• The Cycle of Self-Renewal
  
  
• Partnership & the Soul

Why Change is a Consciousness Choice
by Bob Anderson, Eric Klein, and Jim Stuart

(This article originally appeared in The Journal for Quality and Participation January/February, 2000. The Association for Quality and Participation is a non-profit organization where technology, the new economy and the human spirit work together to create more effective workplaces.)

The Mulla Nassrudin was discovered late one evening on his hands and knees searching intently in the road beneath a street lamp. His friend, coming upon him in this position, asked, "Mulla, what are you looking for?"

Nassrudin replied, "I am searching for my keys."

"Where did you lose them?" the friend inquired.

"Across the street," was the ready reply.

"They why," asked the confused friend, "are you searching so intently over here?"

"Oh," explained Nassrudin, looking up, "the light here is much better."

Research suggests that almost 85 percent of organizational change efforts are considered to be failure by the leaders who initiated them.

The truth is, organizational change is exceedingly complex, and there is no on secret—nor a single answer—to what makes it work. Most of the unsuccessful change efforts that my associates and I have studied up close, however, reveal a common pattern: crucial variables are ignore or seriously underemphasized.

Four quadrants of change

For any change effort to be successful, it must address each of the four quadrants of change.

Quadrant 1 is the individual/internal aspect of change. This is our interior reality. It is the area of cognitive, psychological, and spiritual development. In this quadrant we attend to the inner development of people, recognizing that no substantive change is possible without a prior change in consciousness.

Quadrant 2 has to do with the individual/external aspects of change. This is the domain of technical and interpersonal skills as well as the science—physiology/neurology/psychology—of peak performance. This quadrant gets a great deal of attention from coaches and world-class athletes. It is where we pay attention to developing peoples' skills and supporting the physical and psychological ingredients that spark motivation and peak performance.

Quadrant 3 deals with the collective/internal aspects of change. This is the domain of culture. It is the interior, often hidden territory of shared assumptions and images that direct what happens when people come together. This is the domain of myth, story, unwritten rules, and beliefs. It reminds us to pay attention to the deeper meanings of symbols, purpose, vision, and values—not so much as written, framed statements but as the subtle messages encoded in our day-to-day interaction.

Quadrant 4 concerns the collective/external aspects of change, the social/technical/organizational system. It is the quadrant of organizational design, technology workflow, policies, and procedures. This quadrant reminds us that system design determines performance, and that if we want to get the system to perform at a substantively higher level, we must design for it.

Each of these quadrants is related to all of the others.
Development of one quadrant is inextricably bound to all of the others. Ignoring only one of them can lead to haphazard results from our attempts at change. When attempting to change a complex organizational system, an all-quadrants approach to change is needed. We call this "taking an integral approach."

What is overlooked?

There are two primary ways change efforts are set up to fall short. First, they lack a whole-system approach. System approaches work in the lower right (external/collective) quadrant. Change efforts fail when deep system design issues are mistaken as isolated problems to be solved. This is analogous to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. Short-term improvement is usually followed by worsening conditions in the long term.

Second—and by far the most common way change efforts are not set up for success, even with a whole-system approach—is that the internal two quadrants are largely ignored. Most change efforts focus only on the external side of change. New technology is introduced, the organization is restructured, teams are introduced, policies and reward systems are changed, workflows are reorganized, and cross-training and cross-functional interfaces are put in place. Individuals and teams receive training in the skills required to function in the new system.

All very comprehensive, right? Seems like all the bases are covered, and it should work. But it seldom does because the system cannot organize, in any sustainable way, beyond the median level of consciousness of the internal quadrants.

Most change efforts suffer from both of the oversights mentioned above—focusing on problems, not systems, and ignoring the need for inner shifts in consciousness and culture. But when we study change efforts through the lens of the integral model, by far and away the most common quadrant ignored is the individual/internal followed closely by the collective/internal. In other works, all the internal, deep, psychological, and spiritual aspects of individual and culture change are given short thrift.

This oversight is particularly critical because in a changing organization system, managers and employees are implicitly being asked to evolve a new orientation toward themselves and their world. Organizational change is not a questions of skills and structure alone, but of identity and world-view.

Consciousness is at the controls

Many researchers—Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Robert Lovinger, Abraham Maslow, Robert Kegan, Brian Hall, James Fowler, and Ken Wilber, to name a few - have described a series of stages through which adults develop psychologically. Cross-cultural studies further show that these stages exist in all cultures and in the same sequence. In addition, the world's great wisdom traditions have for centuries described the very same sequence of stages.

To ignore the significance of this line of research for organizational change is like trying to do space travel while ignoring the low of gravity. Organizational change places a demand on everyone in the organization to shift to a higher stage of development. If this transformation does not happen (and it often does not), the system may have a temporary upsurge in functioning, but will then go back to its prior equilibrium.

At each progressive developmental stage a new "design" principle is needed to relate the self to the world. We change the way we organize the self/world relationship. It's as if the self trades in its DOS operating system for a Windows 98 operating system. The interface between the self and the world is at once more complex and simplified. Now it can handle much more complexity with far greater ease and grace. Unsolvable dilemmas at previous stages evaporate in the new reality. That which was not possible in the prior stage becomes doable. The person, experiences a new burst of creativity, efficacy, freedom, power, and joy. The organization experiences a person standing more fully in his or her leadership capacity. The world gets someone who is capable of greater contribution and service.

The process of sustainable organizational change first happens in the awareness of individuals. These individuals exert influence on the system and change it. The new system encourages a critical mass of people to develop. As that critical mass develops, the full potential of the new order is realized. But what's key is that consciousness is in the driver's seat.

Stages of development

People seldom regress to a previous level. This is good news. We do not go back because the new order of consciousness transcend the limits of the old order—it is, in fact, better matched to the demands of the world. Roughly speaking, these stages of consciousness can all be broken down in this way:

1. The egocentric self: At this early stage the self is preoccupied with basic survival needs, both emotionally and physically. The limit of this structure of identity is that it does not notice other's (often competing) needs. "I relate to the other to get my needs met and don't yet know how to make your needs important to me." Research suggests that 15 percent of adults do not fully make the transition out of this adolescent stage and therefore operate in the world as an egocentric self.
   
   Leaders at this stage tend to be very controlling: "My way or the highway." Employees at this stage tend to play out victim or rebel roles.
   
   Organizations that operate out of a culture organized at this level are dictatorial and oppressive.
   
   
2. The socialized self: Most of us successfully make it to this stage and become well-functioning, effective citizens. We spend a significant part of our adult lives at this stage. We take up a role in a larger society and identify ourselves with our role. At this stage, the self is made secure and valuable by belonging to and succeeding within prescribed socially accepted roles.
   
   The limit of this stage is the unnoticed equating of my self with what I do, what I am good at, and/or how I am accepted by others. I usually do not notice how my goals and behavior are actually predetermined by others or the culture. I am defined from the outside in. I am not yet free to self-author my own direction.
   
   Leaders at this level usually no longer function as dictators; they often care deeply about the employees they manage and function as the benevolent parent. The organization is hierarchical and efficient. Employee input is solicited, but decision making and creative expression is still vested in the top. Leadership is often humane but lacks the capability of broadly sharing power.
   
   
3. The independent self: Transitioning to an independent self is the major transition of adult life. Only 25 percent of adults in our culture complete this journey. To make this transition we no longer ignore or distort the call of the soul. We face the fact that following our own path often means disappointing others, risking failure, and/or otherwise contradicting the norms that "Link me to society and make me (as a socialized self) worthwhile and valuable."
   
   This transition is particularly difficult because to make this journey, "I have to let go of how I have come to define myself. I let go of the deeply held beliefs that my worth and value is tied up with what I do. I am no longer defined by cultural expectations. Now, I configure a self from the inside out for the first time." Vision springs from within. Action becomes an authentic expression of an emerging sense of inner purpose.
   
   Leaders at this level begin to share power. It is no longer perceived as "letting go" of control but of gaining power by sharing it. The development of self and others is prized. Organizations are structured on high-performing, self-managing teams. Leadership is shared but not yet a true partnership. Creativity and critical decision making is developed and expected at all levels of the organization.
   
   
4. The integral self: Only about 1 percent of adults develop to this stage. However, another 14 percent are in transition to it. Here, the inner self-definition shifts from "I am a whole and complete self that coordinate with other whole and complete selves" to an internal realization that, in fact, "I am not whole and complete." Rather, "I can now see that I am a complex interplay of complimentary and conflicting elements." "I realize," to paraphrase Pogo, "'that I have met the enemy - and he/she is within me.' I can see this inner complexity without flinching or needing to engage in some strenuous self-improvement regime. I see others this way—as complex multi-dimensional beings. I also see the world this way—as a dynamic interplay of forces. Seeing the rich ecology of the self opens me to the richness and complexity of the workplace and the world."
   
   Leaders at this level become community oriented. The workplace becomes a self-renewing organization where members are true participating partners. The legacy of the leader is connected to the developing of the organization into a vehicle for service to a larger constituency. The organization is seen as a network of stakeholders nested within a larger system of networks. Vision often becomes global and oriented toward service to human welfare. Sustainability and long-term common good become salient values. This is the level of servant leadership.
   
   
5. The sacred self: Research strongly suggests that spiritual practices such as meditation and contemplative prayer accelerate the development through stages two to four. What is clear from experience and research is that level five—the sacred self—seldom, if ever, develops without a long-term spiritual practice.
   
   At this stage we identify with the soul—a soul in communion with the divine. The integral self is not dispensed with. That richly nuance self is used to acting in the world. It is functional, a useful tool of the spirit. This is the stage when the person experiences the world as one. This oneness is not just an idea; not something gleaned from a book. It is a literal experience of oneness with life itself.
   
   Leadership from this level of being seems to be rare, although it becomes more available through long-term integral practices. Leaders at this level function as global visionaries. They enact world service for the universal good.

Integral leadership

There is no organizational transformation without a preceding transformation in the consciousness of the leadership. Consciousness is the key that we have been ignoring.

Integral (four quadrant) transformation from stage-to-stage is more than an inner awakening in the individual—it reorganizes the whole of human experience:

• The world, as we experience and perceive it, is made anew.
• Our relationship to the sacred is elevated.
• Our inner landscape is never the same.
• Relationship dynamics between partners/friends go through significant changes.
• Corporate culture, structure, and process get rethought and redesigned.
• Social and political structures evolve.

Transformation in consciousness creates potential for change in both the inner and outer world.

Transformation is the movement from one stage to the next. For organizational change to be sustainable, we need to personally transform ourselves. This is tough stuff. Much of what is termed resistance to change is the struggle that people, individually and collectively, have with reorganizing their identity system. People need help and support to make this transformational journey. They seldom get it in the way most change efforts are constructed.

Bob Anderson is the founder of Soul Works, located in Whitehouse, Ohio, a leadership and organizational development firm. Its mission is to work toward organizational change in a way that deeply addresses the leadership transformation required for the new culture. He is also an associate of Human Synergistics, a firm specializing in assessment tools for organizational and leadership development. His clients include Ashland Chemical Company, AT&T, Banc One Corporation, Dana Corporation, and Dexter Corporation, among others.

Eric Klein, co-founder of The Leadership Circle, is an expert on personal and organizational renewal and the author of Awakening the Corporate Soul: Four Paths to Unleash the Power of People at Work (Fair Winds Press, 1998).

Jim Stuart, creator of Listening Circles and former CEO of The Florida Aquarium, Needlecraft, and Val-Pak, is currently a professor marketing at The University of South Florida. He is co-developer of The Business Leaders' Colloquium, a transformational learning course, that combines academic and practitioner input, designed to help students identify their individual leadership potential, focusing on servant leadership and community building. Stuart has also held a variety of leadership positions with Quaker Oats Company.