Leadership Challenge: Holistic Knowing

This paper will explore how we, as human beings, gather information about our experience in the world through the various "knowing" capacities that we have available to us. In the paper I will explore six different areas of "knowing" capability, our ability to use our:

• Mental Acuity
• Emotional Acuity
• Subtle Acuity
• Physical (Body/Mind) Acuity
• Timing Sensitivity
• Group Wisdom

Our use of reasoning processes, combined with sense data works well when dealing with simple, mechanical, closed systems. The amount of data available are limited, and the simple understanding generated by mental processing alone is sufficient for the level of prediction needed in a linear, cause and effect world. The major source of causality in a mechanical world is humankind and the negative feedback from these mechanical systems was sufficient input to be useful.

The current focus on learning, complexity, and open biological and social systems bring with it a flood of data of many different kinds. Not only is the data overwhelming, but the ways in which it interacts is non-linear and creates multicausality. When open living systems interact with other open living systems, as all human systems do, there is a flood of purposes as well. This constant interaction is what generates the complexity that we find so frightening and which we have spent the past centuries both fighting under the guise of control, and pretending didn't exist -- in a state of denial.

Linear, mental and reductionist thinking actively sought to limit the methods and mode of inquiry to only those methods deemed most "relevant." The search was not for expanded methods of inquiry, but for more "effective," i.e. clear and simple to use producing clear and simple "answers". This definition of effective evolved into "fast" as people tried to deal with the accelerating number of crises generated by the incomplete and ineffective "solutions" generated by simplistic approaches. Do not misunderstand the use of "simplistic" as a pejorative. When only a fraction of the potential of our human capacity is used, then I believe that that limited capability is indeed, simplistic.

Working with complexity requires an understanding of the purpose and meaning behind the issue, and since the goal is understanding and influence instead of control, we need to deepen and expand the ways we get our information, the kind of information we get, and how we process it. Most particularly since we now acknowledge our own influence upon the outcome, we need to expand how we "know" to increase the kinds of data available and to increase the ways we find that data, as well. Putting ourselves back into the system now requires us to use double loop learning (Arguers) just to know where we are. As our focus shifts from parts to the whole, so our "knowing" must shift from using a part, mental processing, to a more holistic model. Knowing, from a whole systems point of view, requires the expansion and development of all of our various "knowing" capacities.

The change in management styles is a good example of the difference between systemic and fragmented thinking. In the command and control mode the manager worked from his boss's orders and perhaps his own understanding. Neither person actually did the job, or really knew what the job demanded from a real time perspective. Their decisions were made based upon information contained in quarterly reports generated through limited inquiry and distilled even further by fear, laziness, and ineptitude. Quarterly reports are historical data gathered from people who are afraid to tell the truth. Consequently the reports are "adjusted" to reflect hopes, wishes and expectations rather than reality.

A more systemic approach, similar to that recommended by Dr. W. Edwards Deming in his Profound Knowledge, requires a cultural environment free from fear, where people are supported in telling the truth. In such an environment inquiry into real situations is encouraged, and the focus is on process, not results management. Then managers and their people work to stabilize the system so that they can discuss the realistic output of the system in conjunction with their suppliers and customers. Once out put can be trusted, within a predetermined and predicted range, then experiments can be designed to create a process of continual improvement to reach more desired levels. This means that the required output matches the possibilities of the system and can be depended upon with some degree of certainty. Using this system, people do not have to fear for their jobs if problems arise, and numbers do not have to be based upon the hopes, wishes or expectations of top management. The numbers are based on reality -- predictable reality. Working in this way the need to make large changes in the system (redesign or reengineering) are understood as necessary and the results clearly defined. The process would then be monitored on a continuous bases to validate that it was performing as required and to catch any problems while they were still small ones. This last piece of trouble shooting can only happen if people know what to expect because they can depend upon a predictable result.
 
 

From a Holistic Knowing perspective this type of input looks like expectation, demands, constraints and rules. These restrictions are created through the personality and the development level of the individual in interaction with the environment and others in it. In some cases the individual may be to shy or protective to handle well the abrasion with the environment. In such cases the expectations and demands of the various acuity's will be limited and constrained to reduce the kinds and amount of information being received. The individual will be hesitant to "know" more, as a deeper and more complete knowledge of the situation may require action that would precipitate more interaction or abrasion with others than is comfortable.
 

This decision is composed of two parts: the individuals "natural" inclination and the support and expectations by other people in their sphere of influence. This means that expectations and rules can be expanded, either through personal desire or by coaching from others. It is here that leadership and corporate culture play such a large role in helping or hindering managers and employee development. Much has been made of the expectations of the teacher in the classroom, has shown that teachers who expect their students to be under achievers have experienced just that, by the same token, teachers who expect their students to be high achievers have that experience. Our perception of each other brings that perception to life.

In securing resources to develop each of the various acuity's, one of the acuity's time, which is also a resource, comes into play. The two most fundamental resources needed are time and experience (which maybe a function of time). The two practices that most often limit development of the acuity's are punishment for failure, which restricts experience and explorations of experience, and crisis based time restrictions real or imagined. This leads to three major leverage points to stimulate development: a creation of a learning approach to failure; open communication and institutionalized sharing of experience; and cultivation of a long-term outlook, for both commitment and expected outcome.
 
 

Interestingly, the concept of noise and its proper application can become another leverage point for development as people begin to reinterpret the significance of information from a long-term learning perspective vs. a short-term penalizing perspective. Those situations that would seem important while functioning in a crisis mode, become only a distraction when placed in a context with a longer timeline. It is the lack of appreciation for this point that leads people to "tamper" with the system by trying to make constant corrections or changes to the system in response to every little problem or issue. A clear understanding of the normal range of variability allows for a more precise recognition of those problems that occur outside of the normal range, and are therefore serious issues that need to be dealt with.
 
 

To speak of "outcomes" as a collective system concept that operates through breaks in the boundaries, is to suggest the shift and/or redrawing of boundaries that occurs with the deeper "knowing" afforded by skillful use of the 6 acuity's. The edges of oneself are pushed back, as it were, and identification with the hither to denied "other" is made. The creation of resonance through empathy, a subtle and emotional mode of knowing< creates a shared concern for others as though they are oneself. This most meaningful of connections then supports the reallocation of resources and may engender "noise" in the form of emotions generated by the disruption of cherished belief systems. "Noise," in this sense, can be experienced for quite some time, as bottled-up and repressed feelings are expressed in a cleansing and healing catharsis.

The experiencing of this release provides information on the direct and specific links to the systemic environment. These are the specific parts of the general environment with which the person is most "attached" and with which the person most strongly chooses to interact. It is this very "attachment" that generated the rationale for not "knowing" in the first place. The recognition of such an embeddness can be very painful and the shock sometimes causes the individual to "blame" those systemic environmental connections, rather than personally accept the responsibility for those attachments.

This rejection and projection is only a stage in the healing process. The responsibility is owned as the healing occurs, and then the individual can begin to exert control over her life and start to reclaim her true personal power and creativity.
 
 

The suprasystem of a system is also a system (Banathy 92) and this system is the first system our target system is nested in. When looking at our system of knowing capabilities, the supra system is our belief system and the nested systems of each acuity acts as a peer system to the others. From this perspective data, information and knowledge happen through internal attention and meaning, integration, wisdom/renewal, and connection/union happen through external attention.

Most people function from a centralized form of peer relationship where the mental acuity plays the primary role and all the other acuity's are subordinate to it. In an egalitarian relationship of peer systems, each acuity becomes dominate as appropriate. This enlightened stance offers great flexibility and resiliency. A transitional structure from the centralized to the egalitarian might be one in which each acuity has its place and value and is accessed under certain conditions only. Under stress or pressure an individual would access each acuity in the order of value, seeking sufficient information to make meaning and create resolution of the circumstance.
 

A person's inability to access one of the acuity's (like the emotions or the mind/body, for instance) means that that system is closed to the individual and its information unavailable. In reality no human system is truly closed. This means that while there is always some input, the output can be unconsciously restricted (Weir 91) and difficult to access. Maintaining an appropriate and useful balance of both openness and closure requires skill and skill is developed through practice. The practice is not only in controlling the flow of information, it is also in the ordering (sense making) of the information.
 
 

 
 
 

	Data	Information	Knowledge	Meaning	Integration	Wisdom	Union
Body	Sensations	Response	Reaction	Coupled with thought	Change	Stored memory
Mind	Difference a difference makes	Coupled data	Organized information	Knowledge coupled with emotions	Several knowledges and meanings intertwined together	Reflection on knowledge and meaning through experience	Transcendence
Emotions	Arousal	Response	Coupled to thought	Reactions coupled to thought	Informs meaning	Informs action	Empathy
Spirit	Significance	Attention	Tuned attention	Response	Accomodation	Change	Transcendence

The ordering system is one of "making meaning" out of our experience and involves our ability to integrate new experience and information with old information and with our intent. Generally people have one of two intents: to protect themselves; or to learn. Protection generates a strategy of reducing the input and the output. Learning refines the skills of both control and ordering. If we really understood the depth of the implications of this we would dramatically change how we raise and educate our children.

The complexity of the system is a function of the complexity of the input, including the interaction between peer systems. Usually the internal complexity will match the complexity in the environment, creating a system that functions with the appropriate amount of requisite variety needed to be effective. Thus an open, fully integrated system is more capable of functioning in a volatile or rapidly changing environment. This means that such a system is also more capable of learning. If the system is protective, the input will be restricted to balance the complexity of the environment to a pre-determined requisite variety level.

This understanding of how we "know" our world has profound implications for both education and business. Decisions made from only a small portion of our "knowing" capability produces fragile results that are unsatisfactory and unsustainable over time. Our restriction of our potential, in this way, strongly limits or capacity to learn and to innovate. These concepts and implications will be deepened in the presentation.