Ecomodeling Leadership and Social Change

• Introduction
• Relationships and Context
• Patterns
• Processes
  

Part of my research is a broad interdisciplinary literature review. I have attempted here to pull together highlights of my thoughts, as they were influenced by my readings. This thought cloth is woven from some of the best quotes, tied together with my reflections.

In concert with all this, biomimicry is [sic] showing us that nature is the ultimate inventor, and that there is much that we as observers do not know - perhaps cannot know. … To emulate nature, our first challenge is to describe her in her terms… Natural processes and designs will finally be the standards to which we aspire (Benyus, 1997, p. 237).

I find business based leadership schema to be of limited use in describing my experiences in influencing social change. I listened to the language of nature to echo the diffuse yet far reaching consequences of attempting to influence social change.

Ecological literacy requires systemic thinking - thinking in terms of relationships, context, patterns and processes (Capra, 2002, p. 265).

So, I am 'aspiring' to describe influence and social change in nature's terms, and will do that using Capra's framework of 'relationships, context, patterns and processes.'

I have to say they're too similar to discuss separately. Relationships are the connections, and context imbibes text with meaning.

"So to speak the language of the new physics we must learn a vocabulary in which process is more important than, and prior to, stasis….The universe of events is a relational universe. That is, all its properties are described in terms of relationships between the events" (Smolin, 2002, p. 52).

Leadership, in my definition, is the facilitation of connections; of weak or strong catalysts who reach beyond themselves whether through thought or deed, to enable connections. In Hole in the Universe, K.C. Cole (2001) quotes Lee Smolin,

"Connections, in other words, may be all there is to something. The only difference between something and nothing may be that something has connections. Something is connections" (p. 163).

…and if "something is connections", then changing the context changes the relationship which changes the connections which relationally changes that very something… within interdependent, iterative, holarchic systems.

"Some have argued that tacit constructions of self-other relations (at least in some cultures) are 'meta' to other constructions and that, at times, they might contradict other text-context relations simultaneously being (re)constructed. What Bateson and his colleagues spoke of as the 'double bind' is a well known example, as is ordering someone to volunteer. Relational arguments, by proposing that co-ordinations involve multiple text-context relations, many of which already are in place, many of which are implicit, and some of which are 'meta' to others, suggest that paradoxical or contradictory relations may be commonplace. So, implicit and contradictory reproductions that include subject-object relations may be one reason why attempts at change e.g., in formal theories of leadership or in leadership training, may fail. Relational arguments allow us to go beyond notions of 'power over' to include something like 'power to' (see e.g., Gergen,1995; Hosking, 1995) - power to reconstruct or to change ways of relating and therefore, constructions of self and other in relation"
(http://staff.abs.aston.ac.uk/dmh/ltrgfin.html accessed Feb 19, 2003).

Relationships between result in patterns.
Patterns in space.
Patterns in time-synchrony.
Patterns in energy-resonance /dissonance.
Patterns in relationship

Physicists describe the building blocks of our universe as patterns.

"…there are no things, only geometric relationships. Space ceases to be a place where objects such as particles bump and jitter and instead becomes a kaleidoscope of ever changing patterns and processes" (Scientific American, Dec 2002).

And out of those building blocks of patterns, we too can be seen as patterns.

"Energy moves in waves. Waves move in patterns. Patterns move in rhythms. A human being is just that; energy, waves, patterns. Nothing more. Nothing less. A dance" Gabrielle Roth

Moreover interpersonal relationships can be described as patterns.

Synergic inquiry (SI) "is based on a grand pattern -- the Synergy Principle -- which Gregory Bateson (1979) called "the pattern that connects." This pattern is found in many natural sciences, social sciences, theories of evolution of the universe (of matter, life, and mind), Eastern wisdoms such as Taoism, the I-Ching philosophy, and integral philosophy, and in Western Hegelian dialectics (Tang, 1996; Tang & Joiner, 1997). The Synergy Principle is defined as the rhythmic dance of differentiating and integrating which facilitates the evolution of consciousness in matter, life, and mind." (Tang, Y. http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/1997/97tang.html).

There's what is. There's what isn't. In fact, what is allows what isn't, not to be. This is the text-context relationship expressed within positive and negative space. The profile of two faces that are placed in such a way as to balance the field and ground; the positive and negative so that either a vase in the centre, or two faces on either side are perceived. Our minds are pattern recognizers. Work with perception and optical illusion has shown that even when only a portion of a pattern is flashed before subjects' eyes, their minds anticipate and complete the pattern, be it the layout of dots on dice, or a partially completed circle.

Despite the optical limitations of visual perception, most of us, in day to day situations, can discern between what is, and what isn't. The tension and movement from what is to what isn't, reconciling the tensions… that's the definition of change.

"The other, equally important aspect, I insisted, has to do with the recognition of patterns. The new physics, in particular, implies a shift from isolated building blocks, or structures, to patterns of relationships. "That notion of a pattern of relationships," I speculated, "seems to be closer, somehow, to the idea of quality. And I feel that a science concerned primarily with networks of interdependent dynamic patterns will be closer to what you call 'science for understanding" (Capra, http://www.wie.org/j11/schumcapra.asp).

There seem to me to be two distinct processes. There is the world as it emerges, and the world as it is designed.

Working with patterns and (being aware of and integrating patterns).

"Throughout the living world, the creativity of life expresses itself through the process of emergence. The structures that are created in this process- the biological structures of living organisms as well as social structures in human communities- may appropriately be called 'emergent structures'. Before the evolution of humans, all living structures on the planet were emergent structures. With human evolution, language, conceptual thought, and all the other characteristics of reflective consciousness came into play. This enabled us to form mental images of physical objects, to formulate goals and strategies, and thus to create structures by design" (Capra, 2002, p. 119-120).

Consciousness is a property that is emergent relative to levels of complexity within organisms. (Kaufman, Stewart) Although consciousness has certainly enriched human life, I would also argue that the largest single negative impact of consciousness is in our ability to supplant our willingness with into willfullness over, our co-evolution with nature to a co-opting of nature, and to deaden our perception of the emergent DRIFT of natural systems into a disrespectful and completely unsustainable belief in our ability to STEER. the design.

My aim, therefore, is to re-cognize an eco-model of natural dynamics and processes that precede human wilfulness in order that we may re-align our attempts to influence with models that are aligned to nature's history and language of sustainability.

"Perhaps the biggest of these questions is whether life fundamentally differs from inorganic matter and processes, or whether it is just a rather striking example of entirely normal inorganic processes that have gathered momentum, like a runaway train, until their consequences have dominated the history of our planet"(Stewart, 1998, p.7).

Before there was our consciousness, and our ability to design, there was evolution and emergence.

Human organizations always contain both designed and emergent structures (Capra, 2002, p. 120).

So we are not faced with an either/ or choice, rather, the opportunity to understand the relationship between emergence and design, as we attempt to influence our world.

"The issue is not one of discarding designed structures in favor of emergent ones. We need both. In every human organization there is a tension between its designed structures,…and its emergent structures… Skillful managers understand the interdependence between design and emergence. … Finding the right balance between design and emergence seems to require the blending of two different kinds of leadership" (Capra, 2002, p.121).

What are these two types of leadership? Are they emergent and designed leadership? What does emergent leadership look like? What does designed leadership look like? What is their relationship to one another? How might this model facilitate our attempts to influence change?

*citations are available here.