Why Asking Someone to Change How They Work May Not Be as Simple as You Think

It happens all the time in work environments. The organization wants or needs to change – the way it works, delivers service, makes its products, is organized. Often this point is missed: change is not just about the mechanics of what is to be changed, it is about the people. People make up and deliver our systems and processes. Most people say they don’t mind change, but they don’t like being changed. Even when it “makes sense”. Because “makes sense” depends on your perspective.

Anais Nin - We don't see things as they are

When we are looking for efficiencies at work, we are often asking someone – or several someones – to change the way they work. To take on new responsibilities or to give up part of your role. It seems to make sense in the grand scheme of things. It is integral to the change working. If we are leading the change or innovation, when we meet resistance we often don’t understand why. What we are asking often seems like a simple request.

conversation-one-on-oneThe challenge we meet is that many of us identify with our role. It forms part of our identity. We think we are simply asking people to change the way they work when we might actually be challenging the way they see themselves. We might be challenging their very sense of identity. And when we feel our identity is being challenged or threatened, psychological research tells us that we respond as if our very life is being threatened. Instead of being open to change, we dig in our heels and overtly or covertly resist being changed. We become more attached to our role or our identity.

Worldview Intelligence offers personal explorations that help us understand our own worldview, where it comes from, what influences it, what values and beliefs are fundamental to who we are. It illuminates typical responsesingrained human patterns, of how we respond to challenges, how we filter information in and out, how our sense of identity shapes our responses, how we become entrenched in our point of view when we feel compelled to defend it. When we can bring curiosity to the exploration we become aware of what is important and why and then we can become conscious of the choices we are making. The very exploration opens up the possibility for each of us to expand our own worldview and be more open to possibility.

For those of us who are responsible for leading change or asking our people to change, understanding that simple requests might have deeper implications allows us to think about how we approach another person or whole department, their role, their work and what is needed to bring about the changes that we need or want rather than becoming frustrated or combative which only serves to make us less effective in our leadership.

Worldview Intelligence Offers an Elegant Structure to Support Powerful Dialogue

 “Those who say they are ‘dialogued out’ are actually tired of no real discourse.” Daniel Yankelovich

How do we have the conversations needed now in a way that honours differences while transforming them into progress on issues that are of fundamental importance in today’s world?

I’m Right and You’re An Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse” is the riveting title of a book written by James Hoggan with many contributors. As I have been reading it, the contribution our work with Worldview Intelligence is making is becoming increasingly evident. Worldview Intelligence changes the nature of conversations and public discourse, even – or especially – when the stakes are high and views on issues have become polarized, and we are ready to do more of this work.

In Chapter 1: Like Ships in the Night, contributor Daniel Yankelovich talks about the differences between debate, dialogue and advocacy. He says advocacy is a dominant mode of communication in public discourse right now. It is about trying to sell something or persuade someone that your point of view, position or solution is the correct one, maybe even the only one. This can become an imposition of worldviews where the only one that really “counts” is the advocate’s.

An imposition of a worldview is an act of violence. At a minimum it dismisses or overrides another’s experiences and ideas and shuts down the space and opportunity for many contributions. In the worst case it forces another to live under the rules or worldview of the imposer.

The differences between debate and dialogue are illustrated in the following table. I particularly appreciate the statement that those who say they are ‘dialogued out’ are actually tired of no real discourse. Everyone is talking or even yelling and screaming at each other, but nobody is listening. In particular, it is often people who are part of a dominant worldview who are unable or unwilling to imagine there could exist a very different perspective or that someone else’s experience could be fundamentally different than their own. AND that the differing worldview has value and contributions to offer.

Debate

Dialogue

Assumes we have the right answer Assumes we all have a piece of the puzzle and can craft a solution together
Is combative Collaborative
Defends assumptions Reveals assumptions
Criticizes the views of others Re-examines all positions, including our own
About seeing weakness in other’s positions or views About searching for strength and value in others’ concerns
Advocates own views, dismisses views and experiences of others Willingness to listen, pay attention and suspend judgment
Wants others to come to their way of seeing things Looks for common ground, meets in that place

**Adapted from “Like Ships in the Night”, Chapter 1 with Daniel Yankelovich in I’m Right and You’re An Idiot

On the world stage, we are experiencing a time when differences are being stoked and amplified. It is becoming harder to find the points of connection to learn and imagine something fresh, new and constructive. Especially for deeply entrenched issues like climate change, racism, sexism, sexual orientation discrimination and deeply divided politics. Good dialogue is not only hard to find, it is becoming increasingly an imperative.

img_3003

International Exchange Students from over 15 countries at IGR University in Rennes in deep Worldview Explorations making fascinating discoveries

Debate is combative. It assumes we have the right answer and in arguing for it we become required to defend our position and our assumptions – even assumptions we may not have been aware we were holding. It is about seeing the weaknesses in other people’s perspectives and criticizing their views, which often becomes criticizing the person.

We come to dialogue from a very different internal posture than how we come to debate. We assume we all have a piece of the puzzle. It becomes important to bring curiosity, set aside judgment and really listen to what another person is trying to express, even beyond the words, to listen from a place of open heart and open spirit. It allows that all experiences and perspectives have validity – our own and others. It searches for the strength and value in all the perspectives, looking for the common ground or points of connection that create the opportunity to advance issues of collective concern. Inviting all the voices creates the possibility for generative space and new solutions.

Yankelovich says dialogue is not an arcane, esoteric or intellectual exercise but is practical and accessible and it is needed when values and frameworks are not shared. The challenge is that there are very few frameworks out there that can offer this exploration of differing perspectives that do not assume a position that one idea or one approach is better or more valid than another.

Worldview Intelligence changes all of that and we have seen it happen time and time again. The framework for exploration is value neutral. It makes no assumptions about the other person or group but takes them as they are. It provides a language and structure to understand where someone else is coming from. It is not built on a fancy, complicated system but rather is an elegantly simple way of entering the exploration. It is not a system that helps people do what they already do but better. It changes the way we enter the conversation, which changes the conversation.

It invites each individual or group to reflect on their own worldview, how it was shaped, how they have come to see and experience the world or a particular issue the way they do. Then it offers the opportunity to share what people are discovering or articulating, sometimes for the first time, in a way that honours each reflection and expands the collective worldview experience in the discussion.

The Worldview Intelligence framework is a structured approach to exploring individual and collective assumptions, beliefs and value systems and it is effective in many different kinds of explorations. The explorations generate new insights, innovative thinking, different conversations and new connections. A deeper understanding of worldview and how worldviews are developed leads to understanding them. Individuals and groups then have a language and a way of growing skill to work with different and multiple worldviews. this is essential to creating a fundamentally different environment for some of our most needed and challenging conversations. It is a 21st Century leadership skill and it could disarm the toxic state of public discourse.

Program Participant Reflections from 2015

Are you, like so many others who are inquiring, curious about how Worldview Intelligence programming is being received? As we prepare for our 2016 offerings, we’ve been reviewing comments and feedback from participants in the 2015 programs – both open enrolment and internal to client organizations and from a variety of the places we’ve been. This includes large and small communities; large and small organizations; professional associations, universities, health care organizations; in Canada, the United States, Europe and Australia. We share a few participant reflections in this post.


 

From the personal exploration.

worldview awareness day panoramic

“Each conversation I was in was different and had a different tone. I am in search of deeper meaning of my worldview, looking at the influences and how they have impacted how I see the world. I am understanding more the power of taking time to learn a bit about the person I’m working with – honouring their history that is so important to them and their worldview.”

Recognizing others’ path to their worldview can help you appreciate or deal with their worldview while recognizing and appreciating your own path.”

“The Worldview Intelligence inquiry has really enabled me to look at myself and my leadership growth in completely new ways.”

“What is really resonating with me is the idea that we have different worldviews, but many of us believe there is a Truth, a right and a wrong. When we come up against other people with their view, being able to acknowledge it is an essential step to moving forward.”

“Our Worldview is reinforced by the people around us. This makes it harder when our worldview is challenged because it comes as a surprise. When we hang out with people with similar worldviews we are more likely to believe our own worldview and to believe it is the way the world is.”

“We brought our whole selves to the conversations, even conversations about triggers which is a very vulnerable spot for many of us and we could do it with humor.”

“Worldview is organic and fluid, it has personality and attitude.”

“Worldviews are socially constructed. It is easy to forget most everything is like this. Maybe some things are not sacred. I could be more thoughtful about it.”

“I do a lot of thinking about these things. The format you’ve brought is different and helpful.”

“You don’t realize the levels of this work. I woke up this morning wanting to be more open today.”

“I am recognizing the importance of nuance in all of this – things are not so simple. To really hear someone else’s perspective, I need to set aside own perspective, at least temporarily.”


From the Organizational exploration

workforce engagement“Adaptive leadership, cultural competence and crucial conversations – they are all together in worldview and worldview gives a common language and words to verbalize what is unspoken. This gives us greater understanding as a group and more mechanisms for accountability.”

“ I have more ways to look for other people’s perspective and a greater understanding that everyone on my team might have something of value to contribute.”

“I am thinking about collisions of worldviews. We have a strong union in this organization. I have been inserted into this space. I will use my understanding of worldview to try to influence that space more strategically – to encourage everyone to let their thinking brain catch up to the reacting brain.”

“I am thinking about the projects we’re working on and the departments working on them. Worldview will let me step back to be more open minded about their experience and what their worldview of our department might be – which will help us move the markers together.”

“Worldview is about transforming differences into progress but the progress we envision based on our worldview might not be that same way for others. Learning how to be open to that could change the conversation. We influence people through ourselves, our own humility and integrity to get those important conversations out. These worldview practices are to live by and be intentional about. More natural is more authentic.”

“Yesterday opened up sight where I didn’t have any – especially at work – exposing what I need to see. I am filled with gratitude. Thank you for showing me this so I can change it.”


From the Social Systems exploration

live-communityStandardization has become a tell (people what to do), where it could be a strength.”

“We are on a push for standardization across our region but what does that mean? We need a common core that allows uniqueness. Today, I broadened my perspective on each region. There isn’t always just one answer.”

“We are going so fast we haven’t stopped to rewrite history together across the various parts of our social system.”

“Worldview systems can change fast – but maybe they need a catalyst.”

“We have been having Ground Hog Day Discussions. The Worldview framework is exactly what we need to take us out of that and into new territory.”

“I have been searching for tool to think differently about the communities we work in. I can introduce the Worldview process and framework to help more voices be heard.”


What will our 2016 explorations bring? Maybe you want to discover it for yourself or your organization?

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

The Rapid Evolution and Growth of Worldview Intelligence

We have been saying, to anyone who will listen, that the work of Worldview Intelligence is rapidly evolving. If you look at what’s been emerging and developing since our first Worldview Intelligence program in Halifax in August of 2013, there is a lot of evidence to support that claim and we will share a few of those stories and examples here.

But first, as we are asked by clients and other interested individuals, what is different or unique about Worldview Intelligence and as we continue to be curious about the quality of conversations people enter into and the revelations which emerge, the most unique contribution Worldview Intelligence brings is the framework of the Six Dimensions of Worldview Intelligence which we came to through Jerry‘s research for his PhD dissertation. This framework, based on the Apostel Framework, enables people to take a step back from whatever the situation is they are involved in, ask different questions and literally get a different view – which then enables them to respond and to strategize differently – whether we are talking personally, professionally or organizationally. And it changes the quality and depth of the conversation – every time.

So, what have we been up to?

We produced a short introductory video on Worldview (thanks and gratitude to Claire Fraser for her excellent work).

There have been exciting developments in practical application in our client work. Over the last few months, Jerry and I have been able to bring Worldview Intelligence to a variety of different client engagements where we have tailored the exploration to very specific client outcomes. Some examples follow.

In the spring, I used Worldview Intelligence with a local client, a sport recreation facility in Nova Scotia, to give them a framework for communicating with each other in new ways.

In July 2015, Jerry and I used it to help the grants department at US based Foundation to collectively explore its organizational worldview, specifically in understanding the interrelationship with the worldview(s) of its various grantee populations.

Working with a professional association in Nova Scotia in September 2015, we created a tailored leadership program for association members in the province where they used Worldview Intelligence to understand their leadership role and opportunity within their profession, the environments they work in and in the larger healthcare sector they are part of. The insights they gained will enable them to approach their working relationships in new ways whether directly in their work environments or with other healthcare providers.

Then Jerry did a day long session with entrepreneurs in South Dakota offering Worldview Intelligence as a way for them to think about themselves, their work and the contexts they find themselves in.

In early October 2015, we worked with a leadership team from a US based healthcare organization. The organization has 30,000 employees in their region and they have been growing quickly, partly through mergers. In their worldview exploration we looked first personally for each person to understand their own worldview and to connect in new ways within the team. Then we used Organizational Worldview Intelligence to think about their work internally and their interaction with other teams. Finally we used the Social Systems Worldview Intelligence exploration to look at their relationships in the various communities they are located in, discovering points of commonality and points of difference or uniqueness to each community that both influences their work and informs impact and enabling a new conversation between the different community sites.

Worldview Intelligence has three categories of exploration: personal, to understand how, as an individual, we each see the world and what has influenced this. A variant of the Personal Worldview Intelligence exploration is a professional exploration – who am I in my professional role? Organizational, for collective understanding of an organization’s worldview and how that impacts how the organization operates and how employees interact internally and externally. This often illuminates gaps or other dynamics that impact organizational performance. Social Systems Worldview Intelligence exploration which is proving useful in understanding the community context that an organization works within, how to engage stakeholders in more meaningful ways and as a way to do an environmental scan and to enter into strategic planning or change management processes.

We have worked with Worldview Intelligence in a variety of cultural settings including in Nova Scotia, in the US and in Europe (with the European Commission in Brussels and with University Exchange/International students and at a university in France). We are headed to Australia in November 2015 to work with a client and to offer a three day open enrolment program there.  No matter where we go, the audiences we work with engage in the exploration with receptivity and thoughtfulness, developing a plan of application suited to the environments they find themselves in.

We are developing assessment tools to track the impact of participating in a Worldview Intelligence Program in both the short and longer term. We have developed a solid keynote on Worldview Intelligence and we continue to improve the images and frameworks we are working with. We are writing a book building off of Jerry’s dissertation, adding in hands-on practical application examples we have been privileged to be part of over the last 15 months and hopefully writing in a style that will make it an easily digestible business book. We’ll let you know when it’s available.

An example of a graphic we've updated since we started this work.

An example of a graphic we’ve updated since we started this work.

And, as I said at the outset of this post, we are more than willing to talk to anyone who will listen. Contact us if you want to know more or you want to be an early innovator and adopter with us on this journey.

Climbing the Ladder of Inference in a Nano-Second

Have you ever idly watched someone walk by and, without even realizing you’re doing it, you’ve created a whole story about them just by what you see? Jerry Nagel and I realized we were doing just that one day recently while at a stop light. A woman was walking across the street in front of the car. Silently, we watched her cross. Catching ourselves doing it, we looked at each other and laughed. We recognized that, in a nano-second, we had each climbed the ladder of inference without a conscious thought – taking in how she was dressed with flip flops on her feet, a tank top, tattoos on the back of her shoulders and smoking a cigarette.

Ladder of Inference(2)The ladder of inference, which comes from systems thinking, has been brought into the work of Worldview Intelligence because it helps us understand how we reach conclusions about our experiences. What we react to is not what is right in front of us; it is our interpretation or the story we make up about the situation. We look at someone, a situation, an event and without even articulating it in words, we make up stories about what we see or experience. It is preverbal. This is what we do – as human beings – all the time.

Climbing the Ladder of Inference

Data

There is a lot of data in the world – more than we can possibly, reasonably take in. In the age of technology and internet searches we have unprecedented access to information or data – which does not equate to wisdom or knowledge – just data.

Of all the data that is available to us we must, by necessity, select data or be paralyzed with overwhelm. We are largely unaware of the criteria we use to select data. It could be that, just in glancing around a room or an environment, we are randomly selecting what comes into our awareness and what doesn’t. It could be that a question, an inquiry or a purchasing decision will help us focus on and select data pertinent to the inquiry.

The Power of Stories

Assumptions and Conclusions

As we select data, we make assumptions about that data – that it is correct, that it is informative, that it is accurate, that it serves our needs. It could be that this is true and, even if it is, it is the beginnings of the story we are making up, telling ourselves to interpret or make sense of our experiences.

Beliefs

From the assumptions we make, we draw conclusions. We decide something is good, or bad or indifferent, helpful or not, true or not. We make judgments with greater and lesser degrees of awareness. When we have drawn the same or similar conclusions over and over again on a subject, it becomes a belief. This belief may or may not be backed up by “fact”.

Fact is in quotation marks because people who are prone to thinking logically – which most of claim at some point or other – imagine that there are “true” facts. If we just pay attention to those facts, we would all reach the same conclusions. This is clearly not the case when you look at scientific research, climate change or political views to name a few contemporary contentious issues.

Many people can look at the same set of facts and interpret them radically differently, partly because our beliefs begin to influence the data we look for, partly because we shut out things that our inconsistent with our perspective and partly because so much of our response is on automatic.

When Perspectives Become Entrenched

The different interpretations of data can become entrenched perspectives or points of view that, when challenged, we choose to defend rather than open up to inquiry. The more defensive we become, the harder it is to open up or expand our point of view, to let in disconfirming data, acknowledge that other points of view may also have as much validity as our own. If we look at disconfirming data at all, it is so we can counter it with our own arguments and facts.

Conclusions to Generalizations to Actions

The conclusions we reach, supported by our beliefs, inform the action we decide to take. The same conclusions over and over again, likely reinforced by the people around us since we largely interact with people with similar worldviews or perspectives – begin to create generalizations about situations, people, perspectives. Whether we support climate change awareness initiatives or dismiss them. Support local economies or source the least expensive goods possible. Whether we become politically active or not. Whether we take certain jobs, live in certain places, send our children to certain schools or not at all, our choice of programming that we watch, whether we automatically act differently towards people of different skin colours, group affiliations, ages or neighbourhoods, whether we change our behaviour or not. The list goes on and on.

Narrowing of Worldview

All of this is great if it serves to simplify our decision making processes about routine kinds of things – decisions to get dressed in the morning before heading out, the route to work, routine shopping and more. It becomes problematic when we become aware that we are automatically ascribing characteristics, motivations or judgments about a person, group or situation without having thought it through. This becomes a self-reinforcing loop. The more we work it, the narrower our worldview or perspective becomes.

Expansion of Worldview

Until we stop. Until we question. Until we become curious. “Why do I see the world (this person/this group) this way?” “Why am I reacting the way I am?” “What do I really know about this person or the situation they find themselves in?” “Is there another perspective that I can look to with curiosity and compassion?”

We actively create stories to make meaning of what happens to us all the time. The story telling is influenced by our worldview and influences our worldview. Sometimes it reinforces our worldview and sometimes it updates it. An updated worldview does not mean we lose the things more important and core to us. It does mean that we create the opportunity for points of connection which can radically change the conversations we are in and create the opportunity to move forward on issues that matter to all of us.

The stories we create may or may not even be resonant with our own life experiences. We are really good at leaving out (not seeing) that which does not resonate – making it, or ourselves, an exception. Jerry and I both have tattoos that form part of our own experience. And yet, that woman crossing the street? Her tattoos caught our attention in a way that was not so resonant with our own experiences of having tattoos – maybe because of other elements we took in that comprised the whole about which we were silently telling the story.

Be Intentional – Be Aware of the Story You Tell

The next time you find yourself idly watching someone walk by, stop and notice the story that is silently forming in your mind. See what judgment or assessment you might be making about the person, group or situation. Then allow yourself to become curious about how you climbed the ladder of inference to come to those conclusions. You might be surprised by how prolific the stories are that you tell about others and about yourself.

Maybe, as we become more intentional about expanding our worldview, everyone benefits. Including us.

Why Your Perception of Campaign Momentum Might Not Be Reflected in the Election Results

If you want a glimpse into the impact of worldview on how we see and interact with the world, you only have to look as far as the Canadian and US election campaigns. In Canada we are in the middle of an elongated federal election campaign to conclude in October 2015 and in the US candidates are campaigning to represent their party in the 2016 Presidential election. The commercial and social media coverage is pervasive and intense. Is it fair coverage? It depends on who you talk to, what you see and what gets through your filters ~ essentially your worldview.

Anais Nin - We don't see things as they areYour worldview will influence who and what you pay attention to – including media sources, who and what you dismiss, what “facts” you gravitate towards, what information you will believe and share. It influences your political view. It makes you wonder why anyone would vote for the “other side”, the other perspective (if you are even so generous as to call it a perspective). Does, doesn’t it? Do you see your experience yet?

With the prevalence of social media that is adaptive to your worldview, it influences what shows up in your “news” feeds. As one of my friends commented recently, “There is no other time at which it is clearer that we exist in social media ‘bubbles’ than during an election. Looking at most of my Facebook feed, I could begin to imagine that the election result is a fait accompli. Then one or another of my ‘other’-leaning friends will post something from an ‘other’ -leaning page. I will read the comments, and I’m reminded that there are a lot of people out there who don’t share the opinions of me and many of my friends.”

We pay attention to information that supports our worldview. On social media, we post information and articles that support our perspective. Social media obliges and spits back out at us information that supports our worldview, burying, for the most part, those contradictory opinions. We may not even look at information that is contrary to our perspective (and for sure most of us wouldn’t post contrary information) because, clearly, it can’t be true. Or could it?

In our work on Worldview Intelligence, Jerry Nagel and I talk about how we work with information, and on talking and listening (borrowing a little from Theory U). At the surface level, it is simply about downloading. If we are talking, we share what we already know, trying to convince someone else of our own perspective. When we are listening, we listen for what we want to hear and dismiss everything else, including, often, the person we are in a discussion or argument with – dismissing their view or perspective, dismissing them, defending our own point of view, often working from judgment and preconception, sure we are right and they are wrong – about this particular thing anyway.

We want to argue based on the “facts”. So we keep searching for facts that support our position or, in this case, our political view. Someone with a different perspective will search for facts that support their position or political view. And we will each look at the other’s “facts” and interpret them in a way that supports our own argument. We end up at a stalemate – which is what we are seeing in so many of the political debates these days – not just the televised ones but the ones we may have with those of a different political stripe – a stalemate between perspectives and sides and an entrenchment in positions with very little room or opportunity for generative public discourse.

Right now, in politics and on other substantive issues, there seems to be very little appetite to go deeper with listening and talking, to bring curiosity to different perspectives or even to bring curiosity to how attached we are to our own perspectives. It may be partly fear based. We fear what we don’t understand. We fear the picture of the future we have created (or has been created for us) if “they” get into office or if certain scenarios play themselves out. We are working with entrenched perspectives and systems that seem to leave little room for real exploration.

It we only look to information that supports our perspective it is easy to become inured to the full picture, to believe that the way we see the world is the way it is. This is why your perception of campaign momentum may not be reflected in the ultimate election results and why, if you are passionate about a party or a candidate or a particular platform, you might want to be a bit vigilant in your information sources.

In the research Jerry and I have been doing on the psychology of Worldviews (Koltko-Rivera as one source), we are learning that when our worldview is threatened, when we find ourselves in a state of insecurity, we respond as if our very life is threatened. This means we become more deeply entrenched in our own perspective, have a greater need to defend how we see the world and convince someone else that it is the “right” way to see the world. We recently saw that played out in Canadian politics as a supporter of the current Prime Minister made irrational accusations about the reporters who were covering the story.

It will be interesting to see how the elections in both countries unfold. I personally find myself posting information that supports my worldview while at the same time viewing some of that same information with a bit of skepticism. Knowing I am tuned into information that supports my worldview and that the “facts” I gravitate towards may simply be an interpretation of the reality I want to see, I remain somewhat cautious about what the results might be once the polls have closed.

Worldview Influences Pattern Recognition (and Vice Versa)

You know that time when you encounter a routine situation or a familiar place and something is out of place. You, your brain, tries to make sense of what you are seeing and experiencing and offers all kinds of possibilities, almost none of which actually explain the “truth” of what you are seeing and experiencing in that moment.

For example, if you’ve ever had your house broken into and the door is open when you arrive home, most of us don’t think, “My house has just been broken into.” We think, “I (or someone) must have left the door open. Isn’t that odd?” And you might encounter a few other “odd” things out of place before it even dawns on you that the house was broken into.

Or like, when at the age of 46, I found out I was adopted because my sister and half-sister reached out to me in email, my brain could not compute information inconsistent with everything I thought I knew about my life up to that point. It was completely at odds with what I had known – even as there was “evidence” in my own experience and long ago memories that this might be true. In this incomprehensible moment in time, when I was asked, “why would these two people make this up?” my response was, “I don’t know. Maybe they’re crazy.” Had to be them. Couldn’t be me. My reasoning went to great lengths to explain away disconfirming “data” that was now confronting what I thought I knew and possibly everything I thought I was.

So it is with much of what we think we know. We have developed patterns that we recognize, respond to and react from. Most of the time, this is incredibly helpful and it can also get in the way of learning new things, responding more appropriately or expanding our worldview.

Patterns ingrained in us that help us accurately identify an object, a scenario, a series of events in an instant can be useful, don’t take much time or energy and can even be fun.

My parents were raised near the water. For my dad in particular, the sea is in his blood. He has, for the majority of his life, owned a boat. Summer weekends were spent out on the waters of Mahone Bay in Nova Scotia, cruising around through the islands or to the small towns that dot the coast. Both of my parents could spot a speck on the horizon, pull out the binoculars, and identify that speck as a specific boat. Me? I couldn’t even see the speck, I only saw the water and the horizon. Their life on the water, part of the history and reality of their worldview, gave them access to information not necessarily available to landlubbers.

Bluefin with dad at the helm

Dad at the helm of the Bluefin, scanning the horizon.

My cousin lives on the St. Lawrence Seaway on the Gaspe Coast in Quebec. She can hear the far off hum of a marine engine and accurately name the ship that is coming down the seaway, long before she ever sees it. She recognizes the sound of the engines, informed by living on the seaway all of her life.

My partner, Jerry Nagel, identifies himself as a flatlander – an influence on his worldview. He loves the wide open spaces where you can see for miles and miles and he can feel claustrophobic when roads close in with trees on either side, geographic terrain which is ‘normal’ for me, living in a region where there are lots of trees, hills and coastlines. He can look at a field with plants just poking through the dirt and know instantly what has been planted there. Me? I just see green shoots. His ability to scan the horizon, recognize birds flying overhead and see things on the side of the road is also influenced by his history, a component of his worldview.

In each of these scenarios, pattern recognition is influenced by the history and reality of each person and their worldview. It informs their current reality. Our history can influence and shape what kinds of places we feel comfortable and uncomfortable in – geographic or otherwise. Those experiences also inform each person’s worldview and pattern recognition in a dynamic way.

There may be times when pattern recognition can be life saving. Understanding weather patterns when you are out cruising on the bay can give clues as to when it is fine to stay out and when you should find shelter.

There are other times, when we default to pattern recognition without giving it a conscious thought, that it can cause us grief. When we see the beginning of a pattern, hear the start of a conversation and automatic assumptions or responses kick in, then we are not present to the current situation. We see or experience the situation by what we are expecting to see or hear instead of what is actually happening. Anything that is not consistent with our current worldview gets explained away in logical and illogical ways.

Assuming we know what someone is going to say without really listening to them can impact our communication and relationships. Assuming we know everything about another person, culture or organization based on one or two cues, rushing to judgment, rationalizing a perspective we carry, closing the door to exploration or curiosity that might build bridges at a minimum shuts down exploration and in the extreme can do harm.

What patterns do you see when you look at this picture? When you look again?

What patterns do you see when you look at this picture? When you look again?

The lens through which we see and interact with the world around us is influenced by our worldview – which operates most of the time unconsciously, below our level of awareness. When we become conscious of the influence of our worldview, we can press the pause button on some of our default responses to be more intentional and more present, possibly expanding our worldview. This is as true for us personally as it is in our organizational circumstances. For the patterns that are working for us, we can continue to draw on the rapidity of information they provide. We can discern the difference by noticing our own reactions to a given situation or person, becoming curious when we are judgmental or defensive and then bring compassion and generosity to our inquiry – about our own responses and about another person or situation. This is when possibility emerges, potential is unearthed and we can meet each other in the fullness of our humanity.

How Open is Your Organization to a Multiplicity of Worldviews?

face front-side view

When you look at this image, what do you see? Do you see someone looking straight at you or do you see a profile — or perhaps something else even?

Take a good look. Can you eventually see there is another perspective, another view? Once it comes into your awareness, it is possible to hold both views at the same time or to alternate back and forth between both views.

Young_Lady_Old_Woman_IllusionWhat about this second image? Do you see the old woman or the young woman? They are both there. If you are only seeing one, let your vision soften and the other may come into view.

You may say these pictures are only optical illusions and bear no relevance to anything other than a bit of fun. From our Worldview work, we would say, these pictures visually represent a dynamic that often comes up in conversation, dialog or debate at work, at home and in other settings. Sources of tension and even conflict arise when an individual or a collective (group, organization, community) sees things in a certain way and are convinced that it is THE way to see the world, the issue or the challenge. So convinced there is only one true view that other perspectives are not welcomed, invited or entertained as possible. Coming from an entrenched point of view, the debate often becomes polarized and personalized by dismissing another person or their point of view, becoming defensive about our own point of view or becoming attached to things needing to be a certain way.

Much of the origin of these dynamics are hidden or unnamed. We think we can make our point by using facts, imagining that facts are immutable – and yet, the fact is there is a young woman in that picture – and, there is an old woman. If you only see one of the facts, you may do everything in your power to try to make someone else see it too. Instead of bringing curiosity to the possibility that there might be two possibly opposing “facts” that are both true, we become entrenched in our point of view. Sometimes we become identified with our point of view – another way that the argument becomes personalized.

A worldview exploration helps ascertain what the source of conflict or tension might be by an exploration of components of worldview – something in how we see or interpret current reality, historical patterns or stories that influence current reality, the way we imagine or interact with the future, all reveal something about the worldview of individuals and organizations that might help us find common ground or points of connectedness to move forward on what matters. Understanding value systems and core commitments, illuminating the practices and methods by which we bring our worldview to life individually and collectively and understanding what informs our knowledge or how we know what we know, again individually or collectively, can also provide entry points to common understanding on issues that matter to us.

What are ways that you invite other points of view, or worldviews, into your conversations? How does your organization deal with alternative and even opposing worldviews when they appear? Do you even know if there are alternative worldviews? If there are voices that remain silent when dominant worldviews are expressed, you might not even be aware there are different perspectives. How do you know if there is a dominant worldview? If there are no alternatives offered to the perspectives that are already in play, that perspective may be a dominant worldview. That might be okay and it might not, especially if it is being expressed unconsciously in the organization. Your workforce could become more progressive, more creative and more engaged when there is room to voice and work with a multiplicity of worldviews at any given time and especially on the issues and questions that are most important to the evolution, sustainability and ongoing livelihood of your organization.

Transformative Questions Can Shift Worldview

 “The success of the intervention is dependent upon the inner condition of the intervener.” William O’Brien (deceased), former CEO of Hanover Insurance

QuestionsQuestions. When we adopt inquiry as a core part of a way of being in the world there are always questions. Some are simple: “How are you today?” Some are reflective: “Why did I say that? How can I help in this situation?” Some challenge us to explore areas of interest more deeply: “What is the theory behind…? How can we be intentional about collective transformation?” Some are at the core of our worldviews: “What is really real? Who am I? Why am I here?”  And sometimes a question can change our lives by creating the conditions to alter our worldview. The asking of a simple question can be a transformative experience.

Jerry Nagel Floor Teach ed

July 3rd, 2003 I experienced the transformative question that started me on a journey that would shift my worldview, although I didn’t know it at the time. I was part of a small group of people working on agriculture and rural policy issues in the United States that had traveled to Europe to examine how environmental and social values were impacting European agriculture practices.  During dinner one evening a powerful question emerged within the group that influenced our conversations for the rest of the trip.  The question was “Have we been asking the same questions [about rural development policies] over and over for so long that we don’t even know what the right question is anymore?”

This transformative moment started me on a journey of exploration, learning and self-reflexivity that has led to a shift in my worldview, a change in professional focus and a reconnecting with a curiosity about human behavior that I had explored in my early teens. It also reconnected me to a strongly held belief in human possibility that developed in my late teens and twenties and a deeper awareness of our connections to something greater that, for me, is sensed most during my times in nature.

in nature

As I explored ideas, methods and programs to find the right questions for addressing the current rural policy issues in my work back home in Minnesota in a change lab initiative called the Meadowlark Project and through my participation in the Donella Meadows Leadership Program, I couldn’t escape a similar question that was simmering within me, “What was my own personal ‘right’ question?” Having spent my professional and intellectual life working as a research economist on rural development with a worldview that assumed that if we created investments in the material well-being of people and communities (jobs, buildings, roads, etc.) then rural communities would thrive, it surprised me to discover that when I challenged my professional worldview I was also challenging my own personal worldviews and related sense of self or identity as an economist.

There were two big learnings from my work with the Meadowlark Project Change Lab. First was a recognition that while we all wanted to have the difficult conversations about the challenging and complex issues the Change Lab was working to address, we didn’t have the skills to have them. Second was a realization that while addressing the material well-being of a community was important and necessary, it was not sufficient to build a wholly healthy community. To do so both the material and human side of a community’s life needs to be addressed.

I found myself drawn more and more to actions that connected the work of rural development with one’s own or a community’s set of values and beliefs, which also connected with the work of my own personal explorations.

“The essence of our leadership journey is about growing into our true identity as a leader and, by doing so, accessing an intelligence that is greater than ourselves and encompasses the whole.” – Petra Kuenkel, Mind and Heart, 2008

As someone trained in economics, my worldview was deeply embedded in the notion of ‘man’ as an independent actor making rational choices of pure self-interest. I found myself challenged by the paradox that we humans experience ourselves as separate, unique and free individuals, and the social constructionist perspective, which I was learning about and coming to accept while writing my doctoral thesis on worldview and Art of Hosting, that everything that we are and all that matters actually comes from our relational experiences as humans and that this begins the moment we are born (and possibly before).

These paradoxes troubled me for some time, as I also sensed that exploring them was part of the journey to connecting with my life journey. So, while keeping one foot solidly planted in the work of answering the emergent questions about rural development policy I also committed to an even more intentional self leadership exploration of the deeper questions of “Who am I? What is my nature?”

The challenge it seemed to me in this exploration was to let go of attachments to specific images of myself that would prevent me from not only participating in whatever evolutionary changes this journey might offer, but also prevent me from seeing the whole and my relatedness to it. I was beginning to understand that my journey was becoming an exploration of the ‘range’ of me rather than the ‘one’ of me.

The work my colleagues and I have taken on through the Art of Hosting Conversations that Matter invites us into a wholeness – a way to connect how we are in the world with practices that support our actions. It also invites us to continually be aware of our worldview(s) and the impact on our leadership and hosting.  For me, as an AoH practitioner and host, this is an essential element in the exploration of growing my leadership and my hosting artistry.

Understanding Worldview and How It Impacts Us As Leaders and Hosts

Each of us has a worldview and a personal story about how we perceive reality. Our worldview combines the cultural and personal beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, values, and ideas we hold to form maps or models of reality. Our worldviews come from our collective experiences in society – from our parents and friends, the books we read and movies we watch, the music we listen to, our schools and churches. We then interpret these experiences into an individual worldview.

World view eye

In practice, we use our worldviews, without necessarily being conscious of it, to construct complex conceptual frameworks in order to organize our beliefs about who we are and about the world we live in. These maps or models help us explain how we view the world and why we act as we do in it.

Our experiences within the contexts we live in, be they religious, geographic, or cultural, all contribute to how we interpret reality.  Often this vision of reality is not fully articulated in our conscious awareness. In fact it could be so deeply internalized that we don’t question where it comes from. As leaders, practitioners and hosts of the Art of Hosting Conversations that Matter, organizational leaders responsible for creating inclusive workplaces and engaged teams, OD consultants responsible for change initiatives, continuous learning and restructuring and HR consultants (internal and external) responsible for leadership development and policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and social change agents inside and outside of organizations, this is first an invitation into personal inquiry.  Understanding our own worldview grows our capacity to host and work with others better.  Especially because our worldviews influence every aspect of our lives – what we think about, how we act, what assumptions we make about others, what motivates us, what we consider to be the good, the moral and the true. It gives coherence to our lives. It is the channel through which we interpret reality as we see it.

Worldviews are an individual phenomenon and a group, organizational, community and cultural phenomenon. Everything we hold to be true is found in community. A community is not just a geographic or placed-based clustering of people living together as a village, town, city or nation. A community can also be a discipline in science, a faith community, a community of practitioners of a type of music, art or sport or a community of practitioners of Worldview Intelligence; and these communities are part of a world of multiple simultaneously existing local realities. These local constructs or realities are primarily constructed through language based processes such as the written word, art, music, dance, speaking, symbols, sign, etc. Thus, it is through ‘language’ that we represent our worldviews and it might be through language that we will begin to understand another’s worldview.

Worldviews are not necessarily or always fixed. Individual and community/cultural worldviews often shift or change. These changes can be quite small and hardly noticed at first, but eventually have a transformative impact.

Worldviews can also change quite significantly as evidenced by many changes in the past century resulting from scientific advances (flight, Internet, space travel, atomic energy, etc.). Some shifts can be so transformative (or converting) that people change religions or physical characteristics. So, while worldviews are locally constructed, they can shift based upon changes in local or global constructs as well as individual or collective experiences. On a personal level, these types of changes often manifest in some form of spiritual experience that impacts a person’s view of self in the world (Schlitz, Vieten, & Amorok, 2007).  In effect, we have the ability to change our worldviews with awareness, consciousness and intentionality.

If our worldviews are mainly locally constructed, then we could ask, “What consequences do these local, cultural worldviews have for our ability to work together?”  One answer is that they can create barriers to understanding and finding common ground for working together. Which raises questions of “What to do about it?” and “How can we avoid collisions of worldviews and instead come together in ways that build understanding and respect and allow each of us to hold on to that which is most important?”

The invitation, individually and in our work, is to be in inquiry, to be curious; to be nonjudgmental; to approach our work from a stance of not knowing; to practice generosity; to value good conversations and recognize that good conversations can lead to wise action; to remember that the practice is the work and to remember that manyworld views can exist in the same place when we step out of either-or thinking into the welcoming of many different perspectives in the same space and time, celebrating difference rather than insisting on sameness. Growing our capacity to invite multiple worldviews on the individual and collective levels creates more invitational space for ourselves and for others to show up in the fullness of who we each and all are.

Some references related to this post:

Jenkins, O.B. (2006) Worldview Perspectiveshttp://orvillejenkins.com

Schlitz, M., Vieten, C., & Amorok, T. (2007) Living Deeply: The Art & Science of Transformation in Everyday Life. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Schlitz, M., Vieten, C., Miller, E., Homer, K., Peterson, K., & Erickson-Freeman, K. (2011) The Worldview Literacy Project: Exploring New capacities for the 21st Century Student. Institute of Noetic Sciences, Petaluma, California.

Hosking, D. M. (2011) Telling Tales of Relations: Appreciating Relational Constructionism, Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht, Netherlands.