#scharmer

[feldgang]

“Blind spots are not flaws; nor are they malicious. They are automatic behaviors. The real culprits are not the blind spots themselves. The problem is when they are unidentified and mismanaged.” -Loretta Malandro, PhD

[feldgang]

I liked this photo. My son and I were washing the car yesterday and as I sat inside wiping the dashboard, the boy was hosing off the outside. We’d kind of divided duties as a detante after a slight blow-up over washing the car.  The car wasn’t the exact issue though.  My wife and I have been working over how to deal with a son who lives in his own world sometimes.  He is a bright, funny, and engaging young man.  He is kind and forever energetic.  He, also, is an 8 year old who is an only child and lacks the back-and-forth, give-and-take that happens when your personal little universe gets completely wrecked by having a little sister come crashing into things.  He needs extra practice seeing that his way isn’t the only way.  His needs aren’t the only needs.  He gets this, I think, but not to the extent that I wish he would sometimes.  Being smart has also gifted him the ability to extrapolate situations far beyond what his peers are able to do.  In short, he’s used to getting his way and quite used to being right … pretty much of the time. So, as I explained just how we were going to wash the car, he continues on ahead doing what he was doing before I spoke.  I restarted my directions and his shoulders slumped in a, the-poor-deluded-old-man-is-talking-again motion and he gave me a reply of, “I already know how to do this, Daddy.”  Needless to say, I reacted … harshly.  I went into the aforementioned behavioral modification/Teacher-Mode.  And … just before I banned him from every enjoyable activity that exists in our house and immediate neighborhood, I stopped short.  I told him that I needed him to do something different with washing the car, and could he please listen up.  He complied and I moved on to the interior tasks to let things settle

As the water cascaded off of the window I could see my son, but not so clearly. He’s visible, but the lens in between us had altered my viewpoint. I got to thinking, why would a kid who is so usually affable and kind, react so sharply to a simple request?  Was it disrespect or had there been some kind of miscommunication.  Just like the water and the hose had changed how I was seeing him, had something inside of myself similarly altered how I viewed the situation?  So, I finished up cleaning inside the car and came out with the boy.  We sat down and just talked.  No pretense.  No judgement.  No, “you’re gonna get in trouble.”  Just talked.  It turns out, the both of us had failed to suspend judgement.  We both brought our own perspectives into the situation and I needed to take a moment to stop downloading.  I needed to stop listening from the I-in-Me and move towards the I-in-It, I-in-You, and I-in-Now.  Once I began listening with an open mind and open heart, I knew that the dynamic between us had changed.  As we moved forward throughout the day, I found myself listening to him more intently.  I removed my preconceptions and embraced what could be rather than reacting to what I immediately saw.  

I think this is a good lesson for me to carry over into my professional life.  Everyone has their own perspective.  Even if I am completely in the Right, being reactionary doesn’t solve any problems.  Simply living in the moment and not letting go of the fact that I am, technically, RIGHT means little.  One never wins over others with the sheer force of Correctness.

Talk to the other person. Where are they coming from? And, for that matter, where are You coming from? Is there something in the way, clouding your view? How can moving beyond it, alter the quality of your relationships and how you work with others?

[commonsandsystems]

Using Systems Thinking: Communication

For a small group of people trying to make change, working together well is crucial. Every group has to engage with the system that it is trying to change 

William Torbert talks about four “qualities of attention”: framing, illustrating, inquiring and advocating.  It can be very easy to find ourselves – particularly when trying to change things that we feel passionate about – in “advocating” mode a lot of the time.  While this is sometimes appropriate, it often puts the listener, whether that’s the rest of our group in a meeting, or a council officer, or someone in the wider community, on the back foot. It brings out people’s defensiveness.

Examples of uses of different qualities of attention:

Frame:

“from where we are standing, it looks like …”

“we are worried about this because of x and x effect

This is what I understand by xx – is that what you understand?

I am assuming xx – is that right?

Illustrate

“the effect of this cut will be xx

“the way this feels to me is xxx

“when you said that, I thought / felt…

“we think we could bring these two things together to do something better”

An example of this is xx

Inquire

“can you explain the context from your point of view?

“what are you hoping will happen?

“what would be the best outcome from your point of view?”

“what kind of help or support do you need?

“what would make the most difference right now?

“where’s the most pressure coming from from your point of view?”

Advocate

this will make things worse

this will make things better

that’s impossible

you’re wrong/ I’m right / we’re right

there’s only one way to do this

you just don’t understand  

Thinking about the quality of attention that we use as individuals can be helpful in helping the group work together. Thinking about the predominant way the group communicates with the rest of the system can help open up new avenues.

 Advocating may be exactly what you need to do in certain circumstances – campaigns, petitions, rallies. It definitely has its place. But if you are trying to move into taking some control, or into redefining some of the terms of debate, using some of the other modes of speech may be helpful. Or at the very least get you more information that you can use tactically.

Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U” provides some useful reflections on conversations and on listening. It is too complex to go into in detail here, but the basic premise is that to create new things we need to have “generative” conversations – conversations that generate things. To have these conversations we have to move beyond just talking at each other. We have to leave our baggage and preconceptions behind and be willing to open up to the person we’re talking to  - and be open to what they’re saying and feeling. This is hard and takes commitment but it’s where, so the theory goes, real change might come from. 

[tanjatuulia]

[wyrsch-partner]

Anwenden der Theorie U auf das KM Konzept der Communities of Practice

Ein weiteres Fundstück:

Applying Theory U by Otto Scharmer to Communities of Practice

http://blog.knowandmanage.com/2008/10/14/applying-theory-u-by-otto-scharmer-to-communities-of-practice.aspx

Rony Dayan versucht hier ein Mapping der Phasen des Presencing mit der Phasen der Entwicklung im Leben einer Community.

Der Ansatz scheint logisch zu sein, aber warum sind hier keine Kommentare vorhanden. Ist das kein Thema  oder ist hier eine tiefere Aufteilung zu machen?

http://www.wyrsch-partner.ch

[wyrsch-partner]

Theorie U von Otto Scharmer selbst erklärt

Hier nun erfährt man aus erster Hand, von Otto Scharmer selbst, und sehr kompakt die wichtigsten Elemente dieser Management- und Gesellschaftstheorie, die für alle Führungskräfte und Change Experten ein Muss ist!

Er erwähnt hier auch die Einsatzgebiete. Man kann es kurz zusammenfassen, dass sich diese Theorie für alle Entwicklungsaufgaben eignet. 

Ein neuerer Bericht ist hier zu sehen:

Otto Scharmer im Gespräch mit Helga Breuninger

Über Innovation: Die Führung muss neue Orte schaffen, wo diese Ideen generiert werden kann.

Hier noch ein Bericht von einer Anwendung der Theorie U im Gruppenprozess der im Rahmen des Europäisches Forum Alpbach 2010 abgehalten wurde. Nach dem Video wurde innert 3 Stunden das U durchlaufen.

[wyrsch-partner]

The author of Theory U of Innovation and change discusses his ideas.

For my english speaking friend:

Could be used for lectures?