693McLeod

McLeod, M., P. Senge and M. Wheatley (2001). "Changing how we work." Shambhala Sun(January): 29-33
Though my partner and I agree on many things, one of the things we tend to disagree about is the nature of organizations. She is a freelancer, and I have always wanted to be part of an organization. She thinks organizations, except for some of the few exemplary models, are corrupting influences, I on the other hand cannot think of doing meaningful larger scaled work without them. In this interview of Peter Senge and Margaret Wheatly, both theorists seem to take both of our views, showing the negative consequences of organizations, and by showing how organizations are part of the human experience. What I found particularly insightful is how they challenge conventional branding wisdom to reclaim the organization as a human institution made for human development, and that in order to change the organization we need to change our selves our deepest beliefs about profit, time, and work. While I was reading this article I kept on asking myself: What would an organization based on their principles look like? What tools and processes would they need? and perhaps more skeptically, Would this organization be able to survive in today’s competitive, capitalist environment? As a person who meditates, and reads Buddhist texts, this article made a lot of sense to me, and should seeing that is was published in one of the leading magazines about Buddhism in North America. I wonder how this translates to people not as familiar with meditation and Buddhist spiritual practices? Another interesting take away is the embrace of change in organizational life. I think many industries have a competitive edge because they are equipped to meet and track the fast pace of technological innovation. In this context I believe change is meant in a deeper sense, but one which remains elusive to me in rereading the article. As a person who has worked in arts organizations it seems like I know many organizations which work fluidly, but that fluidity is often not designed to meet the needs of the artist but the often fickle tastes of the audience and the stretched resources of the organizations. Jeneen Mucci May 4, 2009
 * Carissa Baquiran, Spring 2009**

“People might have a potential or talent, but they can’t cultivate it without discipline” (p.1).

In reading Senge and Wheatly’s article concerning “work,” what seems to be the point that they make, is that above and beyond control and the institutional ideas of western thought, how we view “work” and our roles in completing work must fundamentally be rooted in faith. Although this faith does have spiritual relevance, it is also based in the idea that we must embrace the ambiguity of change in order to meet the ever-changing needs of the self and organizations. This change must also force us to reevaluate how we view “work” and the institutionalized idea that we are part of and the creators of the “machine.” Therefore, leaders and those working within these machines need to develop a shift in perspective in order to replace this institutionalized idea of “work” with the idea that organizations are “living phenomena,” and that in order to support and cultivate these living beings, all of those involved in the phenomena must play a role to encourage and support the life force. In thinking about this encouragement and support, one of the comments that stood out for me in the readings was in regards to the role of leaders, and that even though leadership is “deeply personal,” it is also “inherently collective.” Therefore, on one hand leadership does depend on the leaders and on the other hand it does not. It is the voice of the collective that must drive the living phenomena of the organization, and it is up to the leaders to encourage, support and develop the collective as well as to believe in the collective. What must drive the collective is a belief in the community and the disciplines needed to build the community. As a part of the collective, individuals must also reassess what is valuable to them, not only as part of the organization, but also beyond the institution. The values of the organization must mirror the values of life maintaining that “organizations arise because people are working together.” Therefore, the values that individuals bring to their work, are the values that shape their work. Furthermore, it is important for individuals to reflect on their role within organizations, meditate on how they develop their work and finally develop dispositions that allow not only the self but also the spirit of the work to develop as separate but connected entities. The process of building the collective must not only be rooted in the beliefs of the people, but must also allow for continual growth, development and change, because “change is the ultimate reality” and we must embrace it in order to evolve both personally and organizationally. Thus, how we support and embrace this change depends on our abilities to support and embrace uncertainty and ambiguity within ourselves and the work that we do.

Marnie 5/7/07 Kathy Leavitt 5/6/07 This discussion between M McLeod, P Senge and M Wheatley concerns the concept of organizations and change within. There is a spiritual theme to what Senge and Wheatley introduce to the conversation. Comparisons to meditation, Buddhism, and Taoism flow throughout the article. The two organizational theorists relate the similarity between meditation and dialogue- “being aware, listening, letting go, not taking things as they appear” [sounds a little like David Dibble’s “Four Agreements”.//reference needed// ] Organizations may be prepared to make change but it is not successful merely by being implemented. The process needs to involve proper tools, the methods and the teachers to guide the way. There has to be thought given to when the change has been made, will the organization be able to function productively after initiation of change. Wheatley states that during implementation that reflection and meditation must occur. This is reminiscent of the Action Research process where reflection takes place to support that the plan is successful for those involved. The leader should not exert control or demand obedience but should encourage each person to be as positive and productive as possible. The statement made regarding the negative relationships between people within an organization reminds me of my workplace that despite how positive and supportive a leader attempt to be with staff, it is perceived as negative and that the leader is working diligently to undermine the staff. The sentence “The leader is one who relies on people’s creativity and their desire to do something meaningful” it especially profound. If the people don’t want to be creative because that process involves time and energy and don’t want to do something meaningful because that is not their job or responsibility but it is perceived as the leader’s responsibility then this nirvana will never be experienced. Questions: 1. How to get people to obey ( follow policies and expectations of organization) and encourage them to creative and involved in change? 2. McLeod infers that "the most spiritually deadening influence in our society today is the structure of the organization and the workplace" Would this felt by the majority or minority if polled? 3. What would a structure change look like that would be more spiritually invigorating and how would the change impact the organization? Would it be more rewarding for the people or the organization or could it benefit both? 4. Do any organizations exist where the leader induces the people to be creative and has never-ending faith in their ability and the people trust the leader and feed off of his enthusiasm and commitment and no negativity and mistrust exist? If so show me the way!

Marnie 5/7/07 Key ideas that stood out to me were (in the order of reading them): ∑ Potential and Talent are not useful without discipline. ∑ Humans are gregarious, perhaps due to our desire to understand our complexities. ∑ Leadership is “deeply personal and inherently collective” ∑ In working with others, there are difficulties, but these are opportunities, which we would miss if working alone. ∑ Vulnerability is not negative. ∑ Solidifying is not equivalent to strengthening. Openness and uncertainty lead to fluidity, a true strength. ∑ People and companies have a tendency to try and control things, as a way to counter uncertainty, usually uncertainties which cannot be controlled. ∑ We need to understand disruption (as well as creation). ∑ Understanding (organizational and individual) habitual patterns (metacognition) is a key factor in organizational strength. ∑ Collective Cultivation – I want to understand this better. ∑ Some essential elements to change are 1) recognizing how you see things, 2) wanting to change, 3) and acting on the desire to change things. ∑ Wheatley asks, “Do they give you the awareness and information and mindfulness that allows you to stay in the dance?” Stay in the dance– That expression and the article in general reminded me of Rumi. ∑ Senge says, “We’re talking about real, 180-degree change – instead of trying to control everything, we’re learning to align our intentions with emerging realities.” //page numbers needed// ∑ Time has disappeared. ∑ Senge says, “In the machine-age world, “to manage” literally means, “to control.” ∑ The derivation of the word company – companion, nourishment for life, life’s work ∑ The definition of a leader – someone who sees the innate potential and good in people. ∑ Seeing human nature as a blessing and not a problem. ∑ Senge says (of hierarchies of wisdom, and of the tradition of respecting elders), ”In this, we invoke a profoundly different type of hierarchy. There’s no obedience required whatsoever; it’s based on choice.” ∑ With some relation top this, Wheatley says, “Obedience is not a natural life process.” And Senge supports this with, “Living systems, by their nature, resist being obedient.” ∑ Senge says, “…but we have to remember that we are the ones creating all of these” (rules, limits, expectations, structures). ∑ Fears and anxieties are sometimes the impetus behind ways of organizing. We need to recognize where they exist and how they play out. ∑ Change must be both personal and institutional.

Solidifying is not equivalent to strengthening – Reminds me of Rumi poem //reference needed//

From Rumi’s Two Kinds of Intelligence: There is another kind of tablet, one already completed and preserved inside you. A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness in the center of the chest. This other intelligence does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid, and it doesn't move from outside to inside through conduits of plumbing-learning.

Collective Cultivation – I want to understand this better. Years ago I worked at The Community School in Camden, Maine. It was my first experience working in a healthy functioning organization. One of the co-founders was talking with me one day about the group dynamic that is developed between people in war (serving in the same company). The question on the table was if there were any way to achieve that level of group support and intimacy outside of war. She felt that perhaps some protest groups achieved it as well. I wonder if there needs to be adversity (911, Katrina, etc.) in order for this to occur.

Stay in the dance//page numbers needed// – That expression and the article in general reminded me of Rumi also.

Knowing that conscious decisions and personal memory are much too small a place to live, every human being streams at night into the loving nowhere, or during the day, in some absorbing work.

Align our intentions with emerging realities//page numbers needed// – the difficulty of doing this as an organization if reflective of the difficulty of doing this as individuals. They are related. My ability to handle emerging realities of work and world (we are getting a new Commissioner of Education, tornadoes just devastated part of the Midwest) is directly related to my ability to handle emerging realities of my personal life (I can’t have children and am getting too old to adopt, I am unfulfilled with my job but can’t afford to quit). We see personal as private, but it impacts our work.

Time has disappeared //page numbers needed// – How has time disappeared? Do the Internet, television, or “Important” tasks eat it? Most modern technology isolates us from others.

Obedience and choice//page numbers needed// – It may just be semantics, but I have to disagree with Senge and Wheatley when they say that obedience is not natural. The fight or flight instinct existing in organisms tells them to follow suit with what has worked. That genetic instinct for survival echoes in our modern habits, in that we tend toward routine and “order” (be it ours or one that is prescribed by others for us) because it is safe and familiar. But we also have a natural desire to protest and push against that control and order, yet only when it is in conflict with a greater need (individual or collective). A female wishes to become a plumber. The social structure informs her that she will struggle, but if her desire to be a plumber is greater than her desire to be accepted and “fit in”, then she will make that choice. Does this relate to Action Science?

Fear and anxiety//page numbers needed// – Is it largely fear and anxiety that propels us toward the “seeming” security of fixtures, of allowing others to be in charge of us (and our actions), so that we do not need to be in charge or take responsibility? A natural relationship exists between freedom and responsibility (and knowledge). One example of this is how children are raised in various cultures, usually gaining freedom and privilege as they develop and learn.

Jeremy Szteiter May 4, 2008

-there exist parallels between ancient traditions of meditation and sprirituality and new approaches to organizational collaboration -modern organizations represent the human need/desire to find collective purpose and also expose the challenges of being in group situations -some tension is present between spiritual philosophies and Western ideas of what it means to have knowledge -perspective on knowledge and learning are shifting as we move from a purely Newtonian view of fixed mechanical systems to a quantum physics view where predictability and interchangeability have more uncertainty -experiencing change and developing deep comfort with it is much different than simply accepting that it is unavoidable and even beneficial -embracing new views on working together means that we should allow ourselves the time to do so, which is perhaps more substantial that we normally realize -leaders are inherently spiritual in that they believe that achievement is possible with others and helps to maintain the freedom that best allows people to bring out the best of themselves -leaders understand that organizational structure can be a hindrance to improving collaboration and keeping people personally engaged in their work
 * Main themes**:

-organizations are not simply containers for people with common goals but are created by people as an abstract way to represent their need to join together -tension between obedience to structured systems and instinctive need to determine one's own direction -how can Senge/Wheatley's ideas be integrated into current organizations without disrupting their immediate needs? -what is the role of "silence" in developing a new perspective of collaborative effort?
 * New insights**:
 * Remaining questions**:

-play as an analog to spirituality for embracing situations that can't be controlled or predicted -play can serve as a coping strategy when faced with change and when unable to manage it all at once
 * Applications to own project**:

-I am reminded that successful organizations exist through change and because of change, rather than simply "survive" change that takes them from one static state to the next. -I also respond to the notion of "the dance" - the term implies motion and grace that is sustained through change, and that these are most easily observed in the coordination of collaborators rather than the efforts of a single person.
 * Reactions to the notes of others posted on this page**:

This article offers an interesting perspective on organizational behavior. Senge and Wheatley, two organizational theorists, discuss the spiritual aspects of organizations and how they have evolved over time. For example, the industrial era instilled a sense in us that “we are an elaborate set of mechanisms” and we have come to view organizations as machines that serve to produce money. In a machine-age world, the phrase “to manage” means “to control”. Senge and Wheatley state that the large institutions of today (e.g., school systems and global corporations) are hierarchies that demand obedience and compliance. Living things, however, have a natural tendency to resist obedience. Senge and Wheatley point out that we have alternative hierarchies to draw from – such as our reverence for older people, who possess wisdom that we can learn from. They also discuss the characteristics of a good leader. Leaders gather people and support them by providing resources. They believe that people are blessings, not “the problem”. Good leaders support creativity. They remind us that organizations are not objects; they consist of human behaviors. It’s easy to cast blame on them, but we construct them and we select their leaders.
 * Jeff Craig - May 5, 2008**