CREATING LEADERS WORKSHOP Mastering The Principles and Effective Delivery of The Ontological Leadership Course

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.
com/abstract=1638429
Comments welcome July 17, 2010
! Copyright 2010. Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Landmark LLC. All rights reserved.

Harvard Business School
Negotiation, Organizations and Markets
Research Papers
HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL NOM UNIT WORKING PAPER NO. 11-002
BARBADOS GROUP WORKING PAPER NO. 10-11
SIMON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS WORKING PAPER NO. FR-10-31
CREATING LEADERS WORKSHOP:
Mastering The Principles And Effective Delivery of
The Ontological Leadership Course
July 17, 2010

WERNER ERHARD
Independent
werhard@ssrn.com

MICHAEL C. JENSEN
Jessie Isidor Strauss Professor Emeritus, Harvard Business School
mjensen@hbs.edu

KARI L. GRANGER
Fellow, Center For Character & Leadership Development, US Air Force Academy
Performance Consultant, Sunergos LLC
kgranger02@gmail.com

JOSEPH J. DIMAGGIO, M.D.
Director of Research, Design, and Development, Landmark Education LLC
jdimaggio@landmarkeducation.net

FAIR USE: You may redistribute this document freely, but please do not post the electronic file on the
web. We welcome web links to this document at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429
We revise our papers regularly, and providing a link to the original ensures that readers will receive the
most recent version. Thank you, Werner Erhard, Michael Jensen, Kari Granger, and Joseph DiMaggio.

Some of the material presented in this course is based on or derived from the consulting and program
material of the Vanto Group, and from material presented in the Landmark Forum and other programs
offered by Landmark Education LLC, as well as from an international, interdisciplinary group of scholars,
consultants and practitioners working under the name of The Barbados Group. The ideas and the
methodology created by Werner Erhard underlie much of the material.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429
Comments welcome July 17, 2010
! Copyright 2010. Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Landmark LLC. All rights reserved.

Abstract

This workshop is designed to support participants in gaining mastery in the delivery
of our new course: Being A Leader and the Effective Exercise of Leadership: An
Ontological Model. The Workshop was delivered at the United States Air Force
Academy (July 13 - 16, 2010), and was sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation, the
Gruter Foundation, the United States Air Force Academy, and the Instructors.

The workshop is for scholars who are graduates of our course, Being A Leader and
the Effective Exercise of Leadership: An Ontological Model, who are now interested in
teaching the course at their respective institutions.

Workshop objectives:

1. Provide participants access to the principles underlying the Ontological
Leadership Course.

2. Empower and enable participants to expand their capacity to effectively deliver
the Ontological Leadership Course.

3. Provide participants the opportunity to ongoingly collaborate in their delivery of
the Ontological Leadership Course.

4. Provide participants an opportunity to create a community of scholars, educators,
and practitioners to advance the Ontological Leadership Project.

5. Inquire into the next research frontier for the science of leadership.

The workshop aims to equip and engage scholars and educators to deliver a high-
impact transformative leadership course creating leaders ready to meet the global
demands of the 21st century. Workshop participants included 41 scholars and
administrators from North America and Europe from various academic institutions,
including the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA), business schools, medical schools, law
schools, military institutions, and research centers. This workshop is intended to serve as
a catalyst for global leadership development at the highest levels of international policy,
business, academy, governance, development and security.

The Ontological Leadership Course Material is available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263835

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429
Email Subject: Pre-Workshop Assignment for the Special Workshop on Delivering the
Ontological Leadership Course (USAFA July 13 - 16)

Email Text: Dear Participants

Attached to this message you will find your pre-workshop assignment. Please schedule
at least 30 minutes in the next week to read through the assignment carefully and
schedule sufficient time before arriving to registration on the evening of Monday, 12 July
2010 to complete the pre-workshop assignment.

Consider the pre-workshop assignments to be the beginning of the workshop. This
means that you will need to bring a significant level of attention and intention to
accomplishing the assignments.

We have significant ground to cover during the workshop and if you have not completed
the pre-workshop assignment by Monday, 12 July 2010, you will hold yourself and the
rest of the participants back from realizing the full value of the workshop. The pre-
workshop assignment is designed for you to gain mastery in the content of the course.
We simply do not have time during the workshop for you to master the content of the
course. During the workshop we will be spending the majority of the time on mastering
the context of the course and therefore have asked you to accomplish mastering the
content of the course before the time we spend together.

We look forward to the time we will spend together in July!

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at this email address or by
phone: 719-648-6534.

Kari Granger for all of the instructors:

Werner Erhard
Joe DiMaggio
Kari Granger
Michael Jensen

Attached File:

CREATING LEADERS:
MASTERING THE FUNDAMENTALS AND EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF
THE ONTOLOGICAL ACCESS TO LEADERSHIP

JULY 13 16, 2010 (WITH COMPLETION DINNER ON JULY 16
TH
)
US AIR FORCE ACADEMY, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

PRE-WORKSHOP ASSIGNMENTS

Our personal experience and our observations of others attempting to lead this course has
demonstrated that to succeed in developing yourself to lead this course effectively, you
will need to be an active demand to be trained based on picturing yourself actually
leading this course (as contrasted with teaching this course), rather than waiting for the
training to come to you. The success of your training will be equal to your pulling the
training toward yourself. Demand to be trained and pulling the training toward
yourself includes getting yourself clear regarding 1) in from both your perspective and
our perspective in what you need to be trained to be effective in leading the course, and
2) where from both your perspective and our perspective you need personal coaching to
be effective in leading the course. The speed and effectiveness of your training will be
equal to a combination of 1) the quality of your demand to be trained, and 2) the
authenticity of your openness to being coached. Consider this pre-workshop assignment
to be your first opportunity to being trained and coached, and notice the quality of your
demand to be trained and your openness to being coached.

1. Create for yourself a commitment and the realistic opportunity to lead this course by
the end of 2011. We recommend a minimum of 40 hours to lead this course whether
it is accomplished in consecutive days (better with a break between days) or over
several weeks or months (for instance in a semester).

2. Please review all six of the pre-course reading assignments given to participants as
pre-course reading in the most recent version of the Being a Leader and The
Effective Exercise Of Leadership: An Ontological Model course to be delivered at
the Mays School of Business, Texas A&M June 9
th
16
th
, 2010. There are a total of
137 pages of reading. This is likely significantly different than the pre-course
reading you accomplished in the course that you were in.

Each of the six pre-course reading assignment documents is to be downloaded from
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). The URL for each of the documents
is given in the entries below. (NOTE: For those who have not downloaded
documents from the SSRN site, the URL will take you to an abstract page for the
document. To download the full text pdf file, click on the word One-Click
Download found directly above the title of the paper. Depending on how your
computer is configured, this will either open up the file or download the file (to
wherever your computer is set up to put downloaded files).

Please download the four following documents immediately. They contain the six
Reading Assignments (the first document contains the first, second and third Reading
Assignments). As each of these files serves as something of a context for the next
one, it is important that you read the Reading Assignments in the order listed below.

a. First, Second, and Third Pre-Course Reading Assignments on Crucibles,
Mindsets, and Worldview & Frames of Reference: This document is 24.5 pages
of single spaced reading and contains the first, second, and third of the pre-course
reading assignments, The Transformational Experiences That Leave Ordinary
People Being Leaders (about crucibles), Access to a Context that Uses You
(about mindsets), and Education As Stretching The Mind (about worldview and
frames of reference). Download this document at the following URL on the
Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=1513400

b. Integrity: Without It Nothing Works Jensen Integrity Interview: This reading
contains 4 single-spaced pages. Download this document at the following URL
on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1511274

c. Integrity: A Positive Model That Incorporates The Normative Phenomena Of
Morality, Ethics, And Legality - Abridged: This reading contains 32.5 one and a
half space pages. Download this document at the following URL on SSRN:

d. Introductory Reading For Being a Leader and The Effective Exercise of
Leadership: An Ontological Model: This reading contains 76 pages of one and a
half spaced lines. Download this document at the following URL on SSRN:

3. Please open the slides attached to this message, Texas AM Leadership Course
Slides XXX.ppt to accomplish the following practices for mastering the content of
the course.

NOTE: Because we are committed that you work with the most updated version
of the leadership course, we will be sending you periodic email messages with the
updated leadership course slides. Each time they are sent out, you will see a new
number in the saved file, for example, Texas AM Leadership Course Slides
350. The number 350 is the version of the slides. You should always replace
the saved file that you have with the new version. The numbers will always
increase. We work on the slide deck daily and so while today you receive version
354, next time you receive the slide deck, you may receive version 365.
Within a few days of the completion of the Texas A&M Course, you will receive
the full deck of slides.

To master something is to be used by what you have mastered, that is, mastering
something has your ways of being and acting be consistent with what you have
mastered as your natural self-expression (as distinct from something you are
remembering and then trying to apply). Or said in another way, mastery is
distinguished by the difference between being able to think something because you
know it, and thinking from something because you are it.

NOTE: If you have not yet attended the Being a Leader and the Effective Exercise
of Leadership, An Ontological Model course, you should wait until after you have
completed the course to accomplish this part of the pre-workshop assignment.

a. READ the Slide Deck:

(1). Simply read each section of the Slide Deck from beginning through to the
end three times, and each time through look up any words that are in any
way unclear for you and make notes about anything that:

(a). is unclear for you in any way,
(b). you have a question about, or
(c). you have a yeah, but, or how about, or what if about anything
you read.

Note: Even though each time you read the Slide Deck you will notice
something you did not notice in an earlier reading, or see something
about an aspect of what is said in the Slide Deck that you did not see in
an earlier reading, during this first step of mastering the Slide Deck, you
are doing no more than reading for understanding and clarity and
making notes.

(2). If in your three readings you have anything that is unclear for you, or you
have a question about, or you have a yeah, but, or how about, or what
if about, please bring those items to the first day of the workshop.

b. STUDY the Slide Deck:

(1). You need to know what you are reading actually says, that is, the answer to
the question, What does what I just read actually mean?, that is What is
the essence of what I just read, what is it talking about essentially?, or
simply, What is this about? On your second reading, dont go on to the
next thought in what you are reading until you can answer that question.

NOTE: If as you study what you are reading you find yourself struggling in
any way, having a hard time understanding, going unconscious, resisting, or
getting upset in any way, what happened is that you went past something
earlier that you were not clear on. Go back before that started to happen
and work your way through the study of the Slide Deck until you discover
what you went past without being clear on it, and get yourself clear on it.

c. What Does What You Are Reading ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE?

(1). In your third reading of each aspect of the Slide Deck ask the question,
What does that look like in reality or in practice? including finding
examples of what is stated in your own life and in life in general. You are
asking yourself the question, What would I see if I actually saw what I
read? Work on the answer to the question until your answer would let
someone you were speaking to see for themselves what it says in the Slide
Deck actually looks like. That is, what does it look like to be or do (or not
be or do) what it says in the Slide Deck?

In other words, with each aspect of the Slide Deck get yourself to the point
where you can describe, as a picture that someone else could see from what
you describe, what each aspect of the Slide Deck actually looks like.

d. READ Out Loud

(1). Finally, read out loud to another person everything in the Slide Deck until
you can read everything in the Slide Deck out loud to another person
without making a mistake or fumbling over the words. The actual point
here is to be able to read everything in the Slide Deck, conveying the
meaning of what you are reading, rather than merely reading the words.

We suggest that you start this process by simply reading out loud to yourself
everything in the Slide Deck until you can read everything in the Slide Deck
out loud to yourself without making a mistake or fumbling over the words,
and then you are ready to read out loud to another person. This will take
more practicing than you might imagine, so we suggest that you start the
process early so that you are not late in completing it.

(2). The end point of mastering what is in the Slide Deck and being able to make
it live for your students is when you are living in the presence of what is
said in the Slide Deck.

e. Make it YOUR OWN

(1). By the end of the workshop, what is in the Slide Deck must be your words.
You must master what is said in the Slide Deck exactly as it is said before
trying to modify or put into your own words what is said in the Slide Deck.
When you can get what is in the Slide Deck as your words, you can begin to
find your own unique expression of what is said in the Slide Deck.

(2). Practice saying the idea presented out loud until you can say the idea as if
you discovered it. And, given the work you did in steps a - d, in fact you
have discovered it for yourself. Being able to say the idea out loud as if
you discovered that idea for yourself (including saying the idea to others
as if you discovered that idea) will empower you in being used by the ideas
in your everyday life rather than having to try to remember and apply the
idea.

4. From the context of your actual leading the course, create a list of what from your
perspective you need to be trained to be effective in leading the course and from your
perspective where you need personal coaching to be effective in leading the course.

[End]
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429
Copyright 2008-10 W. Erhard, M. Jensen, Landmark Education LLC. All rights reserved.
10-Jul-10
CREATING LEADERS:
Mastering The Principles And Effective Delivery Of
The Ontological Access To Leadership
AUTHORS and INSTRUCTORS:
WERNER ERHARD
Independent
werhard@ssrn.com
MICHAEL C. JENSEN
Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration Emeritus,
Harvard Business School
mjensen@hbs.edu
KARI L. GRANGER
Fellow, Center For Character & Leadership Development, US Air Force Academy
Performance Consultant, Sunergos LLC
kgranger02@gmail.com
JOSEPH J. DIMAGGIO, M.D.
Director of Research, Design, and Development, Landmark Education LLC
jdimaggio@landmarkeducation.net
Some of the material presented in this course is based on or derived from the consulting and program material of the Vanto Group, and from
material presented in the Landmark Forum and other programs offered by Landmark Education LLC, as well as from an international,
interdisciplinary group of scholars, consultants and practitioners working under the name of The Barbados Group. The ideas and the methodology
created by Werner Erhard underlie much of the material.
United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado
July 13 16, 2010
Updated: 16 July 2010
10-Jul-10
8-Jun-10
2
The People Who Make This Course Work
Sponsor of the Course: Colonel Joseph Sanders, Director
and Permanent Professor, Center for Character & Leadership
Development.
US Air Force Academy Course Support & Logistics:
Lieutenant Colonel Kim MacArthur, Major Shane Coyne, Major
Sheilagh Carpenter, Captain Julie Mustian*, Ms. Danielle
Brines, Cadet First Class Joshua Matthews, Cadet First Class
Courtney Vidt, Cadet First Class Chris Allen, the Falcon Club
Staff, and others who supported this team.
Course Support and Logistics From Outside the Academy:
John Buchanan, Anders Dillan, Trish Richardson.
Creative Support: Sandra Carr, Miriam Diesendruck, Anders
Dillan
Audio and Video: Sam Lee and Kevin Tappan (Den Mar
Media)
10-Jul-10
Schedule Of The Workshop
Each day the course will start at exactly 0900 and will end at
approximately 1700 (except for the last day of the course).
The last day of the course, Friday 16 July, the course ends for
all participants at the conclusion of the completion dinner,
which starts at 1800 in the Officers Club. (Note that the
financial sponsors of the workshop require that you participate
in the completion dinner in order to qualify for reimbursement.)
Sessions are approximately 1 2 hours. Each day there will
be a morning and afternoon break of at least 15 minutes.
Each day the lunch break will be approximately 45 minutes.
Note that the bus from the Air Force Academy to the
Homewood Suites arrives at the Academy at 1730 and will
depart at exactly 1745. It is a long walk if you miss the bus.
10-Jul-10
Approximate Schedule Of The Course
With the exception of the starting time of the first session on
each day, all other times are approximate.
09:00 10:50 Session 1
10:50 11:10 Morning Break (20 min)
11:10 13:00 Session 2
13:00 13:45 Lunch Session (45 min)
13:45 15:15 Session 3
15:15 15:35 Afternoon Break (20 min)
15:35 17:00 Session 4
4
10-Jul-10
5
Nomenclature: Workshop, Course, Project
What we are engaged in for the next four days we will call the
Workshop.
The Being A Leader And The Effective Exercise Of
Leadership: An Ontological Model course we will call the
Course. (Note that we will sometimes also refer to the
Course as the Ontological Leadership Course.)
We use the term Project to denote our overall effort and
ultimate objective. (Note that we will sometimes also refer to
the Project as the Ontological Leadership Project.)
10-Jul-10
6
Create a new leadership discipline that forms the basis of a
new science of leadership from which a program of courses is
designed that reliably produces individuals who in any
leadership situation are both being leaders and exercising
leadership effectively as their natural self-expression.
The overall commitment that shapes this effort is a
commitment to bring about a vibrant worldwide community of
scholars, researchers, teachers, consultants, and practitioners
that bring into being a new paradigm of leadership and the
effective teaching thereof for individuals, families, groups,
organizations, and societies.
WHAT WE ARE UP TO
What We Are Up To
In The Ontological Leadership Project
10-Jul-10
7
What We Are Up To In This Workshop
Support those who are participating in this Project, or intend to
or are considering participating in this Project, by providing an
opportunity to master the fundamental distinctions that
constitute the ontological access to being a leader and the
effective exercise of leadership as ones natural self-
expression.
Support Workshop participants in mastering the content and
effective delivery of the course Being A Leader and the
Effective Exercise of Leadership: An Ontological Model such
that the promise of the Course is realized.
Provide the opportunity to openly collaborate in the
Ontological Leadership Project including inquiring into the next
research frontier for the science of leadership.
WHAT WE ARE UP TO
10-Jul-10
8
Being Coached In This Workshop
Coaching is a privilege granted by the person being coached.
Consequently, we would like to be clear about those who are
willing to be coached and those who prefer not to be coached.
Effective coaching comes in various forms, and sometimes
looks to the person being coached (and to the onlookers) as
irrelevant when it is actually like wax on, wax off, and
sometimes looks like forceful or even bullying, and
sometimes looks like helpful, and sometimes looks sweet
and delicate (but not often), and sometimes even looks like
being ignored.
BEING COACHED
10-Jul-10
9
Being Coached In This Workshop (Contd)
Being coachable begins with saying yes, I am here to be
coached for the duration of the Workshop. (Note: if you try to
cherry-pick the coaching you are willing to receive, you are
likely to miss the coaching that will make the biggest
difference for you.)
If you prefer not to be coached, please put your hand up now,
and if any of the instructors forgets that you had put your hand
up, just remind us.
If you prefer not to be coached by other participants in the
Workshop, just inform the participants when it comes up.
BEING COACHED
10-Jul-10
10
Something To Say Or A Question
Some of you may have something youd like to say, and if you
do wed like to hear from you.
On the other hand, some of you may have questions youd like
the answer to or clarity on, and if you do wed like to hear
those questions.
Of course throughout this Workshop you may find you have
comments or questions, but what we want to deal with now is
whatever comments or questions you came into the Workshop
with. Your comments or questions may be prompted by
anything, including your Pre-Workshop preparation. The point
is we want to deal with anything that is there for you coming
into the Workshop.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
10-Jul-10
11
Something To Say Or A Question (Contd)
We will start with those of you who have something youd like
to say, and then get to the questions. So if you have a
question, please hold it until we are complete with the
comments.
If you have a comment please put your hand up. Your
comment may be about the Course in general, or teaching
leadership, or about being a leader or the effective exercise of
leadership, or something you would like to say prompted by
your participation in or study of the Course, or really anything
you would like to say. If you have something to say please put
your hand up now.
10-Jul-10
12
Something To Say Or A Question (Contd)
Now we would like to hear from those of you who have
questions, and we will take your questions in the following
order:
1. Questions about anything other than the specific content of
the Ontological Leadership Course or delivering the
Course.
2. Questions about a specific part of the Course, or a
particular slide.
3. Questions about delivering the Course.
Please put your hand up now if you have a question about
anything other than the specific content of the Course or
delivering the Course.
10-Jul-10
13
The Course We Are Here To Master
The course we are here to master Being A Leader And The
Effective Exercise Of Leadership: An Ontological Model is
not about leadership or what it is to be a leader. That is, the
subject matter of the Course is not leadership or what it is to
be a leader.
The subject matter of the Course we are here to master is that
subject matter which is required in order to leave each of the
students who completes the Course being a leader and
exercising leadership effectively as their natural self-
expression.
REASONS WHY YOU ARE HERE
10-Jul-10
14
The Course We Are Here To Master (Contd)
While probably impossible, if in the Course we never said
anything about leadership or anything about what it is to be a
leader and the students completed the Course being leaders
and exercising leadership effectively as their natural self-
expression that would completely and totally fulfill the reason
for the existence of the Course.
Remember, the promise you will be making to your students if
you teach this Course is,
You will leave this course being a leader and exercising
leadership effectively as your natural self-expression.
Be aware that in making this promise you have accepted that
your promise imposes serious requirements on what content
you deliver and what you refrain from delivering, and the
methods you use for delivering it.
10-Jul-10
15
The Course We Are Here To Master (Contd)
The methodology for realizing the promise to leave students
being a leader and exercising leadership effectively as their
natural self-expression is to support students in creating and
mastering those conversational domains that become a
context that leaves them in any leadership situation being a
leader and exercising leadership effectively.
In short, the methodology utilized to realize the promise of the
Course is one of creating and mastering certain
conversational domains. That means the specific language
used in the Course is critical.
Of course you are welcome to teach any course you like, but if
you are to teach this Course you must resist a number of
temptations.
10-Jul-10
16
1. Attempting to substitute more comfortable, common, or
familiar terms from everyday language or other disciplines
for the specialized terms designed for the Course thus
collapsing conversational domains so that the
conversational domains of the Course lack distinction and
therefore power.
2. Attempting to make the distinctions that constitute the
conversational domains of the Course easier to understand
by making them like something else rather than requiring
a mastery of the distinctions themselves. (Said simply, we
use the term distinction to mean a set of specialized terms
that are networked together in a way that results in
something showing up or made accessible that would not
otherwise show up or be accessible.)
RESISTING THE TEMPTATIONS THAT UNDERMINE DELIVERING ON THE PROMISE
Resist The Temptation To Ease Or Assuage The
Intellectual Demands On Your Students (Or Yourself) By:
10-Jul-10
17
3. Attempting to use examples to reduce the discomfort
associated with the intense intellectual effort required from
students to create the distinctions for themselves.
(Examples of what the distinctions look like in practice are
powerful only after having created the distinctions for
oneself.)
4. Giving students the answers rather than having them dwell
in the inquiry.
5. Rolling through the slides, rather than doing whatever
is required to have the promise of the Course realized.
Resist The Temptation To Ease/Assuage The
10-Jul-10
18
6. Attempting to avoid the anticipated discomfort of actually
reading the slides, or the actual experience of discomfort
when reading the slides, or attempting to avoid your
discomfort with the initial resistance of the students to
having the slides read word for word, by commenting on the
slides merely to gain some relief from reading the slides
rather than commenting when it makes a difference.
7. Attempting to deliver on the promise of the Course by
reducing the Course slides to your own bullet point slides
and talking in your own words about those bullet points.
Resist The Temptation To Ease/Assuage The
10-Jul-10
19
Seven years of research and trial and error have honed the
creation and selection of the specialized terms used in the
Course and the way in which they are networked together to
form the distinctions of the Course. And, it is those
distinctions that reliably support students in creating and
mastering the conversational domains that leave them being
leaders and exercising leadership effectively as their natural
self-expression.
The Consequences Of
Giving In To These Temptations
10-Jul-10
20
Each of the areas dealt with in the Course, and each of the
sentences on the slides, and each of the terms used in those
sentences, are there for one and only one purpose. What is
covered in the Course, and what is on the slides, and the way
the Course is delivered is the product of an underlying
ontological model (existential phenomenological model) with
the sole purpose of leaving the participants in the Course
being leaders and exercising leadership effectively as their
natural self-expression.
Giving in to any of the foregoing temptations will almost
certainly undermine your students ability to create and master
those conversational domains for themselves resulting in a
failure to deliver on the promise of the Course.
The Consequences Of
Giving In To These Temptations (Contd)
10-Jul-10
21
It is true that various people have done their own versions of
the Course and produced some worthwhile results; however,
they did not realize the promise of the Course.
Others who intended to produce a certain result without the
intention to realize the promise of the Course have used
segments of the Course to successfully produce the result
they intended.
To reliably produce the promise of the Course you must find
within yourself the courage to resist these strong temptations.
When you have mastered the effective delivery of the Course
as it currently exists, we expect that you will create
improvements on and innovations in the Course and the
underlying research program. That has also been our
experience.
The Consequences Of
Giving In To These Temptations (Contd)
10-Jul-10
22
Ongoing Innovation In Development Of The Course
And The Research Program
Can what is dealt with in the Course, and what is on the
slides, and the way the Course is delivered be improved on?
The answer is a resounding yes.
In fact, each time a Course is scheduled, we and the four and
sometimes five people who support us work for months to
improve what is dealt with in the Course, and what is on the
slides, and the way the Course is delivered.
However, it is critical to be aware of the fact that all of the work
we do to improve the Course is informed by a mastery of the
underlying model and what has been learned in the
application of it in our seven years of trial and error. In
addition, we continually discover new insights about and
dimensions of the underlying foundations of this Ontological
Leadership Model.
10-Jul-10
23
As we said, we do expect that those of you who take on
teaching the Course will make important contributions to what
is dealt with in the Course, what is on the slides, and the way
the Course is delivered. However, having examined the
changes made to the Course by people who did not first
master the Course in its present form, we advise against
making changes to the Course until you have mastered the
Course in its present form (other than to make it fit in a given
scheduling of Course sessions).
Experience tells us that what is in the course has enough
power so that whatever one may do to muddle it, some result
is likely to be produced. In our experience, it will not leave the
participants used by the course so that being a leader and
exercising leadership effectively is their natural self-
expression. Thus, it does not fulfill the promise of the course.
Ongoing Innovation In Development Of The Course
And The Research Program (Contd)
10-Jul-10
24
Sidebar: Your Ownership Of The Slide Deck
And Course Materials
Since we want to encourage the growth and development of a
worldwide research and teaching effort on this Ontological
Leadership Model, you are free to use the content of this
Course in any way you choose.
You are free to create your own slide deck from the
PowerPoint slides that we will make available to you on
request. If you make substantial changes to the deck you may
put your own name on the title page. In all cases, we request
that you use the appropriate scholarly attribution to the source
of the underlying materials. We suggest the citation on the
following slide to accomplish this.
USE, ATTRIBUTION, AND OWNERSHIP OF COURSE MATERIALS
10-Jul-10
25
And Course Materials (Contd)
Suggested Citation:
Drawn from: Erhard, Werner, Jensen, Michael C., Zaffron, Steve and
Granger, Kari L., Being a Leader and The Effective Exercise of Leadership:
An Ontological Model, Mays School of Business (June 17, 2010). Available
at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263835 and
Erhard, Werner, Jensen, Michael C. and Granger, Kari L., Directory of the
6 Pre-Course Readings for the Course Being a Leader and the Effective
Exercise of Leadership: An Ontological Model Mays School of Business,
Texas A&M, June 9-11 and 14-16, 2010 (May 6, 2010). Available at SSRN:
The exact titles of these two documents will change from year
to year as we put up the most recent Course slides and Pre-
Course readings. The URLs will remain constant so that you
or any reader can always get the most current version of the
slide deck and the Pre-Course readings from these two URLs.
10-Jul-10
26
And Course Materials (Contd)
We are still somewhat unsure of the exactly appropriate way
to handle this citation/credit/ownership issue and are open to a
discussion and suggestions from those of you in this room
about the best way to accomplish this so that people are
empowered to use, extend, correct, and popularize the
substance of this Ontological Leadership Model.
For those of you who may be using the material in a unique
way and who find our suggestions for citation/credit/ownership
here uncomfortable, please call or write Mike Jensen an email
to get it sorted out.
10-Jul-10
27
Reasons Why You Might Be Here:
1. You might be here because you are interested in what this
is all about, but with no commitment to master any of what is
here. At the same time, if you heard something you thought
might be of value, you would certainly take that away with you.
2. You have determined for yourself that the Course has
value in creating leaders, or at least contributing to creating
leaders. You came to this Workshop to support yourself in
delivering those parts of the Course that in your evaluation
make a difference to that outcome.
3. You have determined for yourself that the Course has
value in creating leaders. You came to this Workshop to
develop yourself to effectively deliver the Course that the
developers spent seven years of research and trial and error
in creating. You are here to recreate and master the Course
as a whole to use as your initial platform for creating leaders,
and for your further research into and development of the
Ontological Leadership Model.
10-Jul-10
28
Phenomenology Glossary
Phenomenology is the study of phenomena, the way things
appear to us in experience or consciousness.
Hermeneutics is the theory and practice of interpretation.
Heuristic is involving or serving as an aid to learning,
discovery, or problem-solving by experimental, and especially
trial and error methods.
PHENOMENOLOGY
10-Jul-10
29
Heuristic Reduction
Heuristic Reduction: Wonder
Method: Bracket the attitude of taken-for-grantedness and
aim to awaken a profound sense of wonder about the
phenomenon about which one is interested
At the most basic level, phenomenological reduction consists
of the attitude of wonder.
What does this mean? It implies an approach that can shatter
the taken-for-grantedness of our everyday reality. Wonder is
the willingness to step back and let things speak to us, a
passive receptivity to let the things of the world present
themselves in their own terms.
PHENOMENOLOGY
10-Jul-10
30
Phenomenology Defined (Contd)
When we are struck with wonder, our minds are suddenly
cleared of the clutter of concerns that otherwise constantly
occupy us. We are confronted by the thing itself, the
phenomenon in all of its strangeness and uniqueness. The
wonder of the thing takes us in.
Perhaps it is strange to speak of wonder as a method, but if
we understand method as methodos, as a path or way, then
we may indeed consider wonder an important methodological
aspect of human science inquiry. The way to wisdom,
knowledge and understanding, to paraphrase Socrates,
begins in wonder.
PHENOMENOLOGY
10-Jul-10
31
Phenomenology Defined (Contd)
From this moment of wonder, a question may emerge that
addresses us and is addressed by us. It should animate ones
questioning of the meaning of some aspect of lived
experience. It should also challenge the researcher to write in
such a way that the reader of the phenomenological text is
similarly stirred to the same sense of wondering attentiveness
to the topic under investigation.
PHENOMENOLOGY
10-Jul-10
32
A Neuroscience Perspective On
The Underlying Ontological Model
We now deal with a neuroscience perspective on human
nature. A perspective that complements the underlying
ontological model sometimes more formally referred to as
the existential phenomenological model which is the
foundation on which everything in the Course is built.
A NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON REALITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS
10-Jul-10
33
The Brain and the Reality In Which You Live
What is out there for you is not what is out there that is, what
is out there for you is not the so-called objective reality.
While we can confidently assume that there is an objective
reality out there, that is not the reality that shows up for you.
What shows up for you is a reality generated by your brain.
Put in another way, while we assume that what we perceive is
the reality that is actually out there, in fact every shred of what
shows up for you as reality is being wholly generated by your
brain.
In addition, it is critical for you to get that what you call I or
me who you know yourself to be is also wholly generated
by your brain. In fact, in terms of what your brain generates,
there is no difference between what is out there for you and
who you know yourself to be; they are both simply generated
by your brain.
10-Jul-10
34
The Brain and the Reality In Which You Live (Contd)
The noted philosopher John Searle in his book Freedom and
Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and
Political Power, says it this way: conscious states are
entirely caused by neuronal processes in the brain and are
realized in the brain. (2007, p. 5)
The neuropsychologist Chris Frith in his book Making Up the
Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World, states this
more fully as follows: Everything we know, whether it is about
the physical or mental world, comes to us through our brain.
By hiding from us all of the unconscious inferences that it
makes, our brain creates the illusion that we have direct
contact with objects in the physical world. (2007, p. 17)
10-Jul-10
Explaining the relation between what is actually out there and
what shows up for us, the world-renowned neuroscientist
Antonio Damasio in his book The Feeling of What Happens
says: Moreover, whatever the fidelity may be, neural patterns
and the corresponding mental images are as much creations
of the brain as they are products of the external reality that
prompts their creation. (1999, p. 320; emphasis added)
Thus the images you and I see in our minds are not
facsimiles of the particular object, but rather images of the
interactions between each of us and an object which engaged
our organisms, constructed in neural pattern form according to
the organisms design. The object is real, the interactions are
real, and the images are as real as anything can be. And yet,
the structure and properties in the image we end up seeing
are brain constructions prompted by an object.
(1999, p. 321)
A NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON REALITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS 35
10-Jul-10
are brain constructions prompted by an object. (1999, p. 321)
By object Damasio means: entities as diverse as a person,
a place, a melody, a toothache, a state of bliss (1999, p. 9)
By image Damasio means: a mental pattern in any of the
sensory modalities, e.g., a sound image, a tactile image, the
image of a state of well-being. (1999, p. 9)
10-Jul-10
Given a little thought you will undoubtedly agree with this
proposition of a brain-generated reality and understand it as
an idea that is, accept it as an unavoidable conclusion.
However, without you actually experiencing this for yourself
(and ultimately living it), you will find it difficult to master leader
and leadership as an ontological discipline.
When you actually get that the reality that shows up for you is
not what is actually out there, you will likely experience it as an
a-ha realization (an einzig), and one that comes as
something of a shock for you. And, when you begin to live
that every shred of what shows up for you as reality is being
wholly generated by your brain, your relationship with the
world, others, and yourself will shift dramatically.
This is the entre into mastering leader and leadership as a
context that leaves you being a leader and effectively
exercising leadership as your natural self-expression.
10-Jul-10
Historically, common practice has dealt with what we have
labeled brain-generated reality as subjective reality, with
the inference that we really live in the objective reality and only
have to account for subjectivity to keep it from leading us
astray.
Neuroscience has put this inference out of its misery.
However, in terms of access to leader and leadership,
neuroscience hasnt left us with much beyond killing the
inference.
For the brain-generated reality model of neuroscience to
provide access to leader and leadership, we would need to
find a way to stick our hands in our brains and reorganize the
neurons and synapses so that they would generate for us the
being of being a leader and the actions of the effective
exercise of leadership. Currently, outside of science fiction
this idea is ludicrous.
10-Jul-10
By realizing (and being able to function from the realization)
that reality as you perceive it is generated by your brain, you
will have stepped through the door of the ontological approach
to leader and leadership.
You have distinguished that the world you live in, the world to
which you respond or react, is not the so-called objective
world, rather it is a phenomenological world the world as
perceived. We name this world the occurring world.
The occurring world could be said to be the way in which
objects, others, and you yourself occur or show up for you in
this or that situation. We are talking about the world you live
in, the one you respond to or react to. This is the world with
which your mind, body, feelings, and actions are correlated.
10-Jul-10
What Is Meant By Occur
The following slides are created from A New Paradigm Of
Individual, Group, And Organizational Performance, Werner
Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, and the Barbados Group (an
international, interdisciplinary group of scholars, consultants,
and practitioners), available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437027.
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON REALITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS 40
Copyright 2002-2010, Vanto Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
10-Jul-10
What Is Meant By Occur (Contd)
What we mean by occur is what of the circumstances on
which and in which the leader is exercising leadership
registers in some way for that leader.
It is important to note that the circumstances that register in
some way includes not only the circumstances the leader is
dealing with, but also includes the circumstances in which the
leader is dealing with whatever she is dealing with (her
environment or surroundings), and also includes the way in
which the leader occurs for herself in dealing with whatever
she is dealing with in that environment.
Occur does not require the person to pay any attention to,
think about, understand, analyze, or interpret that which is
registered. In fact, much of what occurs for the person (is
registered in some way for the person) is not part of that of
which the person takes note. In short, by occur, we mean
exists in some manner for the leader.
10-Jul-10
From a neuroscience perspective, what we mean by occur
would be that which is constituted as an activated neuronal
pattern of perception in the brain (whether it rises to the level
of conscious awareness or not) associated with an activated
neuronal pattern of action.
perception and behavior are almost one in the same.
most if not all regions of the cortex, even visual areas,
participate in the creation of movement. The layer 5 cells that
project to the thalamus and then to layer 1 also seem to have
a motor function because they simultaneously project to motor
areas (Hawkins and Blakeslee 2004, p.157)
10-Jul-10
An example of occurring happening below the level of our
conscious awareness, but with which action is correlated, is
when we take the actions to successfully drive our car in the
correct lane and without hitting any other cars, even though at
some later moment we realize weve driven some way since
we were last consciously aware of the lanes and other cars, or
even that we were driving or in a moving car.
In summary, we are saying that what occurs is constituted by
a combination of various ways of having been registered in
some way by the leader and is somehow related to the
leaders actions. When something occurs for a person, it
could be said to just be there in some way for the person, no
more and no less.
10-Jul-10
Deepening What Is Meant By Occur
It is critical in understanding what we mean by occur to
distinguish between what is meant by the so-called objective
world (objects and their properties and in various
relationships, others, and we ourselves, all independent of any
perception of them), and what we term the occurring world
(objects and their properties and in various relationships,
others, and we ourselves, as they occur in our perception of
them).
We encounter the fact of these two distinct worlds when our
actions are ineffective as a result of misperceiving something
we are dealing with. Some well-researched simple examples
of this are the perceived, as contrasted with actual, length of
the lines of a Mller-Lyer figure, change blindness, and
inattentional blindness.
10-Jul-10
Deepening What Is Meant By Occur (Contd)
The world we interact with (act on and by which we are acted
on) is the so-called objective world.
However, while most of us dont give any thought to it, in a
fundamentally important sense the world we actually respond
to and react to is the world as we perceive it, what we have
termed the occurring world.
10-Jul-10
The occurring world includes the way life, objects (and their
properties, and in various relationships), others, and you
yourself, all occur or show up for you in this or that situation.
(Of course, we all find that there are times when the occurring
world and the objective world are apparently congruent,
hopefully most of the time.)
(The objective world is sometimes referred to as the external
world. However, the world with which we interact includes
mental entities for example, a memory or an idea that we
are considering and these entities do in fact exist, albeit only
as a first person phenomenon.)
Your mental, emotional, and body states, your thoughts and
thought processes (your way of being), and your actions are
each a response or reaction to the way in which the occurring
world occurs for you.
10-Jul-10
Do we live in the objective world or the occurring world?
The answer from an ontological perspective is, yes.
In order to make theoretical sense of life we need to see and
treat the objective world and the occurring world as
separate (albeit sometimes congruent and sometimes not).
But, if we are dealing with life as lived, seeing and treating the
objective and occurring worlds from the perspective of them
being two distinct and separate worlds obscures the way we
actually live life.
10-Jul-10
For a simple example, when we hammer a nail we dont do it
from some theory about a hammer as being composed of a
lever and mallet where the lever multiplies the force at the
mallet head. The theory of hammering a nail, which can be
reduced to a mathematical formula, is nowhere present in the
act of hammering. Rather we hammer the nail as lived. That
is, in the presence of our intention to have the nail go into the
wood, we hammer the nail as a dance between the occurring
and the action appropriate to that occurring. Specifically as,
the way the hammer-and-nail occurs for us in order to make-
the-nail-go-into-the-wood in a dance with the action
appropriate to that occurring all as a unity for us.
(See Heidegger 1962, pp. 98-101)
The theoretical perspective provides explanations of
performance; the as lived perspective allows access to the
source of performance.
10-Jul-10
Of course, especially when the so-called objective world bites
back when my perception of it is different from the way it
apparently objectively is, it makes sense to distinguish
between the way the world occurs for me and the so-called
objective (external) world. But, as we will argue, I cannot
separate the two. By analogy, they are like the front of my
hand and the back of my hand. While I can distinguish the
front of my hand from the back of my hand, I cannot separate
the front from the back.
Lest we leave the impression that we are dismissing the
validity of the theoretical perspective, or even denigrating it,
we want to be clear that we are aware that theory provides its
own powerful perspective on whatever one is dealing with. In
fact, we would argue that if one approaches theory from the
context of the as lived, ones theory is likely to have more
power.
10-Jul-10
Your access to the so-called objective world is through action,
either your action impacting the objective world, or the
objective worlds action impacting you. Even so, you only
have your perception of the impact of your actions on the
objective world (that is, the way the impact of your actions on
the objective world occurs for you), and your perception (the
way it occurs for you) of the impact of the objective worlds
actions on you.
As lived, this all exists for us as a unity.
10-Jul-10
As lived, this all exists for us as a unity.
As we will show in the next section, action and the occurring
always go together, i.e., they are interrelated naturally,
necessarily closely connected (mutually arising) correlates
one of the other. And this correlation is an irreducible and
ineliminable phenomenon. Of course, as we already pointed
out, my perception of the world and the way it responds and
reacts may be incongruent, but as lived any incongruence
shows up as and is dealt with as part of the unity of the
occurring and action, and as such is integral to performance.
10-Jul-10
Neuroscience is entirely consistent with this as lived
perspective. To repeat our ealier quote from neuroscientist
Antonio Damasio:
are brain constructions prompted by an object.
(Damasio 1999, p. 321)
10-Jul-10
In summary,
what occurs for you includes whatever registers for you,
either consciously or unconsciously,
of the circumstances you are dealing with, and
the circumstances in which you are dealing with
whatever you are dealing with (your environment and
surroundings),
including the way in which you occur for yourself in
dealing with whatever you are dealing with in that
environment.
Our way of being is some combination of our mental,
emotional, and bodily states, and our thoughts and thought
processes.
Saying the same thing as what is said in the paragraph above,
but in more experiential terms:
Our way of being is some combination of our attitude or state
of mind and our feelings or emotions (what we might call our
mood), plus our body sensations, and our thoughts regarding
what we are engaged with that is, what is going on with us in
a given moment or in a given situation.
What Is Meant By Way Of Being
WAY OF BEING
Note that the temporality of our way of being is what is going
on with us in a given moment or in a given situation.
Even if a certain way of being could be said to be our general
or characteristic way of being, none of us is always only the
way we generally or characteristically are.
So way of being is what is going on with us in this or that
moment.
The Temporality (Time) Of Way Of Being
Way Of Being
WAY OF BEING
10-Jul-10
56
In This Phenomenological Discussion,
What Is Meant By Correlate
Your way of being and acting are a correlate of the way the
world occurs for you.
What is meant by correlate?
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON REALITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS
At the simplest level, correlated means connected in some
way.
So when we say: Your way of being and acting is correlated
with the way in which what you are dealing with occurs for
you, the first thing to be clear about is that your way of being
and acting is connected in some way with the way in which
what you are dealing with occurs for you.
However, in the matter of the correlation between your way of
being and acting and the way in which what you are dealing
with occurs for you, what we mean by correlated is a very
specific kind of connection.
What Is Specifically Meant By Correlated
WHAT IS MEANT BY CORRELATED
Before we make clear exactly what is meant by correlated, you
have to get clear for yourself what we do not mean by
correlated.
1. If you have studied statistics, please note that by
correlated we do not mean a mere statistical correlation.
2. The kind of correlation (connection) between your way of
being and acting and the way in which what you are dealing
with occurs for you is not one of cause and effect. That is,
your way of being and acting is not an effect that is caused by
the way in which what you are dealing with occurs for you. In
short, the connection is something other than cause and
effect.
What Is NOT Meant By Correlated
WHAT IS MEANT BY CORRELATED
10-Jul-10
59
What Is Meant By Correlate
Finally, in clarifying the words in the Second Aspect of the new
model of performance, we will clarify what we mean by
correlate (Action is a correlate of the way the circumstances
on which and in which a performer is performing occur (show
up) for the performer).
In the matter of human performance, correlated, as we will
define and distinguish it, is the way in which action and the
occurring (as we have defined occur in the previous section)
are connected.
10-Jul-10
60
What Is Meant By Correlate (Contd)
The correlation between action and the occurring, as we will
define and distinguish correlation in that matter, is not a
cause/effect connection. And, by the way, the correlation we
are speaking about is also not a statistical correlation.
(Note that two things can be connected without one being the
effect of the other. While a cause/effect connection could be
said to be a kind of correlation, there are other very different
kinds of correlation where two things that are correlated are
connected in ways other than cause/effect.)
10-Jul-10
61
Non-Cause/Effect Correlation
What we mean by correlate is a certain kind of connection
between two things. Given our everyday common sense
worldview, we humans often make the mistake of taking for
granted that if two things are connected, they are connected
by cause/effect. Nevertheless, there are many kinds of actual
connections that are not causal.
10-Jul-10
62
Examples of connections that are not causal:
Two things can be connected by equivalence. For example,
the two sides of an equation with an equal sign between them
are connected by equivalence. What is on one side of the
equation does not cause what is on the other side of the
equation; nevertheless they are connected (in this case,
connected by equivalence).
Two things can be connected by association, for instance by
one having more of a property than the other. That one thing
is brighter than the other, does not cause the other to be
dimmer (and vice versa); nevertheless they are connected (in
this case, connected by association).
10-Jul-10
63
Two things can be connected by category, for instance all
lions are related by the category species but are not causally
related; nevertheless they are connected (in this case,
connected by category).
Two things can be connected by coincidence, that is, arise
one directly after the other or arise together, without one being
caused by the other, or each being the effect of the same
cause. When writing about what is required of a liberal
education, the President and Fellows of Harvard College
(2007) wrote, It is also helpful to become aware of the
many mistakes that human beings are prone to making in their
reasoning, such as over-interpreting coincidences, and the
like. (p. 13)
10-Jul-10
64
Two things can be connected by being parts of a whole. In
the low knothole in a plank fence example, when observing life
on the other side of the fence by looking through the knothole
(analogous to a good deal of our perceptions), whenever one
sees a dogs head, it is always followed by a dogs tail (the
dogs body is below the hole in the plank and therefore
hidden), leading to the conclusion that dogs heads cause
dogs tails. This is the fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The
dogs head does not cause the dogs tail, nevertheless they
are connected (in this case, connected by being parts of a
whole).
10-Jul-10
65
Two things can be connected by what in economics is termed
connectivity, that is, the way things behave toward each
other. For instance the landlord-tenant relationship. Although
it is often erroneously explained as cause/effect, while a
tenant may act in response to the landlord, the tenants
actions are not caused by the landlord; nevertheless they are
connected (in this case, connected by connectivity).
As anyone who has studied statistics will have had pounded
into them, two variables can be connected by statistical
correlation without being causally connected; nevertheless
they are connected (in this case, the two variables are
connected by statistical correlation). Note that we do not
mean statistical correlation in what we mean by correlate
as the connection between action and the occurring.
10-Jul-10
66
Websters New World Dictionary & Thesaurus (1998) defines
correlate as either of two interrelated things; closely and
naturally related. And, that is the sense in which we are
using correlate in the sense that, in the matter of
performance action and the occurring are interrelated, that is,
action is closely and naturally related to the occurring.
And, Websters (1998) defines interrelation as mutual
relationship; interconnection, implying a mutual arising. This
further clarifies the sense in which we are using correlate.
And finally, as we use the term correlate in this new model of
performance, a further aspect of the nature of the correlation
between action and the occurring is that of complementarity
as defined in Websters (1998): ; necessary
interrelationship or correspondence.
10-Jul-10
67
A combination of the foregoing definitions gives us the
following as a definition of correlate as we mean the term for
the relation between action and the occurring: either of two
interrelated phenomena that are naturally, necessarily closely
connected (mutually arising).
In the case of using this definition in the second aspect of the
new model of performance: action is naturally, necessarily
closely connected (mutually arising) with the occurring. (While
it may be applicable in other areas, please keep in mind that in
this paper we are explicating correlate in the precise way we
do only as it pertains to the relation between action and the
occurring in the matter of performance.)
10-Jul-10
68
Our use of naturally in the definition of correlate as we mean
correlate should not be understood to mean naturalistic, that
is, reducible to cause/effect. By naturally, we mean to indicate
the irreducible ineliminable interrelation between action and
the occurring.
Because of our everyday common sense Newtonian/Cartesian
cause/effect worldview, it is generally difficult for us to grasp
two things being necessarily related in this way without it
being a cause/effect relationship.
10-Jul-10
69
For an example of how ones worldview constrains ones
ability to grasp anything inconsistent with that worldview:
Even the great Einstein when confronted by the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle was constrained by his worldview,
claiming, God does not play dice with the universe (Isaacson
2007, p. 4). If Einstein, who gave us a radical new worldview
regarding the relation between space and time, and the nature
of gravity, found it difficult to accept a new for him worldview, it
becomes clear just how challenging, and even threatening,
altering our worldview is for any of us. Unfortunately, being
able to see our own worldview is extremely difficult it
seems to us to simply be the way things are. Ones worldview
is like air to the bird or water to the fish; while we fly in it or
swim in it, it is generally invisible to us.
10-Jul-10
70
Entanglement as an Example of
Non-Cause/Effect Correlation
A scientifically verified example of two things being naturally,
necessarily directly connected (correlated) without being
related by cause/effect is entanglement. This is the name
given by quantum physicists to the instantaneous invariant
non-cause/effect correlation of the states of two particles
(quanta) that come into contact and are later at some distance
from one another. No matter how far they move apart, if one
is tweaked, measured, observed, the other seems to instantly
respond, even if the whole world now lies between them.
(Gilder 2008, p. 3; The Age of Entanglement)
10-Jul-10
71
Non-Cause/Effect Correlation (Contd)
Physicist James Trefils (2008) everyday analogy for
entanglement: If you hold two baseballs in the palm of your
hand, then throw one to the left and the other to the right, you
expect that clocking the speed of one ball will not affect the
other. Not so with electrons. Once two electrons have
come into contact, they never seem to forget that this has
happened. It would be as if, by making a measurement on the
left-hand baseball, you could determine what the right-hand
baseball was doing.
10-Jul-10
72
Given our non-physicists worldview (model of reality) that
everything we encounter is caused by something, we would
like to say that the state of the one particle causes the effect of
the state of the other particle. However, this cannot be true
because when measured the two particles are at a distance
from one another and the responsive result is instantaneous.
Because this responsive result is instantaneous at a distance,
the connection cannot be a cause/effect connection.
Instantaneous action at a distance as a cause/effect
phenomenon would violate the experimentally established limit
of the speed of light as the absolute maximum rate of transfer
of information from one location to another (that is, something
being the effect of some cause must happen within the speed
of light) (Salart et al. 2008, pp. 861-864; Testing the Speed of
Spooky Action at a Distance).
10-Jul-10
73
It is the only time I can think of when a theory led to an
outlandish prediction, the prediction was confirmed by a series
of brilliant experiments, and everyone was unhappy with the
result. We really dont like it when Nature tells us that our
comfortable view of the universe [our everyday common
sense worldview] doesnt hold. (Trefil 2008)
10-Jul-10
74
Of course we are not suggesting that action and the occurring
relative to performance are correlated in the same way two
entangled particles are correlated. The point we are making is
that the relation between naturally, necessarily directly
connected phenomena (correlated phenomena) that cannot
be the result of cause/effect (two entangled particles in this
case) is counter-intuitive for us that is, counter-intuitive as
the result of the constraint our everyday common sense
cause/effect worldview imposes on us. Given that worldview,
we think that any two things that are naturally, necessarily
directly connected must be connected by cause/effect.
10-Jul-10
75
In addition, in understanding the concept of entanglement, it is
clear that the two entangled particles are in fact naturally,
necessarily directly connected (correlated). And that
correlation, not cause/effect, is the source of the action (state)
of the second entangled particle. Seeing this leaves one with
a better sense of what we mean when we say that the source
of action is its correlation with the occurring. We do
acknowledge that, because of the everyday common sense
cause/effect worldview, it can be somewhat mind-boggling to
speak about the source of action, and not mean the cause of
action.
10-Jul-10
76
Emergence in Complex Systems as an Example
of Non-Cause/Effect Correlation
Another scientifically verified example of things being
naturally, necessarily closely connected (correlated), without
being connected by cause/effect, is what complexity scientists
term emergence.
10-Jul-10
77
of Non-Cause/Effect Correlation (Contd)
Geese flying in a V formation serves as a simple example of
emergence. Given the grip on us of the current model of
performance, we would like to explain this in terms of
something causing the geese to fly in this V formation.
However, complexity scientists demonstrate that it is not
necessary for geese to have any relation to flying in a V
formation for them to wind up in a V formation. In fact, these
scientists have demonstrated that all that is needed for geese
to wind up flying in a V formation is for each goose to
function from four simple inbred behaviors for flying near a few
adjacent geese. There is nothing in these few simple inbred
behavior rules that says to fly in a V formation, or even
anything about flying in a V formation.
10-Jul-10
78
The four rules are: 1) Separation: steer to avoid crowding local
flockmates. 2) Alignment: steer towards the average heading
of local flockmates. 3) Cohesion: steer to move toward the
average position of local flockmates. 4) View: attempt to
maintain a clear view ahead.
(http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/; accessed 29 June 2010)
10-Jul-10
79
And, emergent phenomena are not limited to geese,
emergence happens in situations like traffic patterns, schools
of fish, and people working in groups, where individual agents
actions are the effect of following rules (about which rules they
may or may not be aware), and yet what emerges are patterns
unpredictable from those rules (and in the case of traffic and
work groups, when the agents dont follow the usual rules, a
pattern still emerges, but is usually unwanted).
10-Jul-10
80
There is no teleology (an activity that tends toward the
achievement of a goal) to fly in a V formation present in the
rules. To assign winding up in a V formation as an effect of
some cause for example as the effect of some sort of
leadership exercised by the lead goose, or as the effect of
some sort of communication between the geese is obviously
just wrong. Which goose is at the front of the V changes
randomly and in any case whichever goose is at the front is
simply following the same four rules as the other geese, and
geese dont communicate with each other about flying in a V
formation.
10-Jul-10
81
Complex systems scientists find that assigning the V
formation as an effect caused by the four rules from which
each goose is functioning actually obscures the true nature of
the phenomenon. The relation between the local rules and
the emergent V cannot be said to be cause/effect because
even when we repeat the precise cause (presumably the
exact same rules and the exact same conditions) we never get
precisely the same effect (presumably the exact shape and
size of the V formation). It is impossible to model the flock of
geese using cause/effect relationships that is, to reduce the
flock to an equation with a set of variables, coefficients, and
operations related so as to provide the position of each goose
over time.
10-Jul-10
82
While in general, experience tells us that geese do fly in some
sort of V formation, the precise formation is unpredictable
moment to moment. The best we can do is to model them
through a computer simulation of the system played out over
time, and even then, we will be unable to maintain the
accuracy of the predictions derived from the model because
the real world system is non-linear and even the indeterminate
inevitable slight deviations in initial conditions create
dramatically different outcomes over time. The accuracy of
weather predictions is an example of this chaotic aspect of
emergent phenomena.
10-Jul-10
83
Quoting Margaret Wheatley (2006, p. 10), When we view
systems from this perspective [the complexity perspective], we
enter an entirely new landscape of connections, of
phenomena that cannot be reduced to simple cause and
effect, or explained by studying the parts as isolated
contributors.
In complexity science, emergent is reserved for the system-
level phenomena that emerge from a system of independent
agents following local rules over time. While the action of
each bird is best understood as an effect caused by the four
inbred rules of each of the geese, the source of the flock of
geese winding up in a V formation is emergence, not
cause/effect. The flock of geese flying in a V formation with
a goose at the front of the V is another example of non-
cause/effect correlation.
10-Jul-10
84
In summary, to say that the geese (or even the four simple
rules they are following) cause the flock to fly in a V
formation with a goose at the front of the V, obscures the
actual source of the phenomenon of individual geese following
rules that have nothing to do with flying in a V formation and
yet winding up in a V formation. In this case, the source of
the phenomenon is the correlation between each goose
following the four inbred simple rules about holding a position
relative to the few nearby geese, and the V formation.
We cannot emphasize enough that from the confines of our
everyday common sense cause/effect worldview it is difficult
to understand the source of something being distinct from the
cause of something.
10-Jul-10
85
We wont even bother going into the common explanation that
geese have an instinct to fly in a V formation, and that some
geese have a leader instinct, other than to remind ourselves of
Batesons Metalogue on explanatory principles regarding
instinct.
Theres no explanation of an explanatory principle. Its like a
black box. A black box is a conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a certain
point. (Bateson 1972, pp. 39-40) Complexity scientists
opened up the black box of the geese instinct, and found the
non-cause/effect correlation of emergence.
10-Jul-10
86
Just one more quick example. Ant colonies could be said in
some sense to act intelligently (system level phenomenon),
while individual ants could not (agents with local rules
phenomenon).
Of course we are not suggesting that, in complex systems,
system level phenomena (what emerges) and independent
agents following local rules over time are correlated in the
same way that, relative to performance, action and the
occurring are correlated. That is to say, we are not saying that
action is an emergent property of the occurring.
10-Jul-10
87
There is a school of thought that considers consciousness to
be an emergent property of brain function (and a growing
school that would include more than just brain function), and in
that sense what we have termed the way something occurs
for an actor or the occurring world would be an emergent
property of brain function (possibly including something in
addition). However, while if valid this would be said to be the
source of consciousness and important in that regard, we
would argue that knowing that emergence is the source of
consciousness still provides no actionable access to the
source of individual action. (See Gros 2008, p. 181; Johnson
2007, p. 205; Miller and Page 2007, p. 232; Simon 1994,
p. 25)
10-Jul-10
88
On the other hand, when dealing with group or organizational
performance, emergence is an important perspective in that
performance at the system level (group or organization) is an
emergent property of the interactions of the agents in the
system (the actions of individuals). This perspective is usually
more powerful in distinguishing the source of the group or
organizational (system level) performance than a cause/effect
perspective.
10-Jul-10
89
In Colemans (1990) systems theory, there are a number of
central elements relating to the role of the individual in relation
to the system that we wish to emphasize. Firstly, the
interaction among individuals is seen to result in emergent
phenomena at the system level; that is, phenomena that were
neither intended nor predicted (Coleman 1990, p. 5).
Furthermore, action only takes place at the level of individual
actors, and organization action is derived via some sort of
interdependence of individuals actions, not merely from
aggregated individual behaviour. Therefore, system level
action solely exists as an emergent property characterizing
the system as a whole. Only in this sense can we talk of
system behaviour. (Nielson and Dane-Nielson 2008, p.5;
italics added)
10-Jul-10
90
Nevertheless, there is a similarity. Like action and the
occurring, there is no linear cause/effect connection between
what emerges and that from which it emerges. Moreover, the
nature of complex systems evidences the difference in the
kind of prediction and control provided by that which is
connected by the kind of correlation between action and the
occurring, and that which is connected by linear cause/effect.
10-Jul-10
91
We are practiced in and therefore comfortable with the kind of
prediction and control provided by that which is connected by
linear causation, and un-practiced in and therefore at least at
first uncomfortable with the kind of prediction and control
provided by that which is connected by the kind of correlation
distinguished in complex systems, and by that between action
and the occurring. It is like the difference between our comfort
when we have an algorithm for producing a particular result,
and when we can only produce a particular result by trial and
error.
10-Jul-10
92
If one were to choose to become effective in dealing with
situations of emergence, one would have to go through the
discomfort of mastering the phenomenon of emergence.
Mastering a counter-intuitive phenomenon such as emergence
first requires adopting a new realm of possibility in which to
come to terms with the counter-intuitive nature of emergence,
and then gain some practice in applying it in situations of
emergence so as to become effective in dealing with such
situations.
Our point here is to show what will be required to master the
source of action, namely adopting a new realm of possibility in
which to come to terms with the non-cause/effect correlation
between action and the occurring, and then, having come to
terms with it, gaining some practice in the application of the
source of action.
10-Jul-10
93
While we first encountered the world of non-linear cause/effect
phenomena when articles on chaos first appeared, in fact it
was in our study of complex systems science that that world
opened up for us that cause/effect was not always the most
useful access to the source of a phenomenon. As such, we
acknowledge our large debt to complex systems science.
10-Jul-10
94
An Everyday Example of Non-Cause/Effect
Correlation
In addition to the more exotic examples of correlation from
quantum mechanics and complex systems science, and more
to the point of this paper, there are examples in our everyday
world of the kind of correlation between action and the
occurring that we are distinguishing.
An example from our everyday world of something (action)
being connected with something else (the occurring) by the
one being a non-cause/effect correlate of the other: As
Malcolm Gladwell points out in his book The Tipping Point
(2002, pp. 140-151), the rate of crime is connected with the
presence of broken windows in a neighborhood.
Broken Windows Theory is the work of the criminologists George Kelling and
James Q. Wilson (Kelling and Wilson 1982).
10-Jul-10
95
Correlation (Contd)
Broken windows obviously do not cause crime; nevertheless
there is a correlation between the presence of broken
windows and crime. One does not cause the other, rather one
is a correlate of the other. This could be explained away as
nothing more than a statistical correlation (connected
statistically and in no other way), or from the current model of
performance, the product of provoking an internal
characteristic termed criminality.
10-Jul-10
96
Correlation (Contd)
In fact, consistent with our new model of performance, it is an
example of action being a correlate of the way the
circumstances in which an actor is acting occur for the actor.
Or saying the same thing particular to criminal behavior and
broken windows: Criminal behavior (action) is a correlate of
the way the windows in the neighborhood being broken or not
(the circumstances) occur for potential criminals (the actor
and that includes anyone).
Moreover, this allows one to get beyond the appearance of
mere statistical correlation, in that the cause of the statistical
correlation is that criminal behavior (action) and windows
being broken or not (the occurring) are naturally, necessarily
directly connected connected by correlation as we mean that
term.
10-Jul-10
97
Correlation (Contd)
Phenomena, the source of which is correlation, as we mean
the term, can always be explained, and therefore understood,
in a cause/effect context; however, as we have said, such
explanations and understandings do not provide effective
actionable access to the source of what is explained and
understood. Most people, being limited to thinking that
whatever they encounter is caused by something, would
prefer saying, because they can understand it, that the
repairing of broken windows causes the crime rate to go
down.
However, when said bold-facedly, Repairing broken windows
causes the crime rate to go down, it is obvious nonsense
and if the connection cant be cause/effect, the only currently
available understanding of the connection (a product of the
constraining and shaping of the current model of performance)
is that it must be merely statistical correlation or just
coincidence.
10-Jul-10
98
Correlation (Contd)
Most of the formal explanations we use for criminal behavior
... [are] people with stunted psychological development,
people who have had pathological relationships with their
parents, who lack adequate role models [the Cause/Effect
Model perspective]. There is a relatively new literature that
talks about genes that may or may not dispose certain
individuals to crime. ... endless numbers of books talking
about crime as a consequence of moral failure ...
10-Jul-10
99
Correlation (Contd)
All of those theories are essentially ways of saying that the
criminal is a personality type a personality type distinguished
by an insensitivity to the norms of normal society [more
Cause/Effect Model perspective]. the criminal far from
being someone who acts for fundamental, intrinsic reasons
and who lives in his own world is actually someone acutely
sensitive to his environment, who is alert to all kinds of cues,
and who is prompted to commit crimes based on his
perception of the world around him [a Correlation Model
perspective]. (Gladwell 2002, pp. 149, 150)
10-Jul-10
100
Correlation (Contd)
To say someone is a criminal is to say that he or she is evil or
violent or dangerous or dishonest or unstable or any
combination of any of those things none of which is a
psychological state that would seem to be transmitted,
casually, from one person to another. ... [However] There
were just as many psychologically damaged people, criminally
inclined people, living in the city [New York City] at the peak of
the crime wave as in the trough. But for some reason tens of
thousands of those people suddenly stopped committing
crimes. (Gladwell 2002, pp. 138-139)
10-Jul-10
101
Correlation (Contd)
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this fact is that the
current model of performance explanation of action as the
effect of some cause in this case, the internal characteristic
criminality does not even work to explain, and certainly
does not work to illuminate the source of, the reduction in the
crime rate from fixing broken windows.
The widespread and fundamental flaw in our thinking about
performance pointed to in the Gladwell quote the proclivity to
explain action as caused by internal characteristics and
attributes of the actor (internal disposition), rather than a
situational explanation is termed by social scientists the
fundamental attribution error (FAE) (a term coined by social
psychologist, Lee Ross), and more recently termed
correspondence bias.
10-Jul-10
102
Correlation (Contd)
We note that this proclivity to the FAE is entirely
understandable given that our thinking about performance is
constrained and shaped by the current model of performance
which first explains action as an effect of internal
characteristics and attributes.
(We also note that a close relative of the FAE is the actor-
observer bias: the finding that we will most often make this
error in explaining the actions of others, and not in explaining
our own actions.)
10-Jul-10
103
Correlation (Contd)
One should not confuse what is referred to in the FAE theory
as a situational explanation or external situational factors
with what is meant in the new model of performance by the
way in which the circumstances on which and in which a
performer is performing occur for the performer (including the
way the performer occurs for herself in those circumstances).
While the FAE theory points to a weakness in the current
model of performance, we argue that the articulation and
explication of the FAE theory is nonetheless constrained and
shaped by the current model of performance, which model
gives as its second cause of performance the external
circumstances. This might explain why there is no universally
accepted explanation for the FAE. By contrast, the new model
of performance does not give rise to falling into the trap of the
FAE or the actor-observer bias, and in fact does provide a
simple and powerful explanation of the FAE.
10-Jul-10
104
Correlation (Contd)
The correspondence bias is the tendency to draw inferences
about a persons unique and enduring dispositions from
behaviors that can be entirely explained by the situations in
which they occur. Although this tendency is one of the most
fundamental phenomena in social psychology, its causes and
consequences remain poorly understood. (Gilbert and
Malone 1995, abstract)
While the evidence presented by Broken Windows Theory
does not allow us to ascribe the crime rate going down as an
effect of fixing broken windows, the evidence does allow
saying that the crime rate going down is naturally, necessarily
closely connected with the repairing of broken windows, i.e.,
that the crime rate going down is a correlate of repairing
broken windows, as we define correlate in this new model of
performance.
10-Jul-10
105
Two More Examples from Research of the Kind of
Correlation between Action and the Occurring
Researchers Darley and Batson (1973, pp. 100-119) met with
a group of seminarians and reviewed the Good Samaritan
parable from the New Testament. Each seminarian was then
asked to prepare a short talk on a biblical theme, and then
walk to a nearby building to present their talk at a scheduled
time. The researchers told half of the seminarians that if they
didnt hurry they were going to be late in giving their talk. On
the way to the nearby building, the researchers placed a
moaning, slumped-over man. The researchers wanted to
know whether or not the seminarians would stop to help the
slumped-over man.
10-Jul-10
106
Correlation between Action and the Occurring (Contd)
The results of the experiment were that, even after having just
heard the Good Samaritan parable, only 10% of the
seminarians who thought they would be late if they didnt hurry
stopped to help. And, 63% of the seminarians who believed
they had time to get to their talk by the scheduled time
stopped to help.
In the world of the current model of performance, this is an
often cited case for the role that a situation plays in shaping
behavior. However, in that world, in order to explain the action
of the deviating minority in each of the two cases (10% in one
case and 37% in the other), one needs to introduce variables.
10-Jul-10
107
For example, the difference in the moral makeup of the
seminarians, or that 10% of the seminarians who stopped in
spite of it making them late for their talk had more practice in
Good Samaritan behavior and the 37% who had the time but
didnt stop lacked that practice, or that the Good Samaritan
parable was not conveyed such that the ones who didnt stop
were impacted by it, and so on and so on.
10-Jul-10
108
By contrast, from the perspective of the new model of
performance the resulting action or inaction is not merely the
effect of a particular situation. Rather, from the new model of
performance, a given seminarians action (helping the
moaning slumped-over man or not) is correlated with the way
in which the circumstances occurred for that seminarian
specifically, the circumstances on which he might have acted
(the moaning slumped-over man), and the circumstances in
which he might have acted (being late or not, and in what way
the seminarian occurred for himself in the situation).
10-Jul-10
109
Rather than being left with an explanation of the cause of
action (namely, that situation plays a role, and when it doesnt
cause the predicted action it is due to variables, which leaves
us with nothing more than commentary about the source of
action), we are instead led to the source of action regardless
of the particulars of the situation the actors actions are
correlated with the way in which any situation occurs for that
actor.
10-Jul-10
110
It is important to note that the way the actor occurs for
himself (new model) is speaking about something distinct
from what is spoken of when speaking about the way the
actor is (current model).
The new model does not focus on the internal states and traits
ascribed to the actor, while the current model does.
Moreover, the current model sees the ascribed the way the
actor is as the cause of action, and the new model sees the
way the actor occurs for himself as part of the occurring with
which action is a correlate.
10-Jul-10
111
Within the current model, we are more comfortable with the
idea that an actor is a certain way, than we are with the fact
that an actor does indeed occur for himself in a certain way.
However, it is important to notice the contrast between the
actionable access available from the new model to altering
the way in which the actor occurs for himself, and the more
limited actionable access available from the current model to
altering the internal states and traits of an actor, which by the
way, if this does not alter the way the actor occurs for himself,
is likely to make little difference. The form of the actionable
access to altering the way in which the actor occurs for himself
will be dealt with fully in the explication of the Third and Fourth
Aspect of the new model.
10-Jul-10
112
For a final example of action being correlated naturally,
necessarily directly connected with the occurring, we cite a
study the Washington Post (Weingarten 2007) did to see what
would happen with the actions of people passing by if a world-
renowned concert musician was placed in a Metro station and
made to look like any other street musician trying to make a
buck.
10-Jul-10
113
Joshua Bell, a 39 year-old master violinist dressed in jeans
and a baseball cap, placed himself against a wall next to a
trash can at the LEnfant Plaza Metro station in Washington
DC and began playing his violin. During the 43 minutes that
he played his violin, researchers watched 1,097 people pass
by during the morning rush hour. It took 3 minutes before
someone even gazed in his direction, and even longer before
any money was thrown into his violin case. Masterful pieces
such as Bachs Chaconne, Franz Schuberts Ave Maria,
and Manuel Ponces Estrellita, were passed off as nothing
more than generic classical music. That day, Joshua Bell
made $32.17, or 75 cents a minute.
10-Jul-10
114
When present in an upscale concert hall dressed in black, the
same 39 year-old fiddler, on the same $3.5 million Stradivari
violin, commands up to $1,000 a minute playing the exact
same masterpieces. This elite musician is said to be one of
the finest classical musicians in the world, playing some of the
most elegant music ever written on one of the most valuable
violins ever made.
Need we say more about the explanations for performance
that would be derived from the current cause/effect model of
performance, as contrasted with the clarity about the source of
performance provided by the new model of performance?
10-Jul-10
115
Lest we leave the impression that we are dismissing the
validity of cause/effect, or even denigrating it, we want to be
clear that we are aware that cause/effect provides a powerful
insight into much of what we encounter. However, as
exemplified by entanglement and complex systems, while
cause/effect can be used to explain everything (up to a point),
it does not provide effective actionable access to the source of
everything. In short, in certain cases cause/effect is nothing
more than a Batesonian explanatory principle.
10-Jul-10
116
The Actual Cause of Action
Of course all actions can be explained as caused by
something, and from one perspective it makes sense to do so.
From a neuroscience perspective on action, what causes each
of our actions is the activation of a network of patterns of
neurons in our brain.
(Note that the neuroscience is consistent with correlation as
the relation between the occurring and action, in that except in
the case of certain neurological abnormalities, neuronal action
patterns in the brain are associated with neuronal perceptual
patterns.)
10-Jul-10
117
However, attempting to improve performance based on
networks of neuronal patterns as the cause of action fails to
provide direct actionable access to the source of performance,
because other than in a surgical theater or laboratory we have
no direct actionable access to the networks of patterns of
neurons in our brain. This leaves us attempting to get at the
networks of patterns of neurons in our brain (the cause of
action) through the psychological labyrinth, a dicey prospect at
best for achieving a significant improvement in performance
across a wide scope of individuals.
In all fairness, we authors owe a significant debt to the science
of psychology because from the expanded worldview and thus
newly allowed frame of reference relative to performance that
we adopted the science of psychology contributed in important
ways to directing us where to look for the source of
performance, and for actionable access to that source.
The Actual Cause of Action (Contd)
10-Jul-10
118
This is pointed to in a report done for the Committee on
Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance of
the U.S. National Research Council Commission on
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (Druckman et
al. 1997).
There is no universal formula for producing effective
organizational change; once a method of change has been
selected, there is no widely accepted procedure for
implementing it. And because of the complexity of the rapidly
changing environment, it is not feasible to prescribe a
standard strategy for change to better enable the organization
to fit into its environment. A strategy that is beneficial for one
organization may be inappropriate for another, even one with
similar characteristics. (p. 7)
10-Jul-10
119
Although some of the current prescriptions may have utility,
most of them will turn out to be passing fads. ... Despite the
progress of pioneering researchers in certain areas, both the
research base and organizational theory are in their infancy.
Consequently, neither one is complete enough to derive
strategies for change in a rational fashion. The committee
is therefore unable to draw conclusions, based on scientific
evidence, on what does or does not work to enhance
organizational performance Although there are myriad
innovations and claims, there is nothing we can point to with
scientific support that invariably results in effectiveness. it
is significant to note that measures of satisfaction are not
necessarily measures of effectiveness.
(Druckman et al. 1997 p. 8; underlining added)
10-Jul-10
120
While there are numerous studies that demonstrate the
efficacy of psychological interventions, for the most part they
do not provide conclusive evidence for elevating performance
per se or only do so in specific environments, and even fewer
do so across a wide scope of individuals in an organization.
10-Jul-10
121
Moreover, there are problems in researching psychological
interventions intended to elevate performance (Druckman et
al. 1997): The diverse and fragmentary nature of the
research evidence available to us has important implications
for what we can say about organizational performance.
The different analytical approaches do not address the same
issues or even employ the same standards of proof.
looking at a single study or only a few studies does not yield
results that are definitive. The studies examining this
question suffer from a variety of flaws, including inadequate
samples, problematic measures, and incomplete analysis or
interpretations. (pp. 5, 6)
10-Jul-10
122
Such research findings continue up to today:
Only a few studies of psychosocial determinants of employee
health and organizational development have been
prospective, involving more than one organization and
applying standardized assessment tools. This limits the ability
of providing evidence-based guidance as how to carry out
healthy organizational transformations Some of the
psychosocial determinants of healthy organizations suggested
in previous research might not be universally valid. (Arnetz
and Blomkvist 2007, p. 242)
10-Jul-10
123
By contrast, we argue that an examination of our own
experience and the history of human behavior evidences the
fact that our actions (within the limits of ones actual objective
physical and mental capacities, and what is allowed by the
actual objective external circumstances) are always correlated
with the way in which what we are dealing with and the
environment in which we are dealing with it occurs (shows up)
for us.
10-Jul-10
124
While jerking ones hand away from a hot stove is allowed by
the new model of performance (action is a correlate of the way
in which what one is dealing with occurs for one), this
phenomenon (stimulus-response or reflexive behavior) is best
dealt with at the reductionistic level as an input to the sensors
in the hand that is processed at the spinal cord level of the
neurological system which generates the behavior of
withdrawing the hand, in other words, best dealt with as a
cause/effect connection. In these carryovers from our earlier
evolutionary stages, Occams Razor prevails.
Likewise, when a cause/effect explanation for action in fact
provides actionable access to that cause, this new paradigm
allows for it, and when cause/effect provides actionable
access it may be the simplest approach to producing effective
action.
10-Jul-10
125
Note that in this paper, when we use the term behavior we
do so to contrast it with individual activity that is related to a
performance outcome already in mind, and we reserve for
term action for that kind of activity.
As a matter of fact, even behavior labeled irrational makes
perfect sense when the behavior is seen as being correlated
with the circumstances occurring in a certain way for the
person whose behavior is labeled irrational (which way is
different than the way the circumstances occurred for the
people who labeled it irrational).
See The Illusion of Irrationality (Kontek 2009)
10-Jul-10
126
If the behavior is destructive, the access to altering the
behavior is to alter the way in which the circumstances occur
for the person, rather than trying to deal with their so-called
irrationality through the psychological labyrinth.
For another example, if instead of fixating on the inexplicable
immorality of suicide bombings, we treated the actions of
suicide bombers as rational given the way the circumstances
occur for them, it would clearly distinguish what must be
altered in order to alter their behavior.
10-Jul-10
127
You will remember that the purpose of this new paradigm of
performance is to provide actionable access to the source of
performance in a way that allows practitioners to create
interventions, applications, and practices that reliably and
significantly improve performance across a wide scope of
performers. Given the lack of direct access to our neuronal
patterns, and the dicey indirect access to them through the
psychological labyrinth, in our new model of performance we
use as the target of direct actionable access to action the
source of action, namely, the occurring. And, it is language
that provides that direct actionable access to the occurring, as
we will show in the Third and Fourth Aspects.
10-Jul-10
128
Nevertheless, what we said earlier about various established
disciplines obviously also applies to the science of
psychology. That is, we believe that what from the context of
the current paradigm ends up being mere psychological
explanations for performance, will when applied from the
context of the new paradigm provide new insights into the
source of action from the psychological perspective, and as
such will provide a greater degree of access for impacting
performance through psychological interventions. Also, as we
said earlier, from the perspective of the new paradigm, there
will be clarity about the source of psychological interventions
that are effective both as to scope and scale in some
situations but not others.
10-Jul-10
129
In the matter of human performance we said that action is a
correlate of the occurring (the way the circumstances on which
and in which the performer is performing occur for the
performer). We defined correlate as either of two interrelated
phenomena that are naturally, necessarily closely connected
(mutually arising). Specifically, in the matter of performance,
correlation is the way action and the occurring are related, that
is, they are interrelated naturally, necessarily closely
connected (mutually arising).
Correlate, as the Relation Between
Action and the Occurring
10-Jul-10
130
In the case of a photon occurring as either a wave or a
particle, we could say that the measuring instrument used
defines the conditions under which the photon occurs as a
wave or particle. Saying the same thing in another way, the
photon occurring as a wave or particle is correlated with the
condition that allows the photon to occur for us in the way it
does.
While synonyms do not carry the precise meaning of the word
with which they are synonymous, they at least point to what
the synonymous word means. In the case of the photon, if we
wanted to use a synonym for correlation, we could say that the
photon occurring as a wave or a particle is a property of the
apparatus used. Other synonyms for correlation are:
reciprocal, interdependent, correspondence, complementarity,
mutuality, coherence, and associated.
Action and the Occurring (Contd)
10-Jul-10
131
It is not as though the circumstances on which and in which
the performer is performing occur for the performer, and then,
in response to that occurring, the action happens. The
occurring and the action arise together. To say it poetically
(as even many great philosophers have ultimately found
necessary to make their point), action and the occurring are in
a dance with each other.
A dancer is locked into an environment, responsive to music,
responsive to a partner. The idea that the dance is a state of
us, inside of us, or something that happens in us is crazy. Our
ability to dance depends on all sorts of things going on inside
of us, but that we are dancing is fundamentally an attunement
to the world around us. (No) [an unpaginated electronic
work]
10-Jul-10
132
If we have not already made it clear, just as entanglement and
emergence distinguish distinct kinds of correlation, so too is
the kind of correlation between action and the occurring
distinct, that is, distinct from other familiar kinds of correlation.
10-Jul-10
133
Alva No provides a useful analogy for ones actions being
naturally, necessarily directly connected with the
circumstances on which an actor is acting:
Suppose I am a hiker. I walk along and move my legs in all
sorts of subtle ways to follow a path along a trail. But the
steps I take and the way I move my legs are modulated by,
controlled by, the textures and bumps and patterns of the trail
itself [the occurring]. There is a kind of locking in. To study
experience, to think about the nature of experience, is to look
at this two-way dynamic exchange [correlation] between world
and the active perceiver [actions of the actor]. (No) [an
unpaginated electronic work]
10-Jul-10
134
This is consistent with neuroscience. Neuroscience research
shows that what was already stored in regions of higher brain
function comprises more of our activated patterns of
perception than what comes in through our eyes and is
processed upward through regions of lower brain function
(likewise with other sensory input).
10-Jul-10
135
If visual sensations were primarily received rather than
constructed by the brain, youd expect that most of the fibres
going to the brains primary visual cortex would come from the
retina. Instead, scientists have found that only twenty per cent
do; eighty per cent come downward from regions of the brain
governing functions like memory. Richard Gregory, a
prominent British neuropsychologist, estimates that visual
perception is more than ninety per cent memory and less than
ten per cent sensory nerve signals. (Gawande 2008)
... a major contribution of stored knowledge to perception is
consistent with the recently discovered richness of downgoing
pathways in brain anatomy. Some 80% of fibres to the lateral
geniculate nucleus relay station come downwards from the
cortex, and only about 20% from the retinas. (Gregory 1998,
p. 5)
10-Jul-10
136
And, these patterns of perception from the higher regions of
the brain already have patterns of action associated with
them. In this sense, activated neuronal patterns of action and
the neuronal patterns of perception with which they are
associated arise together. Again, it is as though the brains
networks of neuronal patterns of perception are in a dance
with its networks of neuronal patterns of action.
perception and action co-depend on dynamically circular
subpersonal relations (Hurley 2001, abstract) since a
two-level interdependence view sees perception and action as
mutually and symmetrically interdependent, it frees us from
the Input-Output Picture. (Ibid., p.29)
10-Jul-10
137
Certain neurons appear to constitute a direct link between
perception and action; their firing correlates with specific
perceptions as well as specific actions. (Hurley and Chater
2005, p. 3)
This relation between action and the occurring, dancing with
each other, is the way to denote the nature of what is meant
by action and the occurring are interconnected naturally,
necessarily closely connected (mutually arising). For short,
connected by a dancing with correlation.
10-Jul-10
138
If one asks a performer (including asking oneself), In what
way did the circumstances on which you were performing and
in which you were performing, including the way you showed
up for yourself and the way the intended result occurred for
you, each show up for you, one will see that that performers
action(s), effective or not, were perfectly correlated with that
occurring.
Also, if one intends a particular action from oneself or another
performer, which action is what is required for successful
performance, one can with some certainty (which certainty
might need a little trial and error) determine in what way the
circumstances on which one is performing and in which one is
performing must occur for the correlated action to be that
required action.
10-Jul-10
139
Moreover, if an action is inappropriate to what was desired, it
is nevertheless appropriate to the occurring, and what needs
to be altered is the way in which either the circumstances on
which one is performing, or the circumstances in which one is
performing, occur for that performer.
Remember, as we said earlier, that who the performer is for
themselves in the situation in which they are performing, and
the way the intended outcome occurs for the performer, is a
part of the circumstances in which that performer is
performing. As we said, actionable access to altering the
occurring (including who one is for oneself) is dealt with in the
Third and Fourth Aspects of the new model of performance.
10-Jul-10
140
Because our language (at least most Western languages) has
been developed from within the cause/effect paradigm (our
universal Batesonian explanatory principle), it becomes
difficult to distinguish anything the source of which is other
than cause/effect. Even the best attempts to explicate a term
for something that is actually outside the cause/effect
paradigm wind up either sounding like merely a new term for
cause/effect, or sounding like a mere subset within the
cause/effect paradigm, that is, if it isnt dismissed out of hand
as just plain incoherent.
10-Jul-10
141
We are explicating a new model of performance that does not
fit with our everyday common sense worldview or with our
current frame of reference relative to performance, and we are
doing so using a language developed from within a
cause/effect worldview. Consequently, we are aware of the
out of the box thinking required to appreciate what we are
saying in explicating this new model of performance.
Now that we have clarified the terms in the second aspect of
the new model of performance, we trust that what the
statement of the second aspect means is now clear: Action is
a correlate of the way in which the circumstances on which
and in which a performer is performing occur (show up) for the
performer.
10-Jul-10
142
We promised to reveal why people do what they do and why
people dont do what they dont do. And the answer to the
why question is: If you ask that question, youre going to get
explanations, justifications, and rationalizations; or youre
going to get the devil made me do it; or now more and more
likely, my brain made me do it. And thats why people do what
they do and why people dont do what they dont do.
Why People Do What They Do
or Dont Do What They Dont Do
10-Jul-10
143
The Source of What People Do or Dont Do
And, we also promised to reveal the source of what people do
and what they dont do. And the answer to the source
question is: The source of what people do and what they
dont do is that peoples actions are in a naturally, necessarily
directly connected dance with the way the circumstances on
which and in which they are performing occur (show up) for
them. And thats the source of what people do and what they
dont do.
10-Jul-10
144
What contributes to the power & progress of the course:
1. Sharing a current example of or a personal experience of
what is being presented in the course.
2. Sharing an insight, opening or breakthrough that has
resulted from dealing with or applying what has been
presented in the course.
3. A query from someone with the intention to further their
understanding of, or to clarify for themselves, something
specific being presented in the course.
4. Repeating something presented in the course for the
person to confirm the accuracy of their grasp of what has
been presented.
SPEAKING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE POWER AND PROGRESS OF THE COURSE
Regarding What Someone Has To Say
When They Are Called On
10-Jul-10
145
5. An expression of something a person is struggling with or
cannot resolve presented as an opportunity to be worked
with to get it resolved. (This is distinct from an expression
of helplessness, which requires the instructor to get the
participant to identify something specific like a word,
phrase, or sentence the participant didnt understand.)
6. Asking how what is being presented might look like in
action. (While the difference is subtle, this is distinct from
asking for an example. Remember that when people ask
for an example, after supplying the example, they need to
be taken back to mastering the distinction as a distinction.)
When They Are Called On (Contd)
10-Jul-10
146
7. Sharing an example of a personal experience that seems
inconsistent with what is being presented in the course as
an opportunity to be worked with to get it resolved.
10-Jul-10
147
What dilutes the power and progress of the course:
1. A comment or opinion, or counter-argument or criticism,
disguised as a question.
If it is something consistent with what is being presented
in the course, simply ask if what the participant said was
a comment or opinion the participant wanted to share.
If it is a counter-argument or criticism of something
presented in the course, ask if the participant simply
wanted to state the counter-argument or criticism, or if
they were presenting it to get a resolution one way or
the other.
SPEAKING THAT DILUTES THE POWER AND PROGRESS OF THE COURSE
10-Jul-10
148
2. Something that comes up for a participant (a yeah but,
how bout, what if, or an opinion) that seems to be
inconsistent with what is being presented, which the
participant presents as an invalidation of what is being
presented in the course rather than looking for a resolution
(one way or the other).
Ask if the participant simply wanted to state the yeah but,
how bout, what if, or an opinion, or if they were
presenting it to get a resolution one way or the other.
10-Jul-10
149
3. A thats like share triggered by what is presented that
muddies the rigor of what is presented, or is in fact not
relevant to what is presented.
Work with the participant to clarify the difference
between what has been presented and the thats like.
Remind the participant about the pre-course reading
discussion regarding the dangers of altering what is
being presented so that it is like something you already
know, which prevents you from seeing whatever is new
in what is being presented and therefore prevents you
from mastering what is being presented.
10-Jul-10
150
4. A participant attempting during course sessions to lead a
different course for the other participants, rather than to
contribute to the course as being led.
Tell the participant that they may well have a valuable
course to offer, and if they do they should give people
an opportunity to sign up for their course or not.
However, since the instructors and the other participants
are here for this course, if you have something to
contribute to this course, please say what it is.
Or, if you have a counter-argument or criticism of this
course, please present it as an opportunity for
resolution, one way or the other.
10-Jul-10
151
5. A participant attempting to substitute terminology and/or
theory from another discipline (no matter how valid), rather
than struggling to see how the discipline of this course
applies and what it makes available as contrasted with the
terminology and/or theory from that other discipline.
Have a discussion with the participant regarding that what
there is to master is a conversational domain constituted
by certain terms that are networked together in a way that
results in the world showing up differently, and even if at
first uncomfortable, participants in the course will need to
rigorously use the terms and the expressions of the
course to master this unique conversational domain (in
the same sense that a physician masters a conversational
domain in order to expertly practice medicine.)
10-Jul-10
152
6. A participant attempting to validate what they have to say
based on it likely being the view of others in the room, or
attempting to enlist others in that view.
If what the participant says implies, assumes, or states
that others in the room agree, ask the participant if it is
their view that when others agree that helps to establish
the validity of (or makes true) what they are saying.
Perhaps ask them if others agreeing that humours
was the source of disease made that view any more
valid?
If what the participant says attempts to enlist others in
their view ask what is the purpose of that exercise?
10-Jul-10
153
7. Some rant (something that comes out in an emotionally-
charged string that is triggered by something that happens
in the room).
Leave it alone if allowing the rant to stand on its own
with no comment by the instructor other than thank
you or thank you for sharing lets the rant stand in the
room as nothing more than a rant.
If the rant is likely to gain any traction in the room do
whatever is necessary to get a specific example or
examples of what the person is ranting about and deal
with that example. The point is dont deal with
generalities.
10-Jul-10
154
8. A participant who rambles on without making any point.
When it is sufficiently clear that that is what is
happening, interrupt by asking do you have a point
youd like to make, or, say my point is and please
finish the sentence.
155
References
Arnetz, B. and Blomkvist, V. 2007. Leadership, mental health, and organizational efficacy in health care
organizations. Psychosocial predictors of healthy organizational development based on prospective data
from four different organizations. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 76 no. 4: 242-248.
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Damasio, Antonio. 1999. The Feeling of What Happens. Orlando: Harcourt.
Darley, John and Daniel Batson. 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional
variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27:100-119.
Druckman, Daniel, Jerome E. Singer, and Harold Van Cott, eds. 1997. Enhancing Organizational
Performance. For the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance, National
Research Council (US) Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
Erhard, Werner, Michael C. Jensen, and Barbados Group. 2010. A New Paradigm of Individual, Group, and
Organizational Performance http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437027
Frith, Chris. 2007. Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing.
Gros, Claudius. 2008. Complex and Adaptive Dynamical Systems. Frankfurt: Springer-Verlag.
Gawande, Atul. 2008. Annals of medicine: The itch - its mysterious power may be a clue to a new theory
about brains and bodies. New Yorker: June 30: 58-65.
Gilbert, Daniel T., and Patrick S. Malone. 1995. The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin 117: 21-
38.
Gilder, Louisa. 2008. The Age of Entanglement. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2002. The Tipping Point. New York: Back Bay.
Gregory, Richard. 1998. Brainy mind. British Medical Journal 317, no. 5: 1693-95.
http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainy_mind/brainy-mind.htm (accessed 9 January 2010).
Hawkins, Jeff and Sandra Blakeslee. 2004. On Intelligence. New York: Henry Holt.
156
References (Contd)
Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Hurley, Susan. 2001. Perceptions and action: alternative views. Synthese 129, no. 1: 3-40.
Hurley, Susan and Nick Chater, eds. 2005. Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science
Volume 2; Imitation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Isaacson, Walter. 2007. Einstein: His Life And Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Johnson, Neil. 2007. Twos Company, Three is Complexity. Oxford: Oneworld.
Kelling, George L., and James Q. Wilson. 1982. Broken windows. The Atlantic, (March),
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows (accessed 2 January 2010).
Kontek, Krzysztof. The Illusion of Irrationality. Social Science Research Network. 2009.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1519496 (accessed 13 December 2009).
Miller, John H., and Scott E. Page. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational
Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nielson, Chrstian, and Henrik Dane-Nielsen. 2008. The emergent properties of intellectual capital: a
conceptual offering. Working Paper Series: Department of Business Studies. November 5.
No, Alva. Life is the way the animal is in the world a talk with Alva No. The Edge: Third Culture.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/noe08/noe08_index.html (accessed 29 December 2009).
President and Fellows of Harvard College . Report of the task force on general education. Harvard
University. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/General_Education_Final_Report.pdf (accessed 16 May
2009).
Salart, Daniel, Augustin Baas, Cyril Branciard, Nicolas Gisin & Hugo Zbinden. 2008. Testing the speed of
spooky action at a distance. Nature 454: 861-864.
Searle, John. 2007. Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power.
New York: Columbia University Press.
157
References (Contd)
Simon, Herbert A. 1994. Near Decomposability and Complexity: How A Mind Resides in a Brain. In The
Mind, The Brian, and Complex Adaptive Systems, eds Morowitz, Harold J. & Singer, Jerome I. Eds. .
Santa Fe Institute Proceedings. USA: Westview Press.
Trefil, James. Very small, very weird. Washington Post book review of The Age of Entanglement, 7
December 2008.
Websters New World Dictionary & Thesaurus V 2.0. Macmillan Publishers, 1998. Accent Software
International.
Weingarten, Gene. 2007. Pearls before breakfast. Washington Post, 8 April.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html (accessed
25 June 2009).
Wheatley, Margaret J. 2006. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
END

CREATING LEADERS WORKSHOP Mastering The Principles and Effective Delivery of The Ontological Leadership Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREATING LEADERS WORKSHOP Mastering The Principles and Effective Delivery of The Ontological Leadership Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1638429 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.

You might also like