Content uploaded by Benyamin B. Lichtenstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benyamin B. Lichtenstein on Dec 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
GRACE, MAGIC & MIRACLES:
A 'CHAOTIC' LOGIC OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION •
Benyamin M. Lichtenstein
Department of Management and Marketing
University of Hartford
West Hartford, CT 06117-1599
860/768-4270
<Benyamin@mail.hartford.edu>
Final Draft for Journal of Organizational Change Management.
• I would like to thank Ellen Wingard, Peter Senge and especially Bill Torbert for their insight,
support and collaboration on this project. I take full responsibility for any unintentional
misrepresentations of the theory and practice of these individuals.
A 'CHAOTIC' LOGIC OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:
CASE STUDIES OF “GRACE, MAGIC & MIRACLES”
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on integrating the theory and practice of organizational
transformation through the metaphors of chaos theory and self-organization. Case
study data was collected through in-depth interviews of three practitioner/theorists—
Peter Senge, William Torbert and Ellen Wingard—all of whom have formulated
theories of organizational change which they use as practitioners for generating
transformations in organizations. The interviews suggest that all three of them utilize
the logic of their (very different) theories to rationally set up the conditions for
organizational change, but that the transformations they describe were sparked not
through rational efforts but, in their words, through "grace", "magic", and "a miracle".
The new sciences of chaos and self-organization (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984;
Gleick, 1987; Wheatly, 1992) provide a number of useful metaphors that can help us
understand these non-linear events. After describing the case studies in some depth,
the paper identifies commonalties across the interventions in terms of a three-phase
model of dynamic order, thresholds at the edge of logic, and the self-organized
emergence of new order. Finally I use metaphors from new science to explain this
process. My goal is to identify a 'chaotic' logic that links rational theory and intuitive
practice in transformations of groups and organizations.
A 'CHAOTIC' LOGIC OF ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION:
CASE STUDIES OF “GRACE, MAGIC & MIRACLES”
Is there a logic of organizational transformation? According to academics, there
are several fairly defined logics or theories for creating second-order change in groups
and organizations, such as interpersonal logics (Argyris, 1990); developmental logics
(Torbert, 1987); force field logics (Lewin, 1941), and several other approaches to planned
change (e.g. Beckhard, 1969; Bartunek & Moch, 1987). On the other hand, O.D.
practitioners have long talked about the "magic" of organizational change, focusing more
on the intuitive, unexpected, and serendipitous moments in the actual practice of
organizational transformation.
Unfortunately, distinctions between theoretical models and intuitive practices for
generating change have resulted in a persistent rift between theorists and change agents
for many years. One empirical study confirmed the all-too-obvious fact that although
they have much to teach each other, the academics and the practitioner camps don't
speak to each other, let alone use each other's knowledge at all (Barley, Meyer & Gash,
1988).
As a new student to organizational transformation, my theoretical intuition was
that this distinction was more institutional than real, and that in reality transformation was
either more complex or simpler than either side was admitting. Thus, I decided to ask
this question to a select group of practitioner/theorists—organizational change experts
who had developed comprehensive theories for understanding and effecting
organizational transformation that guided their own practice. I started with three
individuals I was familiar with—Peter Senge (Senge, 1990; Senge, et. al., 1994), William
Torbert (Torbert, 1991; 1993), and Ellen Wingard (Wingard, 1993; Stein, 1992). I asked
them about both their theoretical and their practical experience of transformation. Their
in-depth descriptions about their work revealed a marvelous and unexpected pattern: In
all three cases there was an interdependence between theory and practice: both logic and
intuition, theory and practice, were necessary to effect lasting second-order change in
groups and organizations.
How can this interdependence of rational, theoretical logic and intuitive,
contextual action be understood? The literature on chaos and self-organization may be a
good start (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Gleick, 1987; Wheatly, 1994).1 These models
have shown that dynamic systems are not 'rational' or predictable per se, but rely on
serendipitous events that can be amplified in unexpected ways, generating the emergence
of new order which stems from a combination of rule-following and rule-breaking
(Goerner, 1994; Stacy, 1995).
Research Design
The design for this research paper was straightforward, being part of a larger
exploratory project on the emergence of new organizational structures at critical points of
transition. I contacted Peter Senge, Bill Torbert and Ellen Wingard, and set up an
interview with them to talk about the relationship between the ‘theory’ they had each
developed and their intervention experiences. In preparation for our meeting I re-
acquainted myself with their writing and theoretical approach. Each interview lasted one
to two hours, during which I had each individual describe their theory of organizational
transformation and how they use their theory in specific change efforts. Then I asked
each of them to describe what actually happens in the moment of transformation,
emphasizing their use of several different case study examples. Following the interview
a complete transcript of our conversation was given to each individual for comments and
feedback, and two drafts of this paper were also sent to them with a request for
1 I am indebted to a reviewer for making this connection for me. Much of my previous
work has focused on these issues in a more theoretical sense (Lichtenstein, 1995; 1996;
Lichtenstein, et. al., 1996); making the bridge to practice has been a very useful if
tentative process!
comments. The results are therefore a combination of my own sense-making and their
reflection on their case studies and my analysis.
I performed a content analysis of the case studies, looking especially for what
they pointed to as the 'cause' of transformative events. Specifically I wanted to know
how these practitioner/theorists explained the actual source of second-order change, and
to what extent their ‘theory’ was involved in effecting the result. As an attempt to be
more integrative in my results, I moved back and forth between the interview data, the
individuals’ written articles and books, and the emerging picture of what happened in
each case. What follows is the result of my analysis.
Grace, Magic and Miracles: Three Case Studies of Transformation
GRACE—THE ALCHEMY OF ELLEN WINGARD
Ellen Wingard's primary theoretical tools come from the alchemical model of
transformation which provides a powerful framework for guiding the design and
implementation of major second-order change (Jung, 1946, 1955; Stein & Hollwitz,
1992; Soros, 1987). Wingard also utilizes Jung’s concepts of ‘soul’ and ‘shadow’ to help
her understand certain organizational dynamics during a major change effort. The ‘soul’
of a business has been described as the essence that creates meaning for its leaders and
members (Chappel, 1993; Whyte, 1994). In Wingard’s words, “It’s different than spirit.
It involves the web of relationships, the craft of work, the atmosphere and nuances of the
daily work culture. It’s unspoken but palpable experience that provides a richness in its
presence...and a starkness or vacuum in its absence.”
The alchemical process, as defined by the medieval philosophers, required a
breakdown of elements in order to transmute “lead into gold,” i.e. the soul’s fulfillment.
Based on this theory, Wingard sees that the breakdowns in organizational life carry
within them the “untransformed essence of the gold to come,” where the greatest learning
and transformation can occur (Stein, 1992).
Another term for the lead or breakdowns is “shadow.” Shadow involves the
unacknowledged or hidden issues that show up as a loss of meaning, dispirited morale,
sabotage, cynicism and gaps between what is espoused in the organization’s mission
statement and what is actually enacted. By facing the organizational shadow, the creative
and vital resources at work can be unleashed for a greater purpose (Whyte, 1994).
The alchemists used specific terminology to describe how the transmutation of
base elements into gold occur in the cauldron or container (Stein, 1992). On seeing the
model in the discussion section of this paper Wingard told me that just as organizational
transformation cannot be limited to a linear process, the mystery of alchemy cannot be
reduced to a three-stage model. At the same time she acknowledged the connections
between the alchemical metaphor and organizational transformation. For example, she
often begins with the “charring” or nigredo phase, representing the “dark night of the
soul,” where burnout, crisis and “loss of ethos” prevail. “Albedo” or bleaching describes
the stripping to an essential nature, the dissolution of inflated images of the organization
leading to a sober “soul searching” and inquiry. Finally if the breakthrough is successful,
“rubedo” or reddening implies the heating up—the return of passion and enthusiasm—
signaling a time of renewed purpose and committed action in the organization (Stein,
1992; Wingard, 1994).
Alchemical Theory in Practice
Wingard’s alchemical approach is best exemplified through one of several case
studies she related in our interview. In this case, over a period of 15 years, two separate
executive groups managed a well-known service organization of fifty staff members.
Poor communication, outdated systems and animosity between the two groups had
created a hostile working environment and excessive customer complaints.
By the time she was hired, the entire organization was in crisis—there seemed to
be a complete lack of “soul” among the staff. As Wingard (and Whyte, 1994) suggests,
soul is often more evident by its lack. “It’s like a loss of humanity—people are
diminished in their own eyes and each other’s. Projection and blame become the focus of
conversation.” She encountered immediate resistance in her round of interviews with
comments such as, “You’re out of your mind.” “We’ve had five consultants in here,
nothing changes.” The leadership expressed skepticism as well stating, “I hate having to
even go to that floor and walk around. It’s grim.”
Inside the organization elements of “shadow” were everywhere. Wingard told
me, “When I was brought on board—I cannot even begin to tell you how bad it was.
Threats were being made, turnover was continuous, grievances were being filed... gossip
and innuendo were the main forms of [communication]. ... The only holiday they
celebrated was Halloween when everyone dressed up in bizarre costumes. ... A walk into
the restroom showed the graffiti, ‘actions speak louder than posters.’ It was shadow at
work.”
This shadow, and the possibility for transformation held within it, was cast by the
leadership vacuum that existed within the two groups. One inexperienced manager
perpetuated the splitting and hostility among the staff. The anguish expressed by the
employees caused by the continued dysfunction corresponds to the alchemical phases of
“nigredo” that Jung described as the dark night of the soul. “It was a bleak atmosphere,
with constant crises, outbursts, and crying as part of daily interactions among the staff.”
Finally, after six months of coaching and support, the manager chose to leave. At
this point, the change moved into the alchemical “albedo” phase of reducing the elements
to their essential nature. In contemporary terms, people began to strip away defensive
patterns and soberly examine fifteen years of polarization between the two groups.
“They started to talk about how exhausted they were from carrying on the continual
strife.” Ellen used critical conversation, conflict negotiations and community dialogue as
tools to create a safe container, so they could begin to address their long history of
assumptions, fears, and animosities. They embarked upon an analysis of their service
delivery and discussed their common ground and agreements in providing their service.
Members began to identify the contributions made by the other group. “Slowly, the edge
of tension that was in the atmosphere started to dissipate.” Systemic solutions rather than
attacks on each other became the focus of regular meetings; over time a sense of hope
started to emerge in the group.
Concurrently, another manager who had worked closely with Ellen chose to
return for a business degree and leave her position. So now there were two open slots,
“and it was clear that the organization needed leaders rather than a consultant to hold the
situation together.” These two leadership slots became the cauldron in which the
transformational breakthrough occurred.
Alchemical theory says that the success of a change effort depends on how well
the cauldron is used; according to her theory the right leadership here could shift the
organization into the “rubato” phase, igniting new creativity and regeneration in the
group. Thus, finding and hiring these two leaders represented the critical moment in this
organizational change effort. Here’s how she describes that moment and its outcome:
One of the members had a brainstorm about a highly capable manager who had just
been laid off in another part of the organization. Another member received a
resume from out of state, and within weeks these two individuals were hired. ... And
these two people showed up at exactly the same time, and they started on the same
day. . They began to build a partnership that was the beginning of a profound shift
in the department.
...I believe it was grace that brought these two people. One had years of
experience in management and is trained in group dynamics while the other brings
quality improvement expertise. ......It created a background for a true team
management focus.
This was a time of renewal for the department where the “gold” or intelligence of
the group began to be evident by the skillful leadership of these two individuals, who
each gave their attention to both people and process. “It was exciting to see the level of
dramatic change in morale, efficiency and customer satisfaction that occurred. Certainly
more turnover and instability continued, yet over time a supportive, interdisciplinary
community emerged as did a sense of pride and fulfillment. The best reward was
completing the contract and seeing that my role was no longer necessary.”
In revisiting this case in preparation for publishing this paper, Ellen told me that
many changes in the intervening four years but the transformation had endured. The
quality improvement manager left after he had “accomplished what he had hoped to and
moved on to the next challenge.” The other manager continues to provide leadership to
the entire group, “and is sought after in other departments of the organization for her
expertise and insight in bringing out the potential of merging teams.” Finally, even
through this industry is faced with great turbulence, “members interact, solve issues and
demonstrate a resilience in providing high quality services.”
Discussion
What stand out in this example? Ellen used her alchemical theory as a blueprint
for designing and carrying out the intervention, yet once the two original managers were
gone there were no more direct steps she could take. Instead she stabilized the
“container” for change by helping to develop the existing skills of individuals in the
department, and waited for the “right people” to fill the leadership vacuum. In the end
the transformation was completed not through the logic of theory or a step-by-step follow
through but by a synchronicity of timing. In effect this change effort was successful
because she used her theory while at the same time was open to moments of “grace.”
MAGIC—ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING OF PETER SENGE AND THE ‘CENTER’
By all appearances, Peter Senge and the Center for Organizational Learning
(C.O.L.) have a well-defined theory of organizational learning, change, and
transformation. As an integrated approach for creating a “learning organization,” Senge
and his associates combine research and practice within a consortium of organizations
that is the Center itself. While many people contribute to the theoretical work of the
Center (e.g. Kofman & Senge, 1993; Isaacs, 1993; Kim, 1993; Ross, Smith, Roberts &
Kleiner, 1994) the basis of the work is Senge’s best-selling book, The Fifth Discipline
(Senge, 1990).
As the title suggests, the core of the work is a synthesis of five “disciplines” of a
true learning organization: Mental models requires an inquiry into our beliefs, actions and
effects in the world (c.f. Boulding, 1956; Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985; Bartunek
1984). Personal mastery means “...living life from a creative as opposed to reactive
viewpoint” (Senge, 1990, pg. 141). Shared vision connects the individual, the group and
the organization through a sense of communality that can permeate the company. Team
Learning occurs when diverse perspectives are appreciated and even sought after within
the organization (Kim, 1993; Isaacs, 1993); in team learning the essential tool is dialogue,
a discipline “...of inquiry for transforming the quality of conversation and the thinking
that lies beneath it” (Isaacs, 1993: 25).
The fifth and perhaps most unique discipline of the Center is systems thinking.
Systems thinking sees the world as a united web of relationships; it’s a theory of process
rather than a source of content about organizations. Through structured modeling
techniques long-standing patterns of behavior can be identified, described, and hopefully
changed. “The bottom line of systems thinking is leverage—seeing where actions and
changes in structures can lead to significant, enduring improvements” (Senge, 1990:114).
Hands-on computer-based ‘micro-worlds’ developed by John Sterman and others in the
center help “managers and management teams to begin ‘learning through doing’ about
their most important systemic issues” (1990: 313).
The Center’s focus on relationships begins with an intensive five-day course
offered to all consortium members. “The five day program...is really a joint exploration
of the deeper epistemological foundations of this work. What would it mean to live life
from a systems perspective?” (Senge, 1993). The course is designed to begin a long-
term collaborative effort where theory can meet practice in real time. From the
perspective of the center, “A collaborative may be the only way to achieve major
breakthroughs in the practice of organizational learning” (C.O.L., 1994). In this way the
structure of the C.O.L. is fundamentally different from either a consulting model or a
training model. In our interview Senge said:
[In a consulting model] you’re trying to deal with problems. We’re trying to
create new capabilities, so in that sense it’s not technically therapeutic. ... Secondly, I
really do think of ourselves as engineers, rather than interveners. ... In this case we’re
trying to construct learning processes [which] should result in capabilities that the
people didn’t have before. I think of these capabilities as emerging as a by-product of
the work. That’s fundamentally different from any training model” (Senge, 1992).
The theme of the course, which has been described as “the heart of learning
organizations” (Kofman & Senge, 1993), is a three-fold shift of perspective: moving from
analytical to systemic thinking that focuses on the interrelationships between systems;
understanding that one’s identity is constituted through community and therefore the
nature of the ‘self’ is always in flux; and that we literally create our reality through our
language. According to Senge, however, the most important purpose of the five-day
program is its value in creating relationships between C.O.L. researchers and member
organizations. “There’s nothing, nothing, nothing as important as the quality of
relationships. ... Relationship building happens before we go anywhere. ... We’ve put
together our five-day program as the primary vehicle for doing this.” Thus, in a real
sense the critical transformation is becoming aligned as a group during the five-day
course, to initiate a truly collaborative learning community.
The Learning Collaborative in Practice
When I asked Senge about his theory and how he uses it in practice, his focus on
relationship was primary: “I just can’t identify with ‘What’s my theory.’ I don’t even
have a theory. We’re working together. Now, we have some visions. But even those
continue to be articulated as we work together.” To exemplify his claim he related an
incident that seemed to be at the crux of the success of a recent five-day program. His
imagery is so descriptive that I’ll include most of his story:
Now what really worked? It the last program...we were into the end of the fourth
day, and the course still hadn't gelled. Now, what do I mean "gelling." I don't know,
but you get to a certain part in the program—and I've done this for so many years—and
you just know it; you know it can't fail. ...And I knew we weren't there.
And at the end of that fourth day...we did this beautiful little exercise which I'd
never done before that Bill Isaacs put together with some of his colleagues in the
Dialogue project... We had four circles with about ten people each, sitting in a circle
with blindfolds. And they just talked. Now everything exists within its context. This
is the end of the fourth day of a five-day program and there's been a lot of ups and
downs. Dialogue has been something we've been talking about and sort of getting into
little bits and pieces here and there.
First off, in those four groups nobody ever interrupted anybody. You could feel
every comment built upon the next. ...
Of course, nobody could see anybody else, but you could see their bodies start
moving together.... They would lean in together, they would lean out together, they
would move together—it was beautiful. Then we started to become aware that all four
circles were moving together. And I turned to Fred [Kauffman] and I said, "Fred, this
is like a quartet." And you could just feel, there is an extraordinary energy in this room.
It was just this incredible, clear conversation, where a voice would speak and a voice
would speak, and when it was all over people just sort of walked out shaking their
heads...
I want to tell you, something really magical happened. Everybody felt it.
We knew this is what we were here for. We had started to achieve something...It
pretty much continued the whole next day.... The quality of these conversations is
incredible.
And, when we finished the day we all sat in a circle... and listened to ...a piece
from Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro—it was incredible other-worldly music—
beautiful beyond description. And there was about a minute or two when nobody said
anything. The first person to speak [a technical engineer] said, "I can't believe how
much I love all of you." And, you just knew that something had happened.
So, I don't know, that probably says a lot about my theory! But there's something
about coming together, and recognizing very deep fundamentals about us, together, in
the context of a community of action.
Discussion
How can this transformation be characterized? Peter Senge and the Center use
the five-day course as a vehicle for generating a relational shift among their collaborators,
in this example although the course was nearly finished the shift hadn’t yet taken place.
In a way his ‘theory’ had gotten the group to a certain stage, but previously designed
techniques weren’t accomplishing the sought-after transformation. At this point a newly
created dialogue exercise was tried as an experiment in the course. And, for reasons that
may have more to do with luck than with careful planning, out of the exercise emerged
“incredible” conversations, which had a tremendous impact on participants and leaders
alike. Here again, the successful result was generated not only from following the
course’s design, but also from being open to something “magical” happening there too.
MIRACLES—DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY AND PRACTICE OF BILL TORBERT.
Over the past 30+ years, Bill Torbert has been carefully formulating and testing a
complex theory of development and change, at both the individual and the organizational
level of analysis. His theoretical work spans the fields of learning, development and
change of individuals and organizations, as well as the development of new analytic
frameworks for economics, political science, history, and social science methodology
(Torbert 1973; 1978; 1987; 1989; 1993; Fisher & Torbert, 1995). At the same time, he
has been a change agent in organizations large and small since the late 1960’s, effecting
numerous transformations for individuals, groups, and large companies. Torbert has
been noted for his career-long exploration of developmental theory, which originated
with the work of Piaget and was more recently expanded to adults through the work of
Kohlberg (1969), Loevinger (1976), Kegan (1982), Wilber (1995), and Torbert himself.
In Torbert’s formulation, individual managers can grow through successive stages
of development, each involving greater levels of complexity, responsibility, empathy,
understanding of the world, and appreciation of the undefined creative potential of each
moment (Fisher, Merron, & Torbert, 1987). Identifying a manager’s stage of
development can be accomplished through Loevinger’s highly reliable sentence
completion test (Loevinger, 1976; Fisher, 1995) or with less quantification through
interviews, personal interactions, language structures, body language, and so forth. The
focus of Torbert’s work has been on developing tools to support managers in moving to
successively more complex levels of development (e.g. Torbert, 1978; Torbert 1987).
Organizations, like individuals, have also been shown to move through a
relatively predictable series of stages in their development (Greiner, 1972; Quinn &
Cameron, 1983; Torbert, 1987). Torbert has shown that these stages are parallel in form
and content to those of personal development, and that a change in developmental stage
represents a transformation for the organization (Torbert 1987; 1989; 1991). He also
found an oscillating pattern of centralization and decentralization as organizations move
from one stage to the next. Unusual later stage “liberating structures” support adult
development while simultaneously accomplishing productive work.
Bringing oneself—or one’s organization—to a later stage of development,
according to Torbert’s theory of Action Inquiry, requires focusing attention “inquiringly”
onto multiple areas of experience. Incorporating inquiry into one’s daily behavior
requires being open to feedback, and thus being vulnerable to disconfirmation of one’s
beliefs or points of view. The ability to be vulnerable is an essential part of Torbert’s
approach, for it is foundational to a creating a mutual “transforming power” that literally
facilitates organizational transformation, unlike common, unilateral forms of power
which are literally powerless to generate transformation (Torbert, 1991, 1993).
Developmental Theory in Practice
Bill Torbert uses his theory as a base and a blueprint for creating organizational
change. As the following short excerpts derived from case study examples show, he
begins from a qualitative analysis of the organization’s stage of development, and
attempts to understand the developmental stage of the members of the top management
team. Then, through careful preliminary framing and strategic choreography, he creates a
transformational opportunity—in this case the possibility for one member of the team to
become vulnerable in a public setting, which opens the space for an overall
transformation in the team, and the organization as a whole. In Torbert’s words:
First of all, I bring a developmental perspective which I apply to the organization as
a whole from the very first moments... According to developmental theory,
depending on the stage you're in among other things, you're either going to be
[structurally] centralizing more or decentralizing as you move to the next stage. And
that will flavor all of my interventions. Sometimes I will appear much more
directive and structuring in my relationship with the client, while with other clients
early on in the process I will appear much more opening and choice-generating. ...
Now of course that's in turn affected by my growing sense of the stage of
development of the individual people that I'm interviewing. I always begin the
consulting process by a series of interviews with at least senior managers, and then
sometimes other people in the organization.
The process for gaining this interactional data derives from Torbert’s theory of
Action Inquiry, which is guiding his behavior at the individual and the organizational
level. “Emotionally I am trying to create a mutual situation, trying to share my
vulnerabilities and uncertainties as I'm inviting them to share their vulnerabilities and
uncertainties.” At the organizational level, Torbert sets up a series of meetings to
“align...the senior management team in the new version, in the new reality.” Those
meetings, however, have another purpose, which might be described as generating a
“transforming power” (Torbert, 1991; 1993) among the group. This seems to be key to
his whole effort:
[There is] a critical moment in the development of a consulting intervention, a
moment when typically one person in the company takes the lead to be publicly
vulnerable and accepting of major feedback and transforming that feedback into a
commitment to act differently. I seem to be looking for that. ...When it happens
what it does is it transforms the atmosphere in the whole senior group...”
Using developmental theory, Torbert can begin to identify who this person might be:
I'm looking just in a normal way to see where the convergence of tensions are in a
personal sense, because that person is a natural candidate. I'm also looking for
somebody who appears to be at a late enough stage of development that they can
personally see the reason for doing this.
At this point in our interview I asked Torbert what he does to create this critical
moment. “Do you consciously think about creating that moment, and ... what do you do
to set that moment up?” His response, culled from a variety of case examples he had
been describing, was surprising to me:
First of all, I certainly do consciously try to set it up, although I also recognize that
I have to work with the materials that are there, and that it is always a miracle, and
it can't be forced.
Discussion
What is the essence of this transformation? Like the previous two
practitioner/researchers, Bill Torbert uses his theory as a base for designing and
facilitating a developmental shift in a group; the theory’s prescriptions set the stage for
the desired change. Yet, the transformation itself relies on a critical moment of publicly
shared vulnerability, and must emerge out of the elements and personalities that currently
exist in the group. Thus while his theoretical perspective helps him organize that
spontaneous moment, the moment itself, and its powerful impact, can never be predicted
or rationally designed. Here again, a successful transformative effort is generated
through the logic of theory and equally so through the unforced presence of “a miracle.”
Commonalities of the Three Theories
Is there a common logic amongst these theories? In terms of the content of the
three approaches, there seems to be little in common. Whereas Ellen Wingard focuses on
the breakdown and regeneration of soul in an organization, Peter Senge focuses on the
co-engineering of learning processes in an organization, increasing the capabilities of the
people within. In Senge’s approach vulnerability is more a result of the learning process,
whereas Bill Torbert uses vulnerability as a means by which transformation can be
generated. And, in Torbert’s Action Inquiry the practitioner is deeply integrated into the
organization's development, whereas in Wingard’s alchemical model the practitioner is
more of a process consultant (Schein, 1987) who acts to create a strong container‚ and
“witness or intuit what needs to happen” (Wingard, 1993). Content-wise, these represent
different approaches to planned change.
However, in terms of the process of these approaches, I see a distinct similarity of
“logic.” In all three cases, the practitioner/theorist utilize their theory or approach as a
blueprint for the change—the theory is useful up to a certain point, then the planned
approach reaches a kind of threshold. At that point something unique happens—grace,
magic, or a miracle—that seems to signal the actual transformation. This process logic
can be formalized through a simple three-stage model, described below (See Exhibit 1).
--------------------------------------------------------
Please see Exhibit 1
--------------------------------------------------------
Stage 1: Building Relationships as a Container for Change
At the beginning of these interventions each practitioner/theorist focuses on
building relationships with the organizational members. As the practitioner connects
themselves to the group and the situation at hand, a kind of container is developed that
holds within it a building trust and commitment to mutual communication. This comes
through clearly in Ellen Wingard’s alchemical approach which describes the process as
creating a container or a vessel for change. In Peter Senge’s approach, relationships are
at the heart of developing learning organizations, and the five-day course is a vehicle for
developing close collaborative ties with new members of the ‘Center.’ Similarly, Bill
Torbert initializes his developmental work through emotionally creating a situation where
vulnerabilities and understandings are mutual shared.
Stage 2: Threshold at the Edge of Linear Logic
In the next stage, each of these practitioner/theorists identify a critical moment in
the transformation—a crux or threshold at which the entire effort seems to hang in the
balance. Ellen Wingard describes this threshold in terms of the delicate hiring process
that she saw as a key to the long-term success of the organization. Peter Senge expressed
a threshold in his recognition that "We were into the end of the fourth day, and the course
hadn't gelled...I knew we weren't there." Bill Torbert too perceives “a critical moment in
[an] intervention,” guided by a “convergence of tensions” in the organization.
Up until now in all three cases the theory has provided a prescriptive blueprint for
generating change. However at this threshold the logic of the theory is pushed to its
edge, and a precipice of sorts is reached. At this point rational design and analytical
action may actually impede the goals of the intervention. Only by moving beyond logic
and reasoned action can the transformation be sparked.
Stage 3: Emergence of New Order
Finally a resolution is found—a resolution that originates beyond theory, outside of
rational expectation. For Ellen Wingard, 'grace' happened in the appearance of two ideal
leaders who brought with them the capabilities the organization needed. For Peter Senge, a
'magical' moment occurred as participants used dialogue to connect with each other in a
completely fresh and new way. For Bill Torbert the 'miracle' of transformation is sparked
when a top manager shares his or her vulnerability; his or her commitment to behave
differently can generate a felt shift in the behavior of the entire top management team, and
correspondingly in the organization. In these cases there is a new “faith” in the capacity to
create a better future through new initiatives or behaviors, rather than continually blame
past errors for the organizational “stuckness.”
Why grace, magic or miracles? By definition these terms identify phenomena
that cannot be scientifically or logically explained: Formally grace is defined as
"unmerited divine assistance," magic means "an extraordinary influence seemingly from
a supernatural source," and miracle is defined as "an extraordinary event manifesting
divine intervention in human affairs" (Websters 1996). These words connote a felt sense
of going beyond theory and rational action, suggesting that the actual transformation is
out of the (rational) control of the practitioner. That is, as the theory is stretched to its
limit, what actually sparks the transformation is somehow beyond theory, un-reachable
through logic, not tied to rationality. What then can be the 'logic' behind this process?
Toward a ‘Chaotic Logic’ of Transformation
The disciplines of chaos, complexity and self-organization may provide an answer
that is both beyond linear rationality and yet has a reasonable logic. These new sciences
describe systems that are a mixture of predictability and unpredictability, stability and
instability, control and spontaneity (Gleick, 1967; Thietart & Forgues, 1994; Stacy,
1995). Under certain circumstances, when such dynamic interdependent systems (like
organizations) reach a critical threshold, new regimes of order can spontaneously emerge
"out of chaos," shifting the system into another level of development (Jantsch, 1980;
Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Goldstein, 1986; Laszlo, 1987; Arthur, 1990; Kauffman,
1993). Indeed organizations and individuals at the most transformationally-complex
stage are said to be operating according to “chaotic logic” (Fisher & Torbert, 1995:
chapter 11). This emergence process can be summarized in a three-phase "chaotic logic"
of organizational transformation that parallels the commonalities described above.
PHASE 1: Relationality and Dynamic Order
The organizational sciences of emergence describe reality as a web of
interconnected relationships, not a collection of discrete objects (Kofman & Senge, 1993;
Goerner, 1994; Capra, 1996). Since this web of relationships is constantly changing the
question is not “why is there change” but instead, why and how does organizational order
emerge and become relatively stable amidst this flux of change? (Thietart & Forgues,
1994; Mauws, 1995). The answer seems to be that relationship-building itself is a
dynamic structure that produces a certain kind of order (Weick, 1979). Specifically, the
sciences of emergence focus on organizing (in the Weickian sense) rather than on
'organizations' per se (Gartner, 1985; 1993). This is reflected in each of the
practitioner/theorists, who begin and orient their intervention in terms of relationships. In
Senge's words, "There's nothing, nothing, nothing as important as the quality of
relationships."
In addition, it seems as though these evolving relationships provide a
transformational fulcrum of trust and meaningful inquiry around which new behaviors
can emerge. In each case the three practitioner/theorists used the process of building
relationships as the lever through which change could be conceived. The consultants thus
become an active part of the system (Torbert, 1991) which gives them and other
participants the capacity to transform the organization from within. Wingard remained
integrally involved in this particular group for several months following the change and
checks in periodically to assess sustained progress, and Torbert is on the board of
directors of several "client" organizations.
Research using complexity theory (Lewin, 1992; Holland, 1995) has shown that
simple rules can create very complex behavior; that even a small number of simple
behaviors, when iterated over time, can generate unexpectedly rich complexity (Resnick,
1994). Others have recognized that individual-level action is the spark for organization-
level change (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Bachrach, Bamberger & Sonnenstuhl, 1996).
Uncovering these 'rules' or habits of individual behavior is key to generating group level
shifts. This is seen in Senge's disciplines of mental models and personal mastery that
generate organizational level learning, and in Torbert's focus on individual development
as a fulcrum for organizational change.
PHASE 2: At the Threshold of Order
How do these levers or fulcrums actually work? One condition for the emergence
process has been called 'the butterfly effect' (Gleick, 1987; Wheatly, 1992; Kauffman,
1995). Emergence researchers have found that dynamically ordered systems in far-from-
equilibrium conditions are non-linear, therefore highly sensitive to certain influences. In
some cases putting a huge amount of energy into these highly sensitive systems results in
no change whatsoever; whereas in other cases one small action can be amplified
dramatically to impact the entire organization. This amplification phenomenon is
fancifully called the butterfly effect, the hypothesis being that the flap of a butterfly's
wings on one continent can be non-linearly amplified creating a domino effect that can
result in powerful storms on another continent (Lorenz, 1963).2 These non-proportional
phenomena are exemplified in the cases: Wingard talked about the synchronicity of
finding new leaders who started on the same day after months of effort to preserve the
previous leaders’ roles without results. On the other hand Torbert looks for a single
moment of vulnerability from one person as a catalyst to transformation the entire group
and the whole organization.
These dynamic interdependent systems operate within certain limits of stability,
but when they're pushed to the edge of their capacity, unstable far-from-equilibrium
dynamics take over (Goldstein, 1994). As pressure for change increases, tensions rise to
a certain threshold of order (Bigelo, 1982). In this highly sensative state the system seeks
new ways to organize itself, to develop new levels of capacity or a new more complex
regime of order. At this point fluctuations and experiments are common; these
experiments are often unspoken thoughts that don't get expressed until things reach the
edge.
All three case studies show this behavior. As the practitioner/theorists pushed
their organizations to a threshold of change, the transformation was not immediate,
2 Technically speaking Lorenz discovered an even more startling result, the principle of
sensitive dependence on initial conditions. He found that in moderately interactive systems like
simplified models of the weather (i.e. using only three variables), even the smallest
computational rounding error gets amplified very rapidly, changing the results of the
simulation. That is, even the most powerful computer MUST round up at some point; this
rounding error is iterated over and over, such that the results represent a 'chaotic attractor'—in
this case the Lorenz attractor—which identifies a bounded region of activity which is
simultaneously deterministic and unpredictable. This characteristic of a chaotic attractor is what
Stacy (1995) refers to as "boundedly unstable" and I referred to above as "a mixture of control
and spontaneity."
instead strange phenomena and unexpected events actively surfaced. For example in
Wingard's case continuous crises and outbursts culminated in a public outburst and a key
individual left. In Senge's five-day case, when the course didn’t ‘gel’ he experimented
for new ways to generate transformation in the group.
According to the excellent work of Jeffrey Goldstein (1986; 1994; 1995) these
unexpected events and experiments are the catalysts for change. In far-from-equilibrium
conditions, "Random departures from equilibrium are noticed, encouraged, amplified,
and eventually incorporated" into the system (1994: 13). This idea is central to
alchemical theory which views shadow elements as the catalysis for the "untransformed
essence of the gold to come" (Stein, 1992). Torbert also recognizes that transformation is
sparked at the confluence of tensions. In his words, “The origin of change lies between
—in bridging incongruities between sides of oneself, between organizational members, or
between the organization and the market/environment. Thus, as the system is pushed to
its edge one unexpected occurrence can be amplified and spark the emergence of new
order.
PHASE 3: Self-Organization and Emergence
From the seed of change and its amplification, a new order can emerge or self-
organize in the system. Specifically, an iterative, cyclic process extends the fluctuation
throughout the system: "The fluctuation... must first establish itself in a limited region
and then [move through] the whole space: there is a nucleation mechanism" (Prigogine &
Stengers, 1984: 189). Through these iterations a positive feedback cycle kicks in
resulting in a new resonance of the structure. In self-organization the pattern of dynamic
order that emerges radically increases the capacity of the system, allowing it to handle
new levels of complex behavior while being even more balanced than before (Swenson,
1992; Goerner, 1994). "[W]hen a new cultural structure emerges ... a new cognitive map
[is produced] containing new values...that more efficiently match environmental realities"
(Artigiani, 1987: 256).
All three cases show this iterative expansion of an unexpected event that becomes
the seed for new behaviors in the organization. Senge says "You could feel every
comment built upon the next... It pretty much continued the whole next day." Similarly
Torbert looks for "a critical moment" that begins with one manager accepting public
feedback, and continues when s/he "transform[s] that feedback into a commitment to act
differently." This commitment leads others to exercise new behaviors of public
vulnerability and commitment that in a short time "transform the atmosphere in the whole
senior group."
In this way the origin of self-organized change comes from within the system, i.e.
change is "self-referenced" to experiences or values in the system (Jantsch, 1980; Smith
& Gemmill, 1991). "[F]ar-from-equilibrium conditions brings out the system's own
capacity to transform itself" (Goldstein, 1994: 139). In fact, empirical studies have
confirmed that self-referenced change dramatically increases performance, whether in
self-organized groups (Smith & Comer, 1994), in organizations facing turbulent
environmental change (Haveman, 1992), or in companies undergoing emergence and
transformation (Guastello, 1995).
The Grace, Magic and Miracles case studies offer excellent examples of self-
referenced self-organized change. In Wingard's case, the leaders that were hired had the
capabilities to continue to transform the department. In Senge's case the shift they were
looking for occurred not through formal training exercises but through a dialogue of self-
generated conversations. Thus, the content of the transforming conversations was
internally-based, not given from the authoritative practitioner Senge. In Torbert's case it
is one individual's vulnerability and the group's response that originates a shift to new
patterns of behavior, as he said: "I have to work with the materials that are there...and it
can't be forced." Together, these transformations can be understood as self-organized
emergence of new order in each of the organizations.
Conclusion—Is there a Logic of Transformation?
Is organizational transformation 'logical'? According to these case studies, there
is a logical framework that produces rational actions in the first stages of an intervention
effort. However, at a critical threshold it is non-linear logic and spontaneously felt action
—grace, magic and miracles—that actually supports organizational (and personal)
transformation. What I've endeavored to show is that a science of emergence can
integrate the deductively logical and non-linear aspects of this process, through
understanding the dynamics of far-from-equilibrium dynamical systems. These complex
systems show how seemingly random events occur as high degrees of order, and why
unexpected events can become amplified into new regimes of order that increase the
capacity and functionality of the organizational system.
We need to be careful, however. These ideas are metaphors. While they've been
empirically confirmed in a small handful of studies (notably Greshov, et. al., 1993; Smith
& Comer, 1994; Cheng & Van de Ven, 1996), other writers disagree with the use of these
sciences in human organizations (e.g. Johnson & Burton, 1994). In fact, there is a great
deal of conflict as to the viability of using theories from mathematics and the natural
sciences as analogies in human systems at all (Penrose, 1959). Additionally, I've made a
lot out of a little, generating a whole 'chaotic' model of transformation out of a dozen or
so case studies given by a very non-random sample of individuals. Also with an N=3, the
suggestion that organizational transformation can be generalized in terms of a science of
emergence may even be misleading.
Nonetheless, I believe these case studies are not unique; while they don't
exemplify the mainstream of organizational theory (e.g. March, 1965; Porter, 1980), they
do affiliate with a growing movement of practitioners and theorists interested in
identifying the non-linear and intuitive aspects of change in organizations and beyond
(e.g. Chappel, 1993; Ray & Rinzler, 1993; Whyte, 1994; Arthur & Rousseau, 1996).
Ultimately the goal is to provide tools and levers to increase the probability of lasting
organizational change both theoretically and practically, at a time when such changes are
needed both economically and throughout our chaotically changing society as a whole.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science. S.F.: Jossey-Bass
Argyris, C. & Schön, D., 1978. Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Arthur, B., 1990. "Positive feedbacks in the economy." Scientific American (Feb.): 92-99.
Arthur, M. & Rousseau, D. (eds), 1996. Boundaryless Career. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press
Artigiani, R., 1987. “Revolution and evolution: Applying Prigogine’s dissipative structures
model.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 10: 249-264.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P. & Sonnenstuhl, W., 1996. “The organizational transformation
process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alighnment of logics of
action.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 477-506.
Barley, S., Meyer, G. & Gash, D. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners and
the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly; 33: 24-60.
Bartunek, J. (1984). Changing interpretive schemas and organizational restructuring: The
example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355-372.
Bartunek, J. & Moch, M. (1987). First order, second order, and third order change and
organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 23: 483-500.
Beckhard, R., (1969). Organizational Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bigelow, J., 1982. “A catastrophe model of organizational change.” Behavioral Science, 27:
26-42.
Briggs, J. & Peat, D., 1989. Turbulent Mirror. N.Y.: Harper & Row.
Boulding, K. (1956). The Image. University of Michigan Press.
Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life. N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday
Center for Organizational Learning. (1994). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Organizational
Learning, brochure.
Chappell, T. (1993). Soul of a business. N.Y.: Bantam Books
Cheng, Y. & Van de Ven, A., 1996. “The innovation journey: Order out of chaos?”
Organization Science, 7: 593-614.
Fisher, D., 1995. Methodological note to “Personal and Institutional Development: The
Social Science of Observant Participation.” Academy of Management Presentation,
Vancouver, B.C.
Fisher, D., & Torbert, W., (1995). Personal and Organizational Transformations: The True
Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement. London: McGraw Hill.
Gartner, W., 1985. “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation.” Academy of Management Review, 10: 696-706.
Gartner, W., 1993. “Words lead to deads: Towards an organizational emergence
vocabulary.” Journal of Business Venturing, *: 231-239.
Gleick, J., 1987. Chaos; Making a New Science. N.Y.: Penguin.
Goerner, S., 1994. Chaos and the Evolving Ecological Universe. Gordon & Breach.
Goldstein, J., 1986. "A far-from-equilibrium approach to resistance to change,"
Organizational Dynamics, 17 (2): 16-22.
Goldstein, J., 1994. The Unshackled Organization. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Goldstein, J., 1995. "Unbalancing psychoanalytic theory: Moving beyond the equilibrium
model of Freud's thought." In R. Robertson & A. Combs (eds.), Chaos Theory in
Psychology and the Life Scences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greiner, L.E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business
Review, July-August: 37-46.
Greshov, C., Haveman, H. & Olivia, T. 1993. “Organizational design, inertia and dynamics
of competitive response.” Organization Science, 4: 181-208.
Guastello, S., 1995. Chaos, Catastrophe, and Human Affairs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haveman, H., 1992. “Between a rockand a hard place: Organizational change and
performance under conditions of fundamental enviromental transformation.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 48-75.
Holland, J., 1995. Hidden Order. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Isaacs, B. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Organizational Dynamics.
Jantsch, E., 1980. the Self-Organizing Universe. N.Y.: Pergamon Press
Johnson, & Burton, , 1994. “Chaos and complexity: Caveat emptor. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 3 (4): 367-*
Jung, C. (1946). The psychology of transference. In Collected Works, vol. 16: 353-539.
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966.
Jung, C. (1955-1959). Mysterium Coniunctonis. in Collected Works, vol. 14. NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1970.
Keegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Kim, D. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, Fall: 37-50.
Kauffman, S., 1993. Origins of Order. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S., 1995. At Home in the Universe. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of Commitment: The heart of learning
org;anizations. Organizational Dynamics.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of socialization
theory and research. Chicago: Rand-McNalley.
Laszlo, E., 1987. Evolution: The Grand Synthesis. Boston: Shambhala.
Levy, A. (1987). "second-order planned change: Definition and conceptualization.
Organizational Dynamics, 15 (1): 5-20.
Lewin, K., 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. N.Y.: Harper & Row.
Lewin, R., 1992. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. N.Y.: Collier Books
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conception and theories. S.F.: Jossey-Bass.
Lorenz, E., 1963. “Deterministic nonperiodic flow.” Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 20:
130-141. [cited in Capra, 1996]
March, J. (ed), 1965. Handbook of Organizations. N.Y.: Rand McNally.
Mauws, M., 1995. “Relationality.” Presented at the National Academy of Management
Meeting, Vancouver, BC.
Mirvis, P., 1988. “Organizational Development: an Evolutionary perspective. In W.
Pasmore & R. Woodman (eds). Research in Organizational Change and Development.
Vol. 2: 1-38.
Nochis, K. (1992). Dealing with an organization’s shadow aspects. In M. Stein & J.
Hollwitz (Eds.) Psyche at Work. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.
Nonaka, I. (1988). Creating organizational order out of chaos. California Management
Review; Spring: 57-73.
Penrose, E., 1959/1995. Theory of Growth of the Firm. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of the Child. N.Y: Harper.
Porter, M., 1990. Competitive Strategy. N.Y.: Free Press.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I., 1984. Order out of Chaos. N.Y.: Bantam Books.
Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational lifecycles and shifting criteria of
effectiveness. Management Science; 29: 33-51.
Ray, M. & Rinzler, A. (1993). The New Business Paradigm. L.A.: Tarcher.
Reason, P. (1993). Reflections on sacred experience and sacred science. Journal of
Management Inqiury, 2: 273-283.
Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C. & Kleiner, A., 1994. “Core concepts about learning in
organizations.” In Senge, et. al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. N.Y.
Currency/Doubleday
Schein, E. (1987). Process Consultation, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. N.Y.: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1992). Personal Interview; November 23, 1992
Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B. & Kleiner, A. (eds). The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook. N.Y.: Currency/Doubleday.
Smith, C. & Gemmill, G., 1991. “Change in the small group: A dissipative structure
perspective.” Human Relations, 44: 697-716.
Smith, C. & Comer, D., 1994. “Self-organization in small groups: A study of group
effectiveness within non-equilibrium conditions.” Human Relations, 47: 553-581.
Soros, G. (1987). Alchemy of Finance. N.Y.: Touchstone.
Stacy, R., 1995. “The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change
processes.” Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477-495.
Stein, M. (1992). Organizational Life as Spiritual Practice. In M. Stein & J. Hollwitz (Eds.)
Psyche at Work. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.
Stein, M. & Hollwitz, J., eds. (1992). Psyche at Work. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Pubs.
Swenson, R., 1992. “Autocatakinetics, yes—Autopoiesis, no: Steps toward a unified theory
of evolutionary ordering.” International Journal of General Systems. 21: 207-228.
Thietart, R. & Forgues, B., 1994. “Chaos theory and organization.” Organization Science, 6:
19-31.
Torbert, W. (1973). Learning from Experience: Toward Consciousness. N.Y.: Columbia
Univ.
Torbert, W. (1978). Educating toward shared purpose.Journal of Higher Education; 48: 109-
135.
Torbert, W. (1981). The case for a new model of social science based on collaborative
inquiry. In Reason P. & Rowan, (Eds.) Human Inquiry. London: John Wiley
Torbert, W. (1987). Managing the Corporate Dream. IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Torbert, W. (1989). Leading organizational transformation. In R. Woodman & W.
Passmore (Eds.) Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 3. Westfield,
CT: J.A.I. Press.
Torbert, W. (1991). The Power of Balance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Torbert, W. (1992). Personal Interview, November 19, 1992.
Torbert, W. (1993). Sources of Excellence. Boston: Edge\Work Press.
Tushman, M. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of
convergence and reorientation. In L.L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.) Resarch in
Organizational Behavior. 7: 171-222.
Waldrop, M., 1992. Complexity. N.Y.: Touchstone.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1996. Springfield, MA: Merriam Co.
Weick, K., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. N.Y.: McGraw Hill.
Wheatley, M., 1992. Leadership and the New Science. S.F.: Barrett-Koehler.
Whyte, D., 1994. The Heart Aroused. N.Y.: Currency/Doubleday.
Wilber, K., 1995. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston: Shambala Publications.
Wingard, E. (1993). Personal Interview, December 20, 1993.
Wingard, E. (1994). Lecture on organizational transformation. Carroll School of
Management, Boston College.
