Aurosoorya - Margaret Wheatley's Leadership and the New Science AND BEYOND

Introduction

The purpose of this thought-piece is twofold. First, to draw out some of the key ideas in Margaret Wheatley's Leadership and the New Science. Second, to create a more sound foundation for the material she has referred to and put in place, by supplementing it with other ways to look at it. These objectives are not necessarily addressed in that order, but may be intermingled, so as to be presented in organic fashion.

Overview

Leadership and the New Science proposes that the running of organizations should be based on some methods other than they currently are. These methods are those derived from the New Science, which reflects a model of Universe radically different from that which we may commonly conceive and perceive of. The power of this book is in the explanation of some of the findings of the New Science, and more importantly in the suggestion of embracing these findings to more effectively run today's organizations.

To begin with, this book is based on the supposition that the world-view we work from is strongly anchored in the Natural Sciences. The book states that "each of us lives and works in organizations designed from Newtonian images of the universe". Specifically, "we manage by separating things into parts, we believe that influence occurs as a direct result of force exerted from one person to another, we engage in complex planning for a world that we keep expecting to be predictable, and we search continually for better methods of objectively measuring and perceiving the world". Whilst this forms the basis of our current corporate design and action, yet it is rooted in 17th century Science, which itself is a vastly different figure than it was in the 17th century.

Wheatley has made the argument that Science is the cause of our world view, and implies that because Science itself has now created a radically different model of Existence, it is necessary for organizations to follow suit and also begin to rethink their model of reality. This cause-effect analysis needs to be further examined. The truth is that reality is infinite possibility. Of the ever-evolving range of possibilities, the Newtonian rendering in terms of both Science and Organization, pressed upon practical manifestation simultaneously. One did not occur before the other, nor was one the 'cause' of the other. It is just that scientists, working more with the mind than businessmen or government, opened to the possibility of mechanistic thinking first. Businessmen followed after that with the rendering of that reality into the designs of their organizations. Similarly today, it is not because scientists have defined a different view of reality that businessmen and organizational designers need to follow suit, but because it is an inevitable play from the infinite that is pressing forth onto practical manifestation, that it needs to be fulfilled.

Co-evolution

A very important point she bring out is that in the realm of New Science "there is a new kind of freedom, where it is more rewarding to explore than to reach conclusions, more satisfying to wonder than to know, and more exciting to search than to stay put". There are no recipes or formulas, no checklists or expert advice that describe reality. Everything is always new and different and unique to each of us, and ideas and information are just half of what is required to evoke reality. More importantly, creative possibility depends on one's engagement with ideas. Therefore, the world co-evolves as we interact with it.

This idea of co-evolution is very powerful. Depending on the choices we make, on the thoughts we think, and on the way we act, a different reality begins to precipitate. From the range of possibilities that exist, that are ever present in that matrix of infinity, a certain possibility or set of possibilities will begin to manifest depending on the character of the interaction between us and it. She posits that the idea that a certain defined and complete reality exists, and if tapped into will solve all our issues, is invalid. The idea that there is one right answer that can be applied universally is invalid. Instead, our own vision and commitment will create reality, because we are part of a Systemic Whole that itself creates in response to every element that is a part of it.

This idea is already a powerful step in releasing us from the restrictive bonds that limit our thought and actions, and in moving us beyond the current frames of reference that keeps many of us captive. Yet, it represents part of the actuality. For, the reality is that Life already had a certain implicit direction even before the arrival of the Human, evident in the systematic progression from inanimate matter, through single-celled organisms, through plants, animals, to the forms of life before humans. There is Intelligence in the system, which, in fact, has been responsible for pushing to the surface even the construct of the human, and has further, given it the qualities that allow it to have a special place in the process of evolution. The truer statement therefore, is that there is a certain intention present in the play of possibilities, which will take a shorter or longer time to manifest, depending on the quality and wholeness of the interactions that humans have with it. Through opening to this Systemic Whole, and interacting with it in that state of openness, the most powerful and fulfilling reality can manifest, because then it is the Intelligence that pervades the Whole, that is at the helm of movement.

Chaos & Order

This idea, of Intent in the Whole, is in fact consistent with an idea that Wheatley introduces later on in the book, about Chaos Theory. It has been found that free systems are in fact held within boundaries that are well ordered and predictable. Therefore, nothing is ever 'chaotic', in the sense that we have come to think of chaos. A chaotic system plotted over time will in fact reveal an order to its chaos. This plot is known as the Strange Attractor. This indicates, empirically, that there is almost an implicit design and intention in the running of systems.

Further, drawing on the work of Ilya Prigogine, 1977 recipient of the Nobel Prize for chemistry, Wheatley points out that chemical systems reorganize themselves into greater order when confronted with changes in the environment. Prigogine demonstrated that any open system has the capacity to respond to change and disorder by reorganizing itself at a higher level of organization. Threat, danger, stimulus helps the system recreate itself. Prigogine coined the term "dissipative structures" to describe the contradictory nature of these newly discovered systems. Prigogine discovered that dissipative activity of loss was necessary to create new order. Dissipation was part of the process by which the system let go of its present form so that it could reorganize into a new form better suited to its changing environment. If anything disturbed the system, it would bring it inside its network. Once inside it may continue to become a larger disturbance until it crosses a certain threshold and disturbs the system to such an extent that the system dissolves. However, because the system has an innate sense of identity, it leverages the situation caused by the disturbance to evolve a more complex form of itself that is better able to deal with similar disturbances in the future. So in fact, in living systems disorder is a source of new order.

This is a far cry from the current response of organizations to any threat internal or external. Instead of becoming a more complex entity, an organization will, under the pressure of short-term commitments, often cutback on its work force in order to respond to a perceived threat. If it were to follow the cue of open systems, it would instead reorganize itself without cutting off any of itself, and overcome the perceived threat. In a certain sense Nature rewards a system that is able to assimilate and become greater. Companies that lay-off and cut back, often themselves become extinct. So do civilizations that try to become too uniform. Japanese companies that have spun-off rather than lay-off 'undesirable' segments, have in fact been immensely rewarded through the unanticipated future success of these supposedly 'useless' segments.

Related to order is the idea of process structures – things that sustain their identity over time yet are not locked into any one rigid form. In Nature there are myriad examples of this kind of adaptability – for example in the case of "streams, which have more than one response to rocks." Yet, in organizations there is a rigid reliance on single forms and best practices. Once a form or structure has been created to address an issue, that structure can take on permanence and be referred to ad infinitum, even when it has lost its validity. In some sense, there is little reliance on intent, on the ambition or hidden streams of realization. This whole aspect of inner-force is often not latched into; instead the focus is on forms. Yet, to even enter into a frame where there is more reliance on the vision and less concern with the outward forms, requires a deeper relationship with life - a relationship where the reliance on outward form becomes secondary to the essence or drive that is contained within it. But to even recognize that necessitates that one recognize it in oneself first. Wheatley refers to some Goethean methods, based on developing intuitive, holistic thinking, for entering into a different kind of relationship with life.

Wheatley points out the inadequacy of analytical methods to solve current problems of any kind. "But is that surprising, given the complex nature of reality, which we are only beginning to get a sense for?" She asks. While our sense for the complexity of reality is beginning to change, especially through the work of natural scientists, our methodologies to deal with them are still rooted in the methods of the 17th century. Reality is revealing itself as a large, completely connected system, which has an Intelligence of its own. Yet, we break everything into parts and try to understand the individual pieces. Further, we do not reflect upon the Whole, nor do we even in minuscule fashion, appreciate the role it plays in each of the parts. A whole different way of perceiving the Wholeness and the play of the part in that Wholeness is required. To reiterate, even when it seems that there is chaos, there is actually order, when one perceives differently. And that shift in perception allows one to act that much more effectively.

It is important to point out that Wheatley ascribes much of today's maladies to the Newtonian and Descartian view of Universe. Yet, those world-views did have their place and did prepare an analytical bent of mind in humans. The process of analytic thinking has created elements in the mind, which enable a human to have a more complex relationship with the Wholeness, in that there is now a more complex structure of mind with which to grasp the Wholeness. Both holistic and analytic thinking are, therefore, necessary for a higher level of effectiveness.

Fuzziness

Wheatley contemplates the relative importance of individual versus the system. Which of the two has more influence? She concludes that relationship between two or more elements, is what is more important, and what may be evoked in present reality is a function of the relationships that are present at the moment. This leads her to believe that there is an inherent fuzziness in situations. Nothing can be known. Outcomes are dependent on the situation. She further bolsters her position through citing what physicists have found to be an inherent 'fuzziness' in the universe. This she says, is due to the fact the matter is inherently two-faced. It is important to point out here, that her arguments parallel the findings of natural scientists, and in many instances even conform to them. This is an over simplification of the situation.

Looking in more detail at the 'fuzziness' of physicists, this has come about because physicists may tend to view matter to be the starting point and basis of all phenomena. Yet in reality it is not the starting but the end-point. It is the end-point because matter is the final amongst many layers of reality. While scientists have begun to realize the presence of an overarching and connected system, they have not yet attributed to it the depth of its being, in terms of the multiple 'views' or layers that make it up. As a result, they have reached the conclusion that matter is "fundamentally two-faced: acting either as particle or as wave". The fact is that matter is a condensation of that which stands behind it, and further, can even be thought of as the meeting point of several 'layers' or realities. In fact, when matter is viewed as a wave, in reality what is being viewed is a subtler layer, which stands behind the more easily viewed material layer. When matter is viewed as a particle, what is being viewed is the more material aspect in matter. Further, each individual too, is made of 'layers' that correspond to the layers of the Whole. When a physicist says therefore, that the outcome of an experiment is influenced by what the observer wants to see, what he actually means is that the action of 'mind', which is a more subtle layer of reality, and which is intricately interconnected with 'mind' in the Whole and with 'mind' in matter, has acted through its own law to invoke a certain response in the way matter appears. There is actually nothing 'fuzzy' about this. The only 'fuzziness' is in the model and perception of reality that the physicists hold in their own minds. Wheatley has unfortunately been disproportionately influenced with the physicist's incomplete conclusions. The real issue has not been uncovered, and conveniently the reason for results is attributed to inherent 'fuzziness' in the universe. How can a universe where even chaos turns out to be order be fuzzy? It cannot. Fuzziness means that we are fuzzy, and need to change our world-view to know what is actually happening.

The root of the physicists problems and therefore in Wheatley's conclusion lies in the attribution of 'process' as being the root cause. Process, the observed behavior of systems and parts, is only a surface dynamic. Things happen, not because of the process, but because of a deeper intent that lies behind the process. That is what needs to be tapped into to truly know, and to truly solve.

Enactment

Another powerful idea that has been expressed in the book is that of the work of Karl Weick, an organizational theorist. Karl Weick called attention to an organizational phenomenon he calls 'enactment'. "The environment that the organization worries about is put there by the organization", he says. That is, the environment is co-created through our acts of observation, what we choose to notice and worry about. The implication of this is that there is no objective reality 'out there'. Therefore, there is no right or wrong. If one developed sensitivity to this realization, time would not be wasted on trying to figure out who's right or wrong. Instead, focus could be directed on issues of effectiveness.

What is happening here, in terms of the dynamics of being, is that we are moving from a certain layer of our being, to a deeper, more constructive layer. We are moving out of the layer where blame, fear, anger, hate, insecurity exist – in a sense the 'emotional' layer, to a deeper layer where reason, intelligence, objective thinking – the 'mental' or 'conceptual' layer become active. When that layer becomes active in us, through the power of interconnectedness it becomes active in the organization, and a progressively different reality begins to come to the surface. As one moves from the 'emotional' to the 'conceptual' layer in oneself, greater degrees of freedom are felt. Acting from emotion may lock us into a certain way of being where we do not examine new possibilities for their merits, but just reactively, based on preconceived bias and preference, decide on what to do. When we act in this manner, we manifest forces from this realm of the Whole, and the organization becomes like that too. On the other hand, when we act from the layer of 'mind', we see in each thing more of the truth that is represented in it, in a more unbiased and complete fashion. We naturally begin to choose what is right, rather than what is preferred, and a different kind of organizational reality manifests. Needless to say, we also pull similar forces from the Whole, which therefore creates more leverageable points of possibility in our created environments.

Weick has also introduced the idea of acting before planning. It is only when we act to implement something that we create the environment. This is counter to our notion of strategic planning, where it seems we are acting in response to a demand in the environment. In reality, he argues, "we create the environment through our own intentions." He implies that strategies should be 'just in time', supported by more investment in general knowledge and trust in intuition. Thinkers such as Mintzberg have furthered this notion by thinking in terms of 'strategic thinking' rather than 'strategic planning' - rather than being able to predict, it is more important to be aware, and to react effortlessly. Even Jack Welch, Wheatley points out, has stated that it is more important to react than to predict.

If indeed, as the New Science seems to be indicating, each of the parts is intricately connected to the Whole, and further, at some deep level seems to determine and be determined by the Whole, then Weick's idea that one's intent can create the environment holds water. Yet, we are confronted with a chicken-and-the-egg problem – was it a necessity in the evolution of the Whole that has manifested an idea which finds expression in an individual, or is it that the individual has come up with an idea, which then in some sense puts pressure on the Whole to create a certain environment where that idea can find fulfillment? Either way, if the idea has originated from a deeper layer of being, where the separation between part and Whole collapses, because of the 'depth' of its intent, it will probably manifest and an environment will be created where it can work itself to completion. If however, the idea or intent originated from a more surface layer in the individual, then it is likely tied to a personal and possibly selfish need, and will be only one intent vying against the myriad selfish intents of countless parts, to therefore with far greater difficulty find expression.

Fields

Another important idea she brings forward, which is a result of observations in the quantum world, is that small local actions can have global effects. There is a predisposition to imagine that a critical mass is required for any change to occur. However, Wheatley points out, quantum view explains the success of small efforts quite differently. Changes in small places have an effect on the global system because every small system participates in an unbroken whole. Thus, if one organization makes some change, it is now easier for all organizations to make the same change, because in a sense the 'imprint' of that change is now subtly available in the appropriate layer of the Whole. This idea is akin to Sheldrake's idea of 'Morphic Fields', from his work in biology. Morphic fields are built up through the skills that accumulate as members of the same species learn something new. Behavior collects in the morphic field, and when an individual's energy combines with it, the field patterns the behavior of the individual. Skill thus, is pulled from the field.

In fact, scientists today are beginning to perceive Universe as comprising of a number of fields. Scientists have not yet classified the fields into types. If this is done, it will be found that largely speaking there are many different fields that fall into the 'emotional' layer, many different fields that fall into the 'mental' layer, and so on. The classification of fields will be found to fall into distinct layers. At a practical level, if an employee wanted to perform excellent customer service, it is almost like linking with the appropriate set of sub-fields, or allowing the right combination of layers to become active within him. In fact, Wheatley defines organizational behavior as being influenced by these many invisible fields, that we knowingly or unknowingly create and propagate. To truly change organizational behavior, one would have to tend to the many 'invisible' fields that have created it. How can this be done? Through becoming more conscious at every moment, of the various behaviors that we often, without thinking, push forward. For each behavior that is projected forward is in fact an opening for the resonant field that is behind it to come forward and spread its vibration into the atmosphere. If therefore, we practice conscious behavior we can allow certain behaviors of compassion, brilliance, joy, for example, to come forward and manifest in the atmosphere. So it is, that organizational behavior can change.

In fact, when the idea of manifestation of fields dependent on individual behavior is pushed further, it becomes apparent that who one is will depend on who one meets. There are many possibilities that live in each of us. When we meet another there is a resonance at a subtler, 'invisible' layer, which determines which fields will become active in that interaction. Wheatley points out that instead of having traditional organizational charts, what would be more interesting is to plot 'reaction channels' - places where energy meets up with other energy to create new possibilities. This idea is rooted in the physicists S-Matrix Diagram. These map particles coming into being as intermediate states in a network of interactions. The energy of any particle can combine with other energy sources to create new particles. Lines in the diagram represent particles as 'reaction channels' through which energy flows.

Wheatley gives high importance to information. She calls it the creative energy of the universe. Where there is not a free flow of information, there is stagnation. Where energy is constantly created, assimilated, responded to, there living systems exist. In actuality, the 'information' she is talking about is a flexible selection of active elements from the subtler layers of the Whole. What she appears to be saying is that when the deeper layers of being are consciously tapped into, to help influence life, then meaning and therefore complexity and evolution result.

Summary

The main ideas of the book – co-evolution, enactment, chaos & order, fields, are summarized in her approach to bringing about change in organizations. "To bring about true change, four shifts are needed", she says. A system is composed of parts, but we cannot understand a system by looking only at its parts. We need to work with the whole of the system. This is the first shift. This requires a different way of 'thinking'. Intuition needs to come to the forefront. We need to begin to sense the Whole. The second shift is about focusing on the organizing dynamics of a living system. A system can restore itself only by connecting to more of itself. The system needs to learn more about itself from itself. The third shift is about intent: any living thing will change only if it sees change as the means for preserving itself. The fourth shift is about perception and sensing of the fields. Processes that are immaterial cause change at the material level. We must, therefore, look for invisible processes rather than for the things they engender.