmer calls this field of operation the social field, as it is built on the work of

Kurt Lewin, who viewed the social environment as a dynamic field that interacts with

human consciousness. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 232). The matrix or matter in social fields is

not a thing, but a living network of relationships across the range of human diversity.

Movement within the social field is achieved by shifting the way the members of the

social field attend to their relationships to each other, to the system and to the world.

Scharmer proposes a grammar for this new social field and shares 21 propositions

for the social field theory. Rather than naming all of these, I want to share their general

idea because of the way the concept of attention is used. These propositions a) concern

the enactment of the social systems by their members which in turn shape their members

actions and b) recognize that all enactment occurs in context that derives from the

structure of their attention.

Scharmer offers four different sources of attention from which social action can

emerge.

I-in-me: acting from the centerinside ones organizational boundaries (Field 1) I-in-it: acting from theperipheryof ones organizational boundaries (Field 2) I-in-you: acting from beyondones organizational boundaries (Field 3) I-in-now: acting from the emerging sphere across ones open boundaries (Field 4)Every social action and social structure emerges from one of these four sources of

attention, and more importantly, we each have multiple sources of attention from which

to choose and behave. (Scharmer, 2007, p. 233).


15/24


16/24


16 of 24

In these traditions, there are two kinds of waking attention, called first and second

attention.

The first attention consists of a more common way of attending to the world with

normal, ordinary perception. Shamanic traditions teach that the first state of attention is

mesmerizing and catches people fast in its grip; they believe this state of mind is all there

is when in fact its illusory. The first attention is characterized by lots of activity, constant

doing without reflection or stillness. The first attention is focused on the material world,

on appearance rather than essence. (Stevens and Stevens, 2002, p. 128).

In the practice of certain forms of shamanism, the goal of the sorcerer is, in the

words of Carlos Castanedas Don Juan, to reach a level of awareness that makes

inconceivable things available. (Castaneda, 1994, p. 69). The second attention is the

mode that connects us to awareness and creativity.

This principle is reflected as well in meditative traditions, where the mind is

trained to be still so that awareness and attention become clearer and are heightened and

we become connected to the source of all things.

The second attention is a way of seeing that can only occur when the constant

mental busy-ness and activity cease. It can also occur in a state of extreme physical

activity. Describing it this way reminds me of Csikszentmihalyis concept of flow

(Csikszentmihalyis, 1997, p. 29) which Keith Sawyer has extrapolated and researched at

the group level. (Sawyer, 2007, pp 43-57). I believe the flow state is one example of the

second attention experience.


17/24


17 of 24

I especially like Deepak Chopra's description of first and second attention. He

describes the first attention as the one we live by. The second attention is available to us

all also, but tends to occur when the first attention is interrupted somehow. He describes

flashes of love, awe, inspiration, joy as experiences of the real selfto which we connect

in the second attentioncoming through and suggests that we recognize and

acknowledge them when they occur rather than ignoring or moving past them. By

appreciating them and asking for more such experiences, he proposes that a feedback

loop is opened between the first and second attention whereby it becomes possible to see

consciousness in work. This is part of the rationale behind the shaman tradition as well.

(Chopra, 2008, p. 164)

In trying to correlate Scharmers four structures of attention with the first and

second attention found in shamanic traditions, I believe the first three perspectives in

Scharmers framework might appear in the first attention while the fourth would probably

be located in the second attention. However, I dont believe it is possible to construct a

meaningful mapping from one approach to the other. It seems more likely that they are

offering different perspectives (and analysis) of the same mindspace and phenomena. For

Scharmer, attention itself occurs or resides in the inner realm, whether or not it is

unconscious. In shamanic practice, the first attention seems to relate to external reality

(both conscious and unconscious) while the second attention seems to pertain to the

internal realm (of all things).

I am still figuring this out, but it seems that the focusing of thought and mind, in

the shamanic approach, occurs outside of the ego level. In Scharmer's approach, ego

participates if it wants to, but within well-defined boundaries, so it does not participate as


18/24


18 of 24

the ruler, but as the servant, which is its proper attitude. Both approaches refer to a

process of focusing thought and mind in such a way that it clarifies the action that

emerges. And that is what is most relevant here.

There is also what is known as dream attention, or attention cultivated during

dreaming. Stephen LaBerges work on lucid dreaming is related to this. In cultivating

dream attention, the dreamer first strives to become aware while in the dream state. Once

that is achieved there are other exercises that help to develop the capacity to act with

volition while in the dream state. The goal is becoming consciously aware whether

waking or sleeping.

The structure of our attention opens the door to our awareness, and releases the

boundaries that constrain our consciousness.

Emergence of the Future

Id like to include a few thoughts about emergence because it is a feature of

dynamic processes and complex organizational interactions and has been appearing on

my radar with increasing frequency in the past year. (I will turn to emergence of the

future later in this section). I became interested in the phenomena of emergence through

my study of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Examples of CAS are neural networks, ant

colonies, and human systems such as communities and corporations. Emergence strikes

me as what occurs at the edge of consciousness manifesting reality; it is also a property

of CAS. The concept derives from biology, evolutionary theory, and systems theory and

refers to the multiplicity of complex patterns that arise out of relatively simple

interactions. One example of emergent phenomena is life emerging from

physicochemical system interactions. The city can also be seen as an emergent property


19/24


19 of 24

of multitudes of human beings, and the corporation as an emergent property of its people,

technology, and real estate. (Coveney and Highfield, 1995, p 282). While greater

exploration of emergence would move the discussion beyond the scope of this paper, I

offer some preparatory reflections to bring this topic into the arena of Theory U. These

are not well-formed thoughts as yet, but seed thoughts of my ongoing exploration of how

consciousness manifests reality.

Whatemerges, seems to be a combined result of:

System structure (including complexity, connectivity, networks, etc.), The past (what has happened before, what tried to happen before but failed, etc.), Intention (including passion, creativity, fear, wounds, whatever captures yourlibido and attention) Other seeds or potentialities that lie dormant waiting for the appropriate catalyst

or environment to unfold or connectivity from elsewhere to reach sufficient

threshold.

Since Theory U draws from biology, systems theory and the social sciences, and its

purpose at least in part is to facilitate the deepening of human states of attention

(individual and group), the properties of emergence are embedded within the U process.

I believe the movement through the U process is itself a function of emergence. There

is a complex dynamic quality to the state of attention at each step of the process which

must be attained, and which in turn gives rise to the next step. I have not personally

experienced this within the context of the U, although I have experienced similar

processes through meditation and dreamwork.

The future will of course continue to emerge with or without my awareness of it. It

has its own inexorable momentum. Furthermore, what emerges is not unknowable; but

the phenomenon of emergence goes well beyond the reflections Ive listed above. There

seems to be a bi-directionality to it, irrespective of time, that Ive found separately


20/24


20 of 24

addressed in the Jungian arena, at the individual level, and which seems is also found at

the group level through application of Theory U.

The Jungian analyst Gary Sparks says, There is a natural gradient of energy which

first surfaces in childhood and then presses toward its final form through various

configurations along the way. (Sparks, 2010, p. 116).

Scharmer many times speaks of a future that wants to come, or wants to emerge. In

Jungs conception of psychic energy, the psyche possesses the capacity to move forward

along a course of action only it knows ahead of time . . . but the idea of energy is not that

of a substance moved in space; it is a concept abstracted from relations of movement . . . .

The energic point of view doesnt see a chain of events going from past to present, it sees

a chain of events in which a future state is seeking to evolvefrom the present . . . . The

future potential is the accomplishment that the personality is in the process of trying to

bring to completion. The unlived potential . . . is what is primary, and there is a dynamic

in the unconscious which seeks to bring that into reality. It arranges what it needs to

come into being. (Sparks, 2010, pp. 115-118).

I believe this is at least in part the same phenomena that Scharmer recognizes in

Theory U and the concept of presencing, with what appears to be the further adaptation of

applying it to groups and organizations, not just individuals.

Additional Elements of the U Related to My Interests

I have now covered the main themes that I identified at the beginning of my

paper: blind spots, attention, emergence, and the basic structure of the U. But there are a

couple other points Id like to mention, the first one because it facilitates introduction of

Theory U, and the second because it is relevant to synthesizing my interests.


21/24


21 of 24

New Grammar:So far, when Ive introduced elements of dreaming, depthwork or

shamanism into my work arena, it has been received as a novelty or not at all. I have to

be very careful how it is introduced and how it is applied because speaking of inner

processes can be frightening to some and off-putting to others.

Having a vocabulary to speak about the inner realm in a way that is not

threatening to those who are unused to acknowledging that arena is very helpful. It allows

into the common discourse, in a manner acceptable to the corporate environment,

something that had previously been hidden. Theory U helpfully provides language to

facilitate its introduction and incorporation into the corporate arena.

Recognition of the Inner Realm / Self knowledge: I also appreciate that Theory U

includes the inner realm as an essential foundational element. In my organization,

leadership development is highly prized, but inner development is completely

unmentioned. The source from which our actions as a corporation originate is never

acknowledged, let alone addressed. The system is not fully understood as including the

seen andthe unseen. I mentioned at the beginning of this paper interest in finding

enabling capability offered by systems theory and learning organizations. We and our

competitors are constantly looking for enabling capability, something we possess that no

one else possesses. I believe including the inner realm in the way described in the Theory

U process can provide enabling capability.

In a somewhat related way, self-knowledge is also an essential element, without

which progress through the U is not possible. Self-knowledge also provides capability

that isenabling because it facilitates access to the inner realms. Inner knowledge requires


22/24


22 of 24

commitment and courage because it is transformative. It brings real change. Perhaps this

is why so few actually take this path. But even ifeveryone were to make this commitment

to inner- or self- knowledge, the journey would still yield capability and insight that no

one else has.

Next Steps

As Ive mentioned, I am attracted to the Theory U approach and the idea of a

social technology for presencing because it seems to meet several of the challenges Ive

experienced in my ongoing effort to integrate my experience in science, systems, depth

psychology, spirituality, and dreamwork. I have not found another model or framework

or approach that incorporates all these essential elements. Rather than develop a

completely new and separate model, which is time and energy consuming, I am

considering building upon this model to introduce practices from my own experience and

background, such as shamanic and Jungian dream work, Jungian active imagination, etc.

These practices initiate and evolve a dialogue between the seen and unseen dimensions of

reality so that the split between them can become integrated.

Other next steps include further exploration of the theory as well as more in depth

exploration of the concept ofpresence, extrapolating from personal experience and

learning to apply this for groups/organizations.

Conclusion

Theory U is a comprehensive framework for social reality construction that offers

insight into the question I posed at the beginning of this paper: how does consciousness

manifest reality? The answer is not something one discovers and knows for all time;

rather, it is dynamic and depends on many things like context and the quality and attitude


23/24


23 of 24

of the manifesting consciousness. The quality of consciousness, the structure of attention,

or the way in which one attends to the situation at handthese are critical to outcome, to

what manifests and how. Recognizing blind spots and especially the reality of the inner

realm as hidden but equally critical elements of every human system enables access to a

powerful leverage point that otherwise mightby its invisibilitynot just remain hidden

but potentially even undermine the organizations efforts to realize a different outcome.

Theory U also is aligned with the properties of emergence, a natural process

which propels forward under the thrust of psyches guidance and at the same time is

pulled forward by a future that wants to emerge. While I may not fully understand the

implications of these words, I nevertheless sense this is the edge where reality manifests.

And as such, it is certainly something for further study.

Theory U incorporates the visible and invisible dynamic processes of life in a

framework that is comprehensive, complex, but immediately available. I believe its

application in a corporate environment has the potential to be groundbreaking. Unlike

other leadership/change initiatives, this is the only approach that seeks to learn from the

future as it emerges and offers concrete steps to facilitate this process.

References:

1. Bennet, A., Bennet D. (2004). Organizational survival in the new world: the intelligent

complex adaptive system. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.2. Castaneda, C. (1994). The art of dreaming. New York: Harper Perennial.

3. Chopra, D. (2008). The third Jesus: the Christ we cannot ignore. New York: Three

Rivers Press.

4. Coveney, P. a. R. H. (1995). Frontiers of complexity: the search for order in a chaotic

world. New York: Fawcett Columbine.


24/24


5. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Csikszentmihalyi, Isabella Selega (Ed.). (1988). Optimal

experience psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: the psychology of engagement. New York:

Basic Books.

7. Fredrickson, B. L., PH.D. (2009). Positivity: groundbreaking research reveals how to

embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive . NewYork: Crown Publishers.

8. Hall, C. S., Nordby, Vernon J. (1973).A primer of Jungian psychology. New York:New American Library.

9. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. Cambridge:

Basic Books.

10. Scharmer, C. Otto. (2009). Theory U: leading from the future as it emerges. San

Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

11. Sparks, J. G. (2010). Valley of diamonds: adventures in number and time with Marie-Louise von Franz. Toronto: Inner City Books.

12. Stevens, J. a. S., Lena. (2002). The power path: the shaman's way to success inbusiness and life. Novato: New World Library.

social psych depth for scribd 043012

Documents