To better situate and integrate these principles, let us briefly discuss three tools as they are used in the process of presencing. These tools map some different qualities of attention on the individual level (tool 1: listening), the collective level (tool 2: languaging), and the organizational level (tool 3: leadership laboratories).
Figure 6 maps four different places from which any system can operate.
While most organizations and individuals are pretty good at listening 1 (downloading), and many companies have mastered listening 2, few organizations and groups are really skilled at listening 3 (inquiry) and rarely reach listening 4 (presencing).
And yet, the more we move into an innovation-driven economy, the more the capacity to operate from at levels 3 and 4 will become a major source of competitive advantage. Great artists know that the key to their creative performance is deeply connected to their ability to listening. The violinist Miha Pogacnik told of his first concert in the cathedral of Chartres:
When I gave my first concert in Chartres I felt that the cathedral almost kicked me out. For I was young and I tried to perform as I always did: just playing my violin. But then I came to realize that in Chartres you actually cannot play your small violin, but you have to play the macro violin. The small violin is the instrument that is in your hands. The macro violin is the whole cathedral that surrounds you. The cathedral of Chartres is entirely built according to musical principles. Playing the macro violin requires you to listen and to play from another place. You have to move your listening and playing from within to beyond yourself. (Pogacnik, personal conversation)
This account captures a critical challenge that most leaders of organizational change l face today: learning to shift from playing the small instrument (i.e., operating from listening 1 and cognition 1, which are bounded by what we already know) to playing the macro violin (i.e., operating from listening and cognition 4, which go beyond the current boundaries and tap into the sources of emergence). From this view, the essence of leadership is the capacity to switch the place from which a system operates (Scharmer, forthcoming).
The challenges that leaders face in improving the quality of their attention are related to the cognitive inflection points discussed earlier. Figure 7 shows how the inflection points correspond to the different modes of listening. Moving from listening 1 to listening 2 involves passing over the threshold of suspension: suspending the politeness of habitual talk. Moving from listening 2 to listening 3 involves passing over the threshold of redirection: redirecting one’s attention from exterior (things) to interior (the coming-into-being of things), from listening to exterior statements to listening from the inner place where speech acts are first articulated, or to put it in a little more radical way, to listening from inside the self of another. Finally, moving from listening 3 to listening 4 involves passing over the threshold of emptiness: letting go and surrendering to what wants to emerge.
Let us now switch the perspective on presencing from the individual (listening) to the collective (languaging).
Many change processes fail because they are unable to sufficiently uncover the current and emerging realities of a system. Often, the quality of conversation is unable to capture the system’s complexity. Without adequate dialogue, teams are unable to express their tacit, taken-for-granted assumptions about how the system really works or doesn’t work.
Figure 8 outlines a process archetype developed through many consulting, action research, and community-building experiences (Scharmer, forthcoming; Isaacs, 1999). The model is based on four generic stages and fields of languaging:
Conversation moves through the four fields. In each quadrant, the speech acts (Searle, 1969) differ in how they relate to the rules of the language game ín which they operate. Rule-repeating (talking nice), rule-adapting (talking tough), rule-intuiting (reflective dialogue), and rule-generating speech acts (generative dialogue) produce different kinds of conversations, each of which allowing the conversational field to operate from a different place.
Regarding our discussion of change, we might say that each level of unfreezing or uncovering reality requires a particular language mode. For example, uncovering the third level of reorganization (reframing) requires using reflective dialogue (field III). And uncovering the fourth level of organizational reality (common will) requires using generative dialogue (field IV).
Thus, the challenge in leading change is to help teams and organizations get "unstuck" from the first field (talking nice) and to develop the capacity to move with ease across all four fields of conversation as needed in a particular situation. However, the question remains: What sorts of interventions or speech acts allow a system to shift the place from where it operates?
Moving from a field II conversation (debate) to a field III conversation (reflective dialogue) again involves shifting the tacit field structure of conversation. In a debate, each individual advocates his or her own point of view. In contrast, in a reflective dialogue participants shift from advocating their own pinions to inquiring into the assumptions that underlie them. That shift involves redirecting the collective attention from exterior to inner sources and assumptions. The works of Argyris and Schön (1996), Schein (1992, 1999), Isaacs (1993), and Srivastva and Cooperiders (1990) address this reflective turn by focusing on "double loop learning" (Argyris and Schön), "taken-for-granted assumptions" (Schein), "suspending assumptions" (Isaacs), or "appreciative inquiry" (Srivasta and Cooperider). The principal leverage for the facilitator/intervenor is to reconnect what people think and say with what they see and do. It does not help to say: "I just noticed that everybody seems to be engaged in blaming others rather then reflecting on their own responsibility. Why don’t we try to use reflection and inquiry." This intervention will almost certainly fail because it only talks about reflective inquiry. Instead of reflecting on his own impulses, the intervenor blames others.
Moving from reflective to generative dialogue again involves a shift. This time, the shift involves moving across the threshold of emptiness and surrendering to the flow of the emerging new (generative dialogue or presencing). In presencing, the place where I operate is identical to the place where we operate. It emerges from the presence or the coming into being of the larger whole. Sometimes, this level of conversation occurs after many days of common work, as intentional quietness or sacred silence (Isaacs 1999). When it happens, the experience of time slows down, and the speech acts change from speaking based on reflection to speaking from what emerges in the here and now. Jaworski (1996), referring to Buber (1970), describes this level of reality experience as synchronicity, in which the boundaries between I and thou seem to completely disappear. Thus, like reflective dialogue, generative dialogue is based on reconnecting what we think and say with what we do and see. The difference is that in field III one acts first and reflects second, whereas in field IV the two happen synchronistically (action = reflection).
The drama of dialogue plays out according to these four types of conversation. They differ in the degree of complexity that they are able to capture and represent. The more easily teams and companies are able to move across the four fields of conversational action, the more they will succeed in unfreezing and accessing the deeper and more subtle levels of learning and change.
The essence of moving from fields I, II, and III to field IV (I-in-now) is not only to shift from Type I learning (reflection) to Type II learning (presencing) but also involves a profound aesthetic experience. At the heart of this experience is a spheric expansion and enhancement of one’s own experience of self. When Pogacnik speaks of playing the macro violin, what he means is that the source of his playing is the surrounding larger whole, rather than his smaller self. Consider another example, the case of the legendary basketball player Bill Russell. Says Russell:
Every so often a Celtic game would heat up so that it became more than a physical or even a mental game, and would be magical. That feeling is very difficult to describe, and I certainly never talked about it when I was playing. When it happened, I could feel my play rise to a new level. It came rarely, and would last anywhere from five minutes to a whole quarter or more. … It would surround not only me and the other Celtics, but also the players on the other team, even the referees.
At that special level, all sorts of odd things happened. The game would be in a white heat of competition, and yet somehow I wouldn’t feel competitive — which is a miracle in itself. I´d be putting out the maximum effort, straining, coughing up parts of my lungs as we ran, and yet I never felt the pain. The game would move so quickly that every fake, cut and pass could be surprising, and yet nothing could surprise me. It was almost as if we were playing in slow motion. During those spells, I could almost sense how the next play would develop and where the next shot would be taken. … My premonitions would be consistently correct, and I always felt then that I not only knew all of the Celtics by heart, but also all the opposing players, and that they all knew me. There have been many times in my career when I felt moved or joyful, but these were the moments when I had chills pulsing up and down my spine."
Russell and Pogacnik both talk about the same phenomenon — about operating from an enlarged and enhanced field of self. They do not talk about first observing themselves from outside (reflection) and then performing an activity (action). This sequence would be classic field III behavior (reflection). Field IV actions, in contrast, are based on instantaneous learning with zero feedback delay — i.e., one operates from two places or spheres simultaneously: (1) from the peripheral sphere of one’s own organization, sensing what is about to emerge ("playing the macro violin;" "my premonitions would be constantly correct"); and (2) from within one’s organization as Pogacnik played the violin and Russell made his moves and shots at the very same moments that they perceived their actions from outside. During these instances of high performance the self operates both outside and within one’s own organization.
The third tool, the leadership laboratory, helps to make this way of operating work in the context of large organizations (Jaworski and Scharmer, 2000). The key idea of the laboratory is to provide leaders with an opportunity to explore and nurture three interrelated and interwoven environments or spaces of thought and action.
The first environment is about seeing and sensing and taking the paraticipants outside the boundaries of their organization. For example, one might conduct field visits to new economy companies or other places where people can sense and experience the emerging new.
The second environment is about retreat and reflect: an elevated space for thinking, where the point is to enhance the quality of thinking together, specifically, to advance from sensing to presencing. For example, the laboratory might arrange to take managers on a multi-day retreat in Santa Fe. There, they would begin by crystallizing the learning from field visits, put the different images of emerging realities together, and use this as a body of resonance for presencing the emerging new, both individually and collectively.
The third environment is a kind of business incubator designed to help entrepreneurs turn their ideas into powerful innovations and embodied actions.
Thus, the Leadership Laboratory is a tool that helps managers to deeply connect to the emerging futures outside (space I), and within (space II) and to bring them forth into reality (space III).
The challenges of the three revolutions outlined above will require leaders to develop a new leadership capacity. Throughout this paper I have described this new capacity from the perspective of learning, change, and cognition, highlighting both the individual and the collective aspects of this emerging new capacity. The name I propose for this capacity is presencing. Presencing is both a collective/organizational and an individual/personal experience in which the Self becomes the gate through which the new comes into reality. It is the discipline of bringing one’s full Self into presence and use one’s highest Self as vehicle for sensing and bringing forth new worlds (see Figure 10).
During the 1980s and 1990s a number of learning disciplines emerged that today are used in the learning practices of many companies (Senge et al. 1994, 1999). They include the methods and tools of Systems Thinking, Personal Mastery, Dialogue, Parallel Structuring, Process Consultation, and others. Each of these methods and disciplines is grounded in a distinct body of principles and practices (Argyris and Schön 1996; Schein 1987, 1992, 1999; Senge 1990; Bohm 1990; Isaacs 1999; Senge et al. 1994, 1999; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Kim 1992, 1994).
Figure 10 situates the emerging discipline of presencing in the larger context of organizational learning and change. If we consider the various learning disciplines as part of a larger whole, then Systems Thinking is related to conceptualization and other functions of the "head"; Process Consultation and Parallel Structures are related to being firmly grounded in business realities, i.e., the functions of the "feet"; and Dialogue, Personal Mastery, and Presencing are related to the middle sphere, which touches on what people really care about and where their commitment comes from (the heart). The power of presencing may be related to using the Self as the eye of the needle for transforming social substance.
The managerial implication of this is profound but simple. There is only one sustainable tool for leading change in the 21st century. This tool is the leader’s Self. Your Self. It is the capacity of the "I" to transcend the boundaries of its current organization and to operate from the emerging larger whole (I-in-now) both individually and collectively. Building on Schein’s (2000) definition of leadership as "the ability to rise to the occasion," we can conclude that the leader’s real work is to create conditions that allow leaders — that is: everybody who rises to the occasion — to shift the place from which their organization or system operates.
Argyris, C. (1992), On Organizational Learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1996), Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method, and Practice, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Arthur, W. B. (1996), Increasing Returns and the New World of Business, Harvard Business Review, July — August: 100-109.
Arthur, W. B. (2000), Sense Making in the New Economy. Conversation with W. Brian Arthur, Xerox Parc, Palo Alto, April 16, 1999, in: Scharmer, C.O. et al (eds.), Accessing Experience, Awareness and Will. 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundation of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Cambridge, MA, August 2000, Vol. IV: 541-576.
Beuys, J. (1992), Kunst = Kapital. Achberger Vorträge, editited by Rainer Rappmann, Wangen: Achberger Verlag.
Bohm, D. (1990), On Dialogue, Ojai, CA: David Bohm Seminars.
Bortoft, H. (1996), The Wholeness of Nature. Goethe’s Way towards a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press.
Bortoft, H. (1998), Counterfeit and Authentic Wholes: Finding a Means for Dwelling in Nature. In: Seamon, D. and A. Zajonc (Eds.), Goethe´s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 277-298.
Bortoft, H. (1999), Imagination Becomes An Organ of Perception. Conversation with Henri Bortoft, London, July, 14, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Entering the Meditative Space of Leadership, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. III, December, 1999, Cambridge, MA: 405-411.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1998), Organizing Knowledge. In: California Management Review. Spring 1998, Vol 40, No. 3, 90-111.
Buber, M. (1970), I and Thou, New York, N.Y.: Simon Schuster.
Bushe, G.R. and A.B. Shani (1991), Parallel Learning Structures, Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Castells, M. (1996-98), The information age: economy, society, and structure. vol.s 1-3. London: Blackwell.
Catford, L. and M. Ray (1991), The Path of the Everyday Hero. Drawing on the Power of Myth to Meet Life’s Most Important Challenges. New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam.
Childre, D. and B. Cryer (1999), From Chaos to Coherence. Advancing Emotional and Organizational Intelligence Through Inner Quality Management. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Clausewitz, C. von. (1989), On War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Conlin, M. (1999) Religion in the Workplace, The growing presence of spirituality in Corporate America, in: Business Week, New York, November 1, 1999. Issue: 3653
Cook, S. N. and J. S. Brown (1999), Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing, Organization Science, 10(4), 382-400.
Cook, S. N. and J. S. Brown (1993), Culture and Organizational Learning, Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial.
Cusumano, M. A. and D. B. Yoffie (1998), Competing on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape and Its Battle with Microsoft, New York: Free Press.
Day, J. (1999), What Is Important Is Inivisible To The Eye. Conversation with Jonathan Day, McKinsey & Company, London, July 14, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Entering the Meditative Space of Leadership, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. III, December, 1999, Cambridge, MA: 331-370.
de Geus, A. (1997), The Living Company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Depraz, N., F. Varela and P Vermersch (1999), The Gesture of Awareness. An account of its structural dynamics, in: M.Velmans (Ed.), Investigating Phenomenal Consciousness, Benjamin Publishers, Amsterdam.
Foster, R. (1999), Cocooning the Company with a Schumpetrian Field. Interview with Richard Foster, McKinsey & Comp. August 18, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Beyond Communities of Practice: Cocooning the Company with a Generative Field, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. III, December 1999, Cambridge, MA: 289-329.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity: The Raymond Fred West Memorial Lectures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goethe, J. W. von (1985) Goethe’s Scientific Studies. Translated by D. Miller. Edited by Al. P. Cottrell and D. Miller. Boston: Suhrkamp Insel.
Hamel, G. (2000), Leading The Revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hammer, M. and J. Champy (1994), Reengineering the Corporation : A Manifesto for Business Revolution, N.Y: HarperBusiness.
Handy, C. (1998), The Hungry Spirit. Beyond Capitalism: A Quest for Purpose in the Modern World. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Heidegger, Martin (1977/1993), "What Calls for Thinking?" in Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings: from Being and Time to The Task of Thinking, edited by David Farrell Krell, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994), Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Press.
Hock, D. W. (1999), Birth of Chaordic Age. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Husserl, E. (1985), Die phänomenologische Methode. Ausgewählte Texte, Bd I-II, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Isaacs, W. (1993), "Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking and Organizational Learning", in Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 24 — 39.
Isaacs, W. (1999), Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, New York, NY: Doubleday.
Jaworski, J. (1996), Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Jaworski, J. (1999), The Heart Is the Key to All of This. Conversation with Joseph Jaworski, Boston, October 29, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Entering the Meditative Space of Leadership, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. III, December, 1999, Cambridge, MA: 417-446.
Jaworski, J., and C.O. Scharmer (2000), Leadership in the New Economy: Sensing and Actualizing Emerging Futures, Working Paper, Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge Mass., and Generon, Beverly, MA.
Johnson, T. (1999), Goethe Meets Accounting: Seeing the Living Company at Work. Conversation with Professor Tom Johnson. Portland State University. August, 20, 1999. in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), The Invisible Workbench: Forming and Sculpting Mental-Emotional Fields, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. I, December 1999, Cambridge, MA: 67-100.
Jung, M. (1999), The Invisible Workbench: Forming and Sculpting Mental-Emotional Fields. Conversation with Michael Jung, Director, McKinsey & Company, Munich, March 18, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), The Invisible Workbench, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. I, December 1999, Cambridge, MA: 5-35.
Kao, J. (2000), The Seventh Career: Building An Innovation Keiretsu. Conversation I. with John Kao. The Idea Factory, San Francisco, April 12, 2000, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Accessing Experience, Awareness and Will, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. IV, August 2000, Cambridge, MA: 605-693
Kahane, A. (1999), Scenarios for Changing the World. In: P. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, G. Roth and B. Smith (Eds.) The Dance of Change. A Fieldbook for Sustaining Momentum in a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Kegan, R. (1994), In over our heads: the mental demands of modern life. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, K. (1998), New Rules for the New Economy. 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World. New York, NY: Viking.
Kim, D. (1992), Systems Archetypes I. Diagnosing Systemic Issues and Designing High Leverage Interventions, Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communication.
Kim, D. (1994), Systems Archetypes II. Using Systems Archetypes to Take Effective Action, Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communication.
Kleiner, A. and G. Roth, "Perspectives on Corporate Transformation: the Oil Co Learning History," SoL Learning History 18.009, 1998, available through SoL-ne.org. (forthcoming as book from Oxford University Press)
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.
Lave, Jean C. and Etienne Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, Jean C. and Seth Chaiklin, eds. (1993), Understanding Practice: Perspectivs on Activity and Context, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, Dorothy and Sylvia Sensiper (1998), "The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation," California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.
Lewin, K. (1952), Group decisions and social change. In: G.E. Swanson, T.N. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley (Eds.) Readings in Social Psychology Rev. Ed. New York, NY: Holt.
Mintzberg, H. (1987), Crafting Strategy, in: Harvard Business Review, July — August 1987, 66 — 75.
Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel (1998), Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management. New York: The Free Press.
Nishida, K. (1987), Last Writings, Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. Translated with and introduction by D. A. Dilworth, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Nishida, K. (1990), An Inquiry into the Good. Translated by M. Abe and Ch. Ives, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1991), The Knowledge Creating Company. In: Harvard Business Review. November-December: 96-104.
Nonaka, I. and N. Konno (1998), The Concept of "Ba": Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. In: California Management Review. Spring 1998, Vol 40, No. 3, 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., R. Toyama and Akiya Nagata (2000), A Firm as a Knowledge-creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm. In: Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 9, No. 1, 1-20.
Ohashi, R. (2000), The Eye of The Hurricane, conversation with Professor Ryosuke Ohashi, March 18, 2000, Technical University of Kyoto, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Accessing Experience, Awareness and Will, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. IV, August 2000, Cambridge, MA: 577-600.
Orlikowski, W. (1996), Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective, In: Information Systems Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1996: 63-92.
Orlikowski, W. (1999), Awareness is the First and Critical Thing. Conversation with Professor Wanda Orlikowski. MIT Sloan School of Management, September 7, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Beyond Communities of Pratice: Cocooning the Company with a Generative Field, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. II, December 1999, Cambridge, MA: 139-169.
Orlikowski, W. and J. Yates (1998), It`s About Time: An Enacted View of Time in Organizations. Working Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
PineII, B. J. and J. H. Gilmore (1999): The Experience Economy. Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Polanyi, Michael (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.
Rosch, E. (1999), When the Knowing of the Field Turns to Action. Conversation with Professor Eleanor Rosch, University of California, Berkeley, Dept. of Psychology, October 15, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Entering the Meditative Space of Leadership 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. III, August 1999, Cambridge, MA: 371-404.
Rosch, E. (forthcoming) Spit Straight Up — Learn Something!" Can Tibetan Buddhism Inform the Cognitive Sciences? In B. A. Wallace (Ed.) Meeting at the Roots: Essays on Tibetan Buddhism and the Natural Sciences. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Roth, G. and J. Wyer (1997), The Learning Initiative at Electro Components. Edited by V. O’ Brian. Society for Organizational Learning Publication 18.007.
Scharmer, C. O. (1991), Ästhetik als Kategorie strategischer Führung, Stuttgart: Urachhausverlag.
Scharmer, C. O. (1999), Organizing Around Not-Yet-Embodied Knowledge. In: Krogh, G.v., I. Nonaka and T. Nishiguchi (ed.), Knowledge Creation: A New Source of Value, Macmillan.
Scharmer, C. O. (2000), Self-transcending Knowledge: Organizing Around Emerging Realities, in: Nonaka, I. and D. J. Teece (eds.): Managing Industrial Knowledge, New Perspectives on Knowledge-Based Firms, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Scharmer, C.O. (forthcoming), Presencing: Illuminating The Blind Spot. Leadership = Shifting The Place From Where A System Operates, Habilitation Thesis, Cambridge, MA.
Scharmer, C.O. and U. Versteegen, K. Käufer (forthcoming), The Pentagon of Praxis, forthcoming in Reflections, Cambridge, MA.
Schein, E. H. (1987), Process Consultation. Volume II. Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1988), Process Consultation. Volume I. Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1989), Planning and Managing Change. Teaching Material, Course 15.315. Cambridge: MIT-Sloan School of Management.
Schein, E. H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Second Edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1993), "On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning", in Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 40-51.
Schein, E. H. (1995), "Learning Consortia: How to create Parallel Learning Systems for Organization Sets," working paper, Organizational Learning Center, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Schein, E. H. (1999), Process Consultation Revisited. Building the Helping Relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (2000), The many faces of leadership, in: Reflections, Volume 2, Number 1, 2.
Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Schumpeter, Joseph A (1947), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Third Edition, New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech Acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. et al. (ed., 1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. and K. Kaeufer (1999), Communities of Leaders or No Leadership at all, In: Chowdbury, S. Management in the 21c. London.
Senge, P. and C.O. Scharmer (forthcoming), Community Action Research. In: Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, eds., Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Sheldrake, R. (1999), Morphic fields. Conversation with Rupert Sheldrake, London, September 23, 1999, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Entering the Meditative Space of Leadership, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. III, December 1999, Cambridge, MA: 491-511.
Srivastva, S. and D. L. Cooperrider (1990), Appreciative management and leadership: the power of positive thought and action in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strebel, P. (1996), Why do Employees Resist Change?, in Harvard Business Review, May/June: 86.
Torbert, W. 1991. The power of balance: Transforming self, society, and scientific inquiry. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Torbert, W. 2000. Is Time Money? The Spirit, Theory, Practice, and Effects of Timely Action. Working paper, Boston College.
van Maanen, J. and S. R. Barley (1984), Occupational Communities: Culture and Control in Organizations, in: Staw, B.M. and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Varela, F. (2000), The Fragile Self Deploying Itself, Interview with Francisco Varela, January 12, 2000, Paris, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Accessing Experience, Awareness and Will, 25 Dialogue-Interviews on the foundations of knowledge, awareness and leadership. Unpublished project report, Vol. IV, August 2000, Cambridge, MA: 513-539.
Varela, F. and J. Shear (1999), First-Person Accounts: why, what, and how, in: Varela, F. and J. Shear (eds.), The View From Within. First-person approaches to the study of consciousness. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic: 1-14.
Varela, F. (1996), Identity without substance. Interview with F. Varela, Paris, March 11, 1996, in: C.O. Scharmer et al. (eds), Crafting Theories: Leading Organizational Thought. 21 Dialogue-Interviews on Organization Studies, Strategy, Leadership & Controlling in the 21st Century. Unpublished Project Report, Vol. I, June, 1996, Cambridge, MA: 270-289.
Waldorp. M. M. (1992), Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wilber, K. (2000), Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Boston MA: Shambala.
Wyer, J. and G. Roth, " The Learning Initiative at Electro Components," SoL Learning History 18.007, 1997, available through sol-ne.org.
Zajonc, A. (1998), Goethe and the Science of his time: An Historical Introduction, in: Seamon, D. and A. Zajonc (Eds.), Goethe´s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 15-32.
