CHAPTER 2
Pillar—Social Embeddedness
The farmer’s horse, on which he was dependent for his family’s livelihood, ran away. “Oh,” cried his neighbors, “you are ruined!”
“We’ll see,” said the farmer. “Who knows what fortune is?” A few days later, the family horse returned, bringing with it a wild horse.
“Congratulations,” said the neighbors. “Your fortune is assured!”
“We’ll see,” said the farmer. “Who knows what fortune is?” Not long after, during harvest time, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg when he was training the wild horse.
“Oh, woe,” said the neighbors. “Your harvest will rot in the fields!”
“We’ll see,” said the farmer. “Who knows what fortune is?” Not long after, the military came to the village to conscript all able-bodied young men. The farmer’s son was left behind because of his broken leg.
“Oh, you are a fortunate family,” said the neighbors. “We may never see our sons again!”
“We’ll see,” said the farmer. “Who knows what fortune is?”
This story, which appears in many forms in Eastern philosophies, illustrates a perspective that transcends short-term accounting principles. Philosophers struggled against mechanistic limitations in understanding the meaning of life. New Age philosophy developed in opposition to many materialist tenets. And sociology and anthropology have had to operate largely without being accepted as “true sciences” by proponents of classical mechanics. Many questions are left unanswered by a strictly mechanistic approach.
• Certainly there are individual differences, but it seems that there are vast areas of the world in which people simply explain things differently. Is this true? If so, how come?
• What is it about a system that makes it more than the sum of its parts?
• Although we complain when the weather report predicts sunshine and we get rain, predictions of overall weather patterns are quite surprisingly accurate. How can apparently random events show such regular patterns?
• How do complex systems manage change in a sustainable and “healthy” way?
• Quantum physics provides a new way of looking at the world, one that allows for the effects of an observer on physical events. Does this mean that we can think anything into existence?
Increasing globalization during the 20th century has shown that the question “Who are we?” is answered quite differently in Western and Eastern philosophies. As the global economy becomes more integrated, and now that the entire world can be viewed from space, traditional barriers that once separated East and West are breaking down. This is good news for coaching, which is a global enterprise. It also supports the shift to a less reductionistic, more holistic paradigm that takes context and community into account.
“Social embeddedness” is the phrase we use to describe a pillar linking ontology with a neuroscience platform that supports the future of coaching. Social embeddedness consists of these perspectives:
• Globalization
• Systems theory
• Quantum theory
• Social embeddedness as a coaching pillar
GLOBALIZATION
Asking “Who are we?” generates fierce debate because the question asks us to consider the nature of life itself. Many such questions cannot be answered definitively by science. For instance, we cannot raise some people without heredity and others without environment in order to compare the effects of nature and nurture. Science may try to approximate these experiments—for example, through twin studies and by comparing very large groupings of people across space and time. In practice, we answer these questions according to how the people around us behave and explain events. In Western society, particularly in North America, individualism reigns. In other societies, the idea that our individual “self” is part of the community is unquestioned. In both cases, the alternate explanation often simply disappears, like the air we breathe, because it is so pervasive. We do not question what we do not perceive.
It is true that neither individuals nor societies can be aware of everything. Each culture tends to focus on the assumptions that have best advanced its survival. It is not surprising that hunting and gathering societies, which rely on cooperation for survival, exalt reciprocity and respect for the natural world. In the harsh desert climate of the American Southwest, indigenous people who take a portion of a medicinal plant make a ritual offering in exchange. Reciprocity is reinforced constantly, with tales of woe befalling those who violate this sacred principle. It is no wonder that competitive exploitation of the environment seems foreign to such a culture.
While the “aware territory” of a culture is well explored, the “unaware territory” is overlooked, often until there is contact with a very different culture. At that point, what had been out of awareness is revealed, with the potential result of rich learning.
Richard Nisbett is a social psychologist at the University of Michigan who built his reputation studying how ordinary people think about the world. Nisbett described himself as a “lifelong universalist concerning the nature of thought” (2003, p. xiii). He assumed that what he found to be true about thinking applied to everyone everywhere, as implied by the title of his book, Human Inference (1985). For that reason, he was surprised when his new graduate student, a brilliant young man from China, said, “You know, the difference between you and me is that I think the world is a circle and you think it is a line” (Nisbett, 2003, p. xiii).
Nisbett was skeptical that there was such a difference. He had spent years studying principles that he and most other Westerners assumed were universal, such as the mechanistic principle of one-way causality. For example, a cause may create an effect, but the effect does not then create the cause, as would be expected in a circular world. But he was fascinated enough to investigate his graduate student’s claim.
Nisbett worked with colleagues in North America, China, Korea, and Japan to compare characteristics of Westerners and Asians. They found quite dramatic differences in how the two groups perceived the world, what they recognized as problems, how they solved those problems, and what they thought of themselves and the concept of “self” in general.
Nisbett reports the results of this research in The Geography of Thought: How Westerners and Asians Think Differently—and Why (2003). He recognizes that putting “Westerners” and “Asians” in separate groups ignores the considerable differences among subgroups and individuals. Furthermore, these are not the only two broad groupings that would be expected to show differences. But, Nisbett insists, “My research has led me to the conviction that two utterly different approaches to the world have maintained themselves for thousands of years” (p. xx). Previously, Nisbett the Westerner had been unaware of these differences, unaware of the territory revealed by listening more carefully to how “Asians” think. In telling us what he heard when he became more aware and began to listen differently, Nisbett provides an example of the creativity that is unleashed when previously unaware territories are brought into awareness.
Yiyuan Tang is a neuroscientist at Dalian Medical University in China and his government’s representative on the Human Brain Project. He is also a visiting professor in the Oregon laboratory of Dr. Michael Posner, one of the leading neuroscientists of our time. The two are working on several studies involving attention. Tang (2007) participated in the first Global NeuroLeadership Summit in 2007 in Asolo, Italy. He and other scientists presented research that had practical implications for business leaders and coaches.
In his presentation, Tang showed a slide of two photographs. One was of a jet plane flying over a mountain range. The other was of a tiger at the edge of a rain forest. He asked us, the audience, to look at the photographs and then to think about what it was that we were looking at. He explained that he shows these pictures to people in his laboratory, where he is able to observe where they focus their visual attention. What he found was a real eye-opener, so to speak.
“In general,” he said, “there is a difference between what Chinese people look at as compared to what North Americans or Europeans focus on. On average, Chinese subjects look more at the background—the mountains or the rain forest and stream. Westerners spend more time looking at the plane and the tiger.” That is, Asians spent more time looking at context. A greater emphasis on context is one element that Nisbett found characterized Asian as compared with Western approaches.
As an illustration, reread our description of Dr. Tang’s photographs. As Westerners, we labeled the photographs “a jet plane” and “a tiger,” with descriptions of mountain and forest as secondary. Would it be any less true to label those photographs “a mountain range with a jet plane flying over it” or “a stream in a rain forest with a tiger at the edge”? These two different perspectives are equally true. This realization is a small but important aspect of the shift from mechanistic to systemic worldview. Awareness of the validity of diverse perspectives is contributing to this shift.
According to Nisbett, Chinese philosophers value reason over linear logic. Western philosophers search for logical rules that maintain the truth of assertions. Chinese philosophers search for the reason things are as they are by observing an ever-changing environment in which all events are dialectically related to their opposites. Every happening implies its opposite, and that opposite holds the seeds of its opposite, in a circular fashion. This perspective is reinforced by stories like the tale of the old farmer that began this chapter, variations of which we have heard many times in our studies of Eastern philosophy.
The story goes on and on, with every happening portending its opposite. In this worldview, the meaning of any event or object can be understood only in relation to what else is going on, to what came before and what will come after. The ability to reason, to understand that true fortune has to do with recognizing the impermanence and connection of all things, is as important to Asian thought as linear logic is to Westerners.
As Eastern philosophy has become more familiar in the West, it has increasingly influenced philosophical, psychological, and even medical inquiry. In this chapter, we briefly explore Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Note that while some of these are considered religions, we explore only their philosophical bases.
Buddhism
Buddhism, like coaching, focuses on how we experience the world and, in particular, how we strive to improve our lives by choosing alternative ways of thinking and acting.
Buddhism began around 500 BCE when Siddhartha Gautama, also known as the Buddha, abandoned the life of a wealthy prince and devoted himself to meditation in order to understand the suffering of the world. He is said to have experienced “enlightenment” and developed a large group of followers in India, who then traveled throughout Asia to spread his teachings. Although there are hundreds of varieties of Buddhism, the basic principles include meditation and other rituals and practices, such as chanting, a specific code of conduct, and an overall philosophy about the world and the role of human beings in it.
Buddhism has influenced coaching in many areas. The concept of mindfulness is a central theme in coaching and is becoming an important element of neuroscience research. In The Mindful Coach, Douglas Silsbee (2004) defines mindfulness as “the state of awareness in which we are conscious of our feelings, thoughts, and habits of mind, and able to let unhelpful ones go so that they no longer limit us” (p. 27). Silsbee describes the profound influence of Buddhism on his work as a coach:
Buddhism has provided an integration of everything that I have learned in decades of focused personal growth and development work. No other framework I have run across provides the same lucidity in describing what I observe as I seek to live fully and intentionally, and to be as effective as I can be as a coach in helping others develop their own skills and capacities. (Silsbee, 2004, p. 29)
Buddhist principles have brought several concepts to coaching:
• Self-awareness
• Self-observation
• Heightened consciousness
• Not judging
• Letting go of attachments and aversions
• Honoring oneself and others
• Being connected to everything
Over the last decade, the Dalai Lama and many high-profile celebrities have contributed to a renewed interest in Buddhism (see Begley, 2007; Houshmand, Livingston, & Wallace, 1999). Daisaku Ikeda, the leader of a Japanese Buddhist layperson’s group, has published dialogues with intellectual leaders including Arnold Toynbee, Linus Pauling, Norman Cousins, Mikhail Gorbachov, and Majid Tehranian.
Coaching researcher Barbara Braham interviewed seven executive coaches, all of whom had been practicing vipassana meditation (from the Theravada Buddhist tradition) for 10 to 20 years. She found that “all of the vipassana practicing coaches stated that they felt the philosophy of the Dharma was completely aligned with the theory, practice and goals of executive coaching” (Braham, 2006, p. 2).
Hinduism
Hinduism originated in India, with roots that stretch back at least to 1500 BC. The “religion of a million and one gods,” Hinduism is a fusion of religions and ideologies. Like Buddhism, its aim is to help individuals achieve enlightenment and connect with “ultimate reality.” Hinduism believes that there are many paths to “the truth.”
Key ideas in Hinduism include:
• Bhakti: devotion
• Dharma: doing what is right
• Yoga: discipline
• Karma: the consequences of the choices we make
• Samsara: reincarnation
• Moksha: salvation
• Jnana: knowledge
Hinduism advocates nonviolence, truthfulness, friendship, compassion, fortitude, self-control, purity, and generosity. While sharing many values with Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies, Hinduism also promotes idol worship and reincarnation. In Hinduism, the soul follows a cycle of birth and death until it attains moksha, which is determined by one’s karma, or past actions.
Some of the people influenced by Hinduism include the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau, whose philosophy of transcendentalism is based partly on Hinduism. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., were influenced by Hinduism. The beat poets and the Beatles, who influenced the beat generation of the 1950s and the social movements of the 1960s, based much of their thinking on Hindu philosophy. Hinduism’s influence on the modern psyche can be traced through New Age music, poetry, and art, as well as philosophy and wellness theory. It remains an active religion, with an estimated 650 million followers, not far behind the Catholic Church with 840 million.
Many aspects of Hinduism relate to coaching. Here we will focus on two:
1. Generosity. Coaches should take a generous approach with clients, focusing on what they are doing right and acknowledging their efforts. The generous coach notices how the client is learning, growing, and changing and reflects these observations back to the client in an encouraging manner.
2. Yoga. This practice emphasizes the importance of the mind-body connection, of mindfulness, of being grounded and connected to others, and of being compassionate toward them. The yogic greeting, namaste (pronounced “nah-mah-stay”) means “I honor the person within you,” an appropriate stance for any coach.
Taoism
Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism, lived in China during the sixth century BC. As with Buddhism, the goal of Taoism is to help people live happier, healthier lives by understanding the true nature of the world.
Loosely translated, tao means “the path” or “the way.” Lao Tzu taught that human beings and their activities are blights on the otherwise perfect order of life. Believing that all striving is counterproductive, he counseled people to reject human pursuits. Instead, he urged them to move with the shape and flow of events. Although this attitude may seem to be at odds with coaching that focuses on performance and results, it does underline the importance of becoming aware of what we have control over rather than railing against what we do not.
Taoist philosophy includes physical exercises using the breath, called chi quong; mental exercise using meditation and contemplation; and the study of poetry to build greater awareness. Taoist philosophy gave us the yin-yang symbol, which represents the balance of opposites in the universe. This symbol is basic to the Chinese martial art of tai chi, a moving meditation, where the emphasis is on going with the flow of energy in any conflict.
Coaches can learn from the Taoist emphasis on spontaneity, self-transformation, balance, and compassion.
Many individuals hire a coach because they want a confidential sounding board, someone to whom they can be accountable as they establish and complete small action steps toward achieving their ultimate goal. Based on Taoist aphorisms, scholar Deng (1992) emphasizes the importance of a relationship such as this, even for experts or people at the top of their field, recognizing that no one can be right all the time: “That is why we need a parent for a parent, a master for a master, and leaders for the leaders. This prevents errors of power. In the past, even kings had wise advisers. Every person who would be a leader should have such assistance” (p. 28).
Deng also emphasizes treating every experience as a process of exploration. “For those who follow the Tao, travel is every bit important as the destination. One step after another: That is so central to the wisdom of Tao. . . . Reduce your problems into smaller, more manageable packages, and you can make measurable progress toward achievement” (Deng, 1992, p. 295).
Rick Carson, present-day coach and author of Taming Your Gremlin (1986) states, “Over 2,500 years ago Lao Tzu brushed with picture symbols the Tao Te Ching, which included this wisdom: Simply notice the natural order of things. Work with it rather than against it. For to try to change what is only sets up resistance” (p. 10).
The observations of the Tao are surprisingly consistent with discoveries of neuroscience and brain plasticity that also support coaching. Especially noteworthy are the notions of moving attention away from the “problem,” which only breeds “resistance,” and focusing instead on resources, strengths, and competencies to achieve desired change (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999).
Confucianism
Confucianism is based on the teachings of Confucius, the Chinese philosopher who lived from 551 to 479 BC. Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, and religious ideas that continue to exert a major influence on Chinese thinking. In many parts of Asia today, elements of Confucianism are blended with Taoism and Buddhism to form a set of coexistent and almost secular religious traditions. In some ways, Confucianism can be seen as a set of ethical guidelines for living rather than a philosophy about the nature of existence itself.
Confucian ideas are based on these values:
• Jen: benevolence; the highest virtue
• Yi: righteousness
• Li: etiquette and ritual
• Xin: honesty and trustworthiness
• Hsiao: love, generally within the family unit
• Chung: loyalty to the state
Several Confucian values apply to coaching, including benevolence, honesty, and trustworthiness. And many coaches use ritual (such as closing one’s eyes and relaxing, taking a deep breath, or arranging the phone and coaching chair) to prepare themselves for a client session. The coaching principle of accountability can be related to the Confucian emphasis on self-discipline that promotes harmonious social life.
Linking Eastern Philosophy and Coaching
Elements common to most Eastern philosophies are the desire to understand ourselves as individuals and as participants in society and the desire to become more self-aware, more “conscious” of who we are and how we impact the world around us.
Coaching shares with Eastern philosophy an interest in deepening awareness and contemplation. While Eastern philosophies recommend specific practices, coaching uses many different methods to help clients become more “self-aware.” The ideas of “self-actualization,” popularized by humanists in the 1960s, were heavily influenced by Eastern philosophies.
Although Eastern philosophies and coaching diverge regarding moral codes and specific spiritual beliefs, neuroscience research provides increasing evidence that mindfulness practices yield benefits for coaches and their clients. Chapter 3 examines the neurobiology of consciousness and the ability of “mindful meditation” to improve brain function. So that we do not think of “mind” in “mindfulness” as a reversion to a dualistic separation of thinking and feeling, or of mind and body, Jon Kabat-Zinn (2005) points out that in all Asian languages, the word that is translated into English as “mind” could also be translated as “heart.” That is, in accepting the influence of globalization, we could just as well speak of “heartfulness meditation.”
SYSTEMS THEORY
Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) was a biologist who was born and studied in Austria and then moved to North America. Although he is barely known outside scientific circles, his work on General System Theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) provided a cross-disciplinary model that has been applied beyond biology to ecology, cybernetics, education, history, philosophy, psychotherapy, psychology, sociology, and neuroscience—nearly every field mentioned in this book. His theory is one among many that resulted from focusing on context and relationships among elements rather than on the individual elements themselves.
A system is simply “anything that is not chaos” or “any structure that exhibits order and pattern” (Boulding, 1985, p. 9). Generally, a system is defined as a set of elements and the relationships between those elements (Weinberg, 1975). More technically, a system is an “organized whole made up of components that interact in a way distinct from their interaction with other entities and which endures over some period of time” (Schriver, 1995, p. 51).
There are many types of systems, often grouped into physical, biological, or social systems. Systems can be mechanical, reproductive, ecological, evolutionary, or human. One can even think of the world as composed of physical, biological, social, economic, political, communication, and evaluative systems (Boulding, 1985).
Von Bertalanffy questioned reductionism as early as the 1920s, preferring holism and organismic approaches. If a system includes its elements—molecules, matter, thoughts, people, actions—and their relationships, holism means that the elements cannot be understood without reference to their relationships with one another, just as understanding the relationships requires taking into account the properties of the elements that are in relationship.
Over time, systems develop (they are dynamic). That is, both the elements and the relationships change, and they do so through a process of mutual influence and influence from outside the system. Yet if the system remains a coherent system, it is the “same” system. After enough generations, none of the students, professors, or staff (elements) who were at a university during a student’s tenure will still remain, but it is still considered the same university. The university may have gotten rid of some departments, instituted coeducation, or changed dormitory rules (relationships), but it is still in some sense the same system.
Different types of systems stay the same in different ways. Physical systems, such as our bodies, maintain a balance through homeostasis, or instituting balancing mechanisms to keep our temperature or our need for nourishment within optimal limits. Our bodies cannot operate for long outside these limits without risking permanent injury or death. But some systems are able to reconstruct themselves quite thoroughly despite being thrown into chaos. They do so by a process of dynamic stability, a term that has been applied to processes of neuroplasticity by neuropsychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz. The rest of this section explains and illustrates this concept. Part of chapter 3: Neuroscience Platform applies dynamic stability concepts to the search for human health and wellness.
Von Bertalanffy’s emphasis on organisms as opposed to mechanisms yielded his proposal of open systems. Newtonian theory did not ignore systems. After all, a steam engine must take into account the relationships of its parts. But the underlying model assumed the system was closed and could not renew its source of energy without outside intervention. Ultimately, the engine will run out of steam. In a very simple form, this is called entropy, and according to what scientists formulated as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy increases. That is why the search for perpetual motion machines is doomed. If we think big and assume the universe is a closed system, eventually it will wind down and no longer have the energy to keep its elements in relationship. It will cease to exist as a system.
Von Bertalanffy was not satisfied with applying the assumption of a closed system to organisms. He claimed:
The conventional [mechanistic] formulations of physics are, in principle, inapplicable to the living organism, being an open system having a steady state. We may well suspect that many characteristics of living systems which are paradoxical in view of the laws of physics are a consequence of this fact. (von Bertalanffy, 1968, pp. 39-40)
As we shall see, the “laws of physics” that von Bertalanffy is referring to are those of Newtonian mechanics. The characteristics of human systems do not yield paradoxes when viewed from the perspective of contemporary quantum mechanics.
In preparation for this discussion, we reveal some exciting and surprising findings about the way that complex systems develop, evolve, and interact. These findings can be very useful for coaching individuals, who themselves are complex systems, as well as for understanding how clients interact with other complex systems, such as personal or work groups or organizations. The ability to think in systems terms is considered a necessary discipline for organizational leaders (Senge, 1990).
We are applying the term “systems theory” to a wide range of models across disparate fields, from mathematics, to engineering, to biology, to family therapy, to neuroscience. To explain these ideas and understand their relevance to coaching, we must convey some technical information at a high level of generality. The ideas we explore come from chaos theory and complexity theory.
Chaos Theory
Chaos theory is a multidisciplinary field that has its roots in the sciences, particularly in physics and mathematics. In a sense, the name of the field is paradoxical because investigators are not ultimately looking for disorder, as is commonly associated with the word “chaos,” but for the order that underlies what may seem to be unpredictable, disorderly systems.
HISTORICAL INTERLUDE
The first known exploration of chaos occurred in 19th-century France, when mathematics professor Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) described chaotic behavior in the interaction of the planets in the solar system.
George David Birkhoff (1884-1944) continued Poincaré’s work in the United States, and discovered the first “strange attractor” in 1916 (published 1932), although his work remained mostly unknown (Kellert, 1993). Strange attractors are points in a chaotic system around which elements form to produce stable patterns. Margaret Wheatley (1992) refers to strange attractors as “the order inherent in chaos” and “a basin of attraction” (p. 122). The concept of a strange attractor is a metaphor for seemingly natural forces that impose a semblance of order on a loosely controlled system, such as the “invisible hand,” an economic concept that is posited to account for the appearance of order in the marketplace.
In short, strange attractors can be thought of as patterns that indicate the evolution of a system, ones that we can visualize almost like a fingerprint. Strange attractors show us that even the “most chaotic of systems never goes beyond certain boundaries; it stays contained within a shape that we can recognize as the system’s strange attractor” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 21).
If we stand on a high balcony overlooking a crowded railway station, for example, the individuals below look like they are moving around in random ways. But watching more carefully, we see patterns in this seemingly chaotic behavior. People are bunched together around a screen that tells whether trains are delayed. There is a line where tickets are sold and another at the snack bar. Someone giving away free samples has attracted another crowd. By observing these patterns, we can predict the overall behavior of crowds, whether they are made up of people or fish or birds or water molecules or microscopic cells. Computing technology has contributed to our ability to make these predictions.
According to Stephen Kellert (1993), formal chaos theory did not begin to develop until the early 1960s, when Benoit Mandelbrot discovered fractals, an example of strange attractors, while working at IBM. A fractal is a complicated pattern, with the same theme repeated infinitely from smallest to largest magnification. A fractal is produced when, for example, a computer applies a certain relatively simple equation to the results of that same equation and does this over and over (iteration). Mandelbrot’s discovery of how simple inputs can produce immensely complicated outputs and the recognition of this process in nature eventually caught the attention of the scholarly world. The history below draws from James Gleick (1987).
In 1961, Edward Lorenz was researching weather systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was one of the first scientists to have his own computer, and he used it to create and test a simple weather model. It would print out data showing air cycling clockwise, then counterclockwise, then clockwise again, changing at apparently random intervals. One day he wanted to rerun a test starting from the middle instead of the beginning. But the results were startling:
This new run should have exactly duplicated the old. Lorenz had copied the numbers into the machine himself. . . . Yet as he stared at the new printout, Lorenz saw his weather diverging so rapidly from the pattern of the last run that, within just a few months, all resemblance had disappeared. (Gleick, 1987, p. 16).
Lorenz checked his numbers and made sure the program had not changed. What had happened to create such a different result? Then he realized that the computer stored six decimal places, but the printout showed only three. And it was the printout that Lorenz had used to copy the numbers for the new run. There was a difference of only 1 part in 1,000. But such a small difference in input made a big difference in the eventual output. He had expected a very orderly repetition of the pattern he had seen before. Instead, he got chaos.
Lorenz had discovered that the principle of nonlinearity, as shown by Mandelbrot for the computer iteration of mathematical equations, also applied to natural phenomena. In dynamic, or ever-developing (one might say ever-iterating) systems, small changes in inputs, magnified by system feedback, resulted in huge changes in outputs over time. This is the nonlinearity principle. Lorenz asked himself, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” He called this the butterfly effect. Lorenz’s discovery shows that nonlinearity is a characteristic of systems we are familiar with every day.
Lorenz determined that long-term weather forecasting or any long-term prediction of a dynamic nonlinear system was impossible because of the magnified effects of small changes in input. In 1963 his results were published in his now-famous paper “Deterministic Aperiodic Flow,” which appeared in the Journal of Atmospheric Science. The meteorologists did not understand it, and physicists and mathematicians do not read meteorology journals. Lorenz’s discovery went unnoticed for a decade.
Chaos theory gained traction in 1976, after Michael Feigenbaum (1978) discovered “universality” while at Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico. He found that very different chaotic (nonlinear dynamic) systems exhibited the same quantitative features. At this point, other researchers began to take notice and were soon able to use computers to explore and build on the earlier findings of Poincaré, Birkhoff, Mandelbrot, and Lorenz. Chaos theory quickly developed into its own interdisciplinary field.
In 1987 James Gleick’s book Chaos: Making a New Science brought chaos theory to the general public. Before examining the links be tween chaos theory and coaching, including a number of models that can be directly applied to coaching, we explore some of the basic principles of chaos theory.
Chaos theory refers to the many systems that cannot be predicted—that is, they are nonlinear and dynamic. For example, the effects of the weather cannot be predicted in the same way that the behavior of a mechanical device such as a power saw can be. The so-called butterfly effect is one reason for this unpredictability. Although chaos implies randomness to many of us, the fascination with chaos theory is that it reveals an orderly system hidden behind what appears to be random. As John Briggs and David Peat (1999) put it, there is a “hidden order within the chaos” (p. 5). Chaos theory “focuses on hidden patterns . . . and the ‘rules’ for how the unpredictable leads to the new.” It is “an attempt to understand the movements that create . . . complex patterns of all sorts” (p. 2).
For example, the “rule” of nonlinearity means that a very small change in input may produce an unpredictably large change in the system’s behavior—butterfly flap to hurricane.
According to Garnett Williams (1997), chaos theory “deals with long-term evolution” (p. 7). That is, it focuses on how a system behaves over the long run, as there must be enough iterations in order to discern patterns. Gleick (1987) credits scientist Joseph Ford with the description of evolution as “chaos with feedback” (p. 314). For example, random (chaotic) genetic mutations create differences in a population of birds. Some of those differences are better adapted to the environment. The feedback mechanism is that individuals with ill-adaptive differences do not survive to pass their genes to the next generations. With many iterations, over time, changes accumulate and appear to “spread” to the whole population. As a result of chaos with feedback, we see bright red cardinals, which are very different from black crows or, indeed, from penguins.
When scientists talk about chaos theory, they are talking about systems. As we indicated, a system is made up of parts or elements and their relationships. An open system receives external inputs and produces outputs and exists over time. The output from this moment may be input, or feedback, for the next moment. In chaos theory, the systems studied may be simple or complex, but they share three properties: they are nonlinear, dynamic, and deterministic.
NONLINEAR SYSTEMS As we have pointed out, nonlinearity means that a small change in the initial conditions (input) may result in a disproportionately large change in the result (output). That is the principle behind the butterfly effect. Similarly, a large change in input may result in almost no change, as corporations that have spent millions on change initiatives can often attest. It may be helpful to think of linearity first in the mathematical sense: Draw a straight line and put your finger on a point on the line. If you move your finger along the line, the movement in the horizontal x direction is proportional to the movement in the vertical y direction. This is linear behavior, as the change in input (x) is proportional to the change in output ( y). Nonlinear behavior occurs when the change in input results in an output change that is not proportional.
DYNAMIC SYSTEMS A dynamic system is one that moves or changes or evolves over time. If its elements and their relationships do not stay the same, the system is dynamic. Not surprisingly, most natural systems are dynamic. This is often painfully true for organizations. All dynamic systems face twin challenges: If their elements and relationships are too inflexible, they risk being unable to adapt to changing circumstances. If, however, they are so ill defined or lacking in energy as to lose coherence or identity, the system ceases to exist as a system. Profit is what enables a business (system) to cohere. When it is no longer profitable, the business loses its identity and declares bankruptcy.
Example: “Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions”
If you place a marble at the top of a bowling ball and let it go, it will roll down in a particular direction. If you try to do the same thing again, the marble will almost surely roll down in a different direction, because you probably will place the marble in a spot very close to, but not exactly the same as, the spot where you put it the first time. A very small change in your placement of the marble results in a very large change in where the marble goes. This nonlinear behavior is also called sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
It turns out that many naturally occurring systems have this property, including a coaching engagement. This is one reason why a seasoned coach pays particular attention to the initial interview with a client and clarifies the conditions for a successful relationship up front. It is also why coaching cannot be conducted by formula, in a cookbook fashion.
DETERMINISTIC SYSTEMS A deterministic system is ruled by cause and effect, but with an important difference from mechanistic determinism, where causality moves in only one direction. The behavior of a deterministic system appears random but is not. Its future state depends on its present state, inputs, and the rules for inputting those variables. One of the rules is that output from one time step may be input for the next step, modeling feedback within the system. Effects now become causes in the future. Causality thus becomes circular.
One of the surprises in chaos theory is that there are more deterministic systems than originally thought. Behavior that scientists once attributed to noise, error, or randomness often results from the interaction of simple principles that can be observed or determined. Chaos theory has disproved long-held, fundamental beliefs: Simple systems behave in simple ways; complex behavior implies complex causes; and different types of systems behave differently (Gleick, 1987).
Chaos theory has contributed to our understanding of systems behavior in numerous ways by letting us understand old events in new ways and by showing us that what appears to be random may not be. As Williams (1997) explains, “Chaos theory shows that such behavior can be attributable to the nonlinear nature of the system rather than to other causes” (p. 15). In addition, “studying chaos has revealed circumstances under which we might want to avoid chaos, . . . stabilize or control it, encourage or enhance it, or even exploit it” (p. 17).
As Wheatley (1992) observes, chaos theory has resulted in
a new appreciation of the relationship between order and chaos. These two forces are now understood as mirror images, one containing the other, a continual process where a system can leap into chaos and unpredictability, yet within that state be held within parameters that are well-ordered and predictable. (p. 11)
Complexity Theory
Complexity theory evolved over the last two decades in response to chaos theory. Chaos emphasizes the underlying order of nonlinear dynamic systems whose behavior is deterministic but unpredictable over the long run because of circular causality. These principles apply in general to people and societies just as they do to rain clouds and fractal equations. Complexity theory emphasizes the criteria for orderly change and sustainability in nonlinear dynamic systems that have the additional characteristic of being self-organizing. Such systems have a capacity for emergence, or results that could not have been predicted from knowing the present state of elements and their relationships, inputs, and the rules for inputting those variables.
Human beings are examples of such systems. We could program a computer with the present state of a person, add in all his or her considerations regarding taking a next action, and prescribe rules for how those choices are made, just as with a fractal equation. Over time, the computer’s predictions about that person’s behavior often might be correct. But there would also be a chance that the person would do something entirely unexpected, unpredicted, not determined—emergent. This is the property that enables coaching clients, leaders, and organizations to take truly innovative leaps.
In his 1988 book, The Dreams of Reason, Rockefeller University professor Heinz Pagels stated, “I am convinced that the nations and people who master the new science of Complexity will become the economic, cultural, and political superpowers of the next century” (p. 10).
Next we add to our definitions of systems and chaos the definition of complex systems, and then discuss complexity in general.
Georges Anderla, Anthony Dunning, and Simon Forge (1997) define complex systems as “networks of myriads of independent agents interacting with each other, without any central control, in a multitude of ways” (p. 210). Our immune system, ecosystems, families, and work-places all fit this definition. Complexity theory attempts to “understand the often unpredictable but self-organizing nature of complex clusters of entities functioning as a system” (Siegel, 1999, p. 7). Of great relevance to this book, the brain is a complex system and a subsystem of a larger, emergent complex system consisting of brain, mind, and social relationships. Chapter 3 builds on the elements of complexity theory to explain that larger system of which the brain is an element.
Anderla and colleagues explain the essence of complexity theory as applying to situations of chaos plus. That is, at first, complexity reveals itself as general trends and behavior with observable patterns over time. We see this when observing neurons in the brain, an ant colony, the market economy, a neighborhood, or a couple married with children. As with chaos theory, the elements that make up each are produced by their mutual interactions across different levels, space, and time.
However, in a complex system, each element is an active agent, or influencer, as well as a passive recipient of influences. Any coherence that we see or think we see in the system is “due solely to the competition and/or cooperation among the agents. Such self-organizing systems are often highly adaptive. They can also be stratified into levels of increasing complexity, with agents at one level serving as building-blocks for those at a higher level” (Anderla et al., 1997, p. 211). That our cells and immune system are said to have a kind of active “intelligence” is recognition that they are agents serving as building blocks for our bodies.
As with “chaos,” the use of the word “complexity” can cause some confusion. Peter Senge (1999) points out that we are not interested in complexity as in the intricate details of something, which we might better describe as “complicated.” We are interested in what he calls dynamic complexity, the complexity of a system’s behavior over time. The first two principles of complexity theory, nonlinearity and dynamic, are ones we are already familiar with. The third, nondeterministic, is in contrast to chaotic systems and relates to the characteristic of emergence.
NONLINEAR SYSTEMS Nonlinearity, a concept introduced in the “Chaos Theory” section, also applies to complex systems, but with some additional considerations. Regarding the human brain, Siegel (1999) explains that “small changes in the microcomponents of the system can lead to large changes in the macro-behavior of the organism” (p. 220).
The moment when a small change precipitates a large effect is called a tipping point. For example, if you begin with warm water and slowly cool it, you will not see any significant change until, suddenly, it freezes. It has reached a tipping point.
While systems can tip into chaos without warning, psychiatrist John Ratey (2003) points out an advantage: The direction of the surprising tip can be positive rather than negative.
Critics sometimes claim that “ordinary” measures like exercise and diet may be too simplistic to affect unordinary behavior. Not so. [Complexity theory shows] how powerful universal factors can be in affecting the brain-body system. . . . Small and seemingly inconsequential action may lead to successful treatment of a disorder. (pp. 357-358)
As discussed earlier, any response (output) that itself becomes input is feedback. Feedback accounts for nonlinearity in systems but takes on special meaning in a system where the elements are agents with goals. Each element in such a system takes the feedback in as input and uses this information to adjust its behavior. As Williams (1997) eloquently explains, “Feedback is that part of the past that influences the present, or that part of the present that influences the future” (p. 12). For Joe Schriver (1995), feedback is “information received by systems about the progress toward goals and the system’s response to that information” (p. 62).
Example: “An Ordinary Walk”
Despite his depression, Joel followed his therapist’s advice and took a walk. The next day he took another, and then another. Soon he found himself jogging. He realized he felt better and had more energy. When his neighbor mentioned a job opportunity, he decided to try for it. He started going out with colleagues after work and began to make friends. “The man’s extraordinary metamorphosis began with an ordinary walk. There are many tools right at our fingertips for changing our mental health, both in correcting our problems and simply becoming the kind of person we want to be” (Ratey, 2003, p. 358). This is an example of how, in coaching, a small change in thinking can create substantial change in a person’s life.
We are all familiar with the terms “positive” and “negative” feedback. In regard to feedback, these terms do not refer to whether feedback is nice; they refer to the effect of the feedback. Positive feedback results in more of the same behavior, and negative feedback results in less. In systems terms, “positive feedback amplifies or accelerates the output. It causes an event to be magnified over time. Negative feedback dampens or inhibits output, or causes an event to die away over time” (Williams, 1997, p. 12).
DYNAMIC SYSTEMS A dynamic system is one that must continually adapt or adjust to its context. The concept of an open system was introduced at the beginning of this chapter. A closed system changes only according to its internal conditions. When running experiments, scientists try to create closed systems that are self-contained and not influenced by any “variables” outside of the experiment itself. This isolation allows scientists to reproduce results and understand basic scientific laws, but it is not a situation that represents the real world. Even in the laboratory, as Gerald Weinberg (1975) points out, and despite scientists’ best efforts, they may still see unexpected “randomness” in their experiments. There is no way for them to tell if the randomness is inside the system or is getting in through “leaks” or unintended openness between the outside world and the system.
By contrast, open systems “engage with their environment and continue to grow and evolve” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 77). The boundary between the system and its environment is not a barrier but more like a border crossing that allows some things to pass in or out. The more easily things can pass through, the more open the border and the system. This crossing of the border can be an energy exchange, feedback, or communication. An organism may import energy resources and output waste products. An organization may import staff or corporate culture or raw materials and output products or services for sale.
There is a relationship between a system’s openness and its need to maintain a healthy balance between too much and too little change. According to Ervin László (1972), “Openness refers to the import-export activities of the system, which it needs to ‘stay in the same place,’ that is, to maintain its own dynamic steady-state” (p. 37). Naturally occurring complex systems tend to exist in a steady state; they are not frozen in a particular form but undergoing a dynamic cycle of change that is stable over time. László explains that the particular configuration of parts and their relationships
maintained in a self-maintaining and repairing system is called a “steady-state.” It is a state in which energies are continually used to maintain the relationship of the parts and keep them from collapsing in decay. This is a dynamic state, not a dead and inert one. (p. 37)
This state is what we refer to as dynamic stability.
Complex systems can be stable over a long period of time despite considerable changes that occur within them. As Wheatley (1992) says: “The system allows for many levels of autonomy within itself, and for small fluctuations and changes. By tolerating these, it is able to preserve its global stability and integrity in the environment” (p. 95).
As the system responds to the environment and seeks to maintain a steady state, it may reconfigure itself internally. Social scientist Joe Schriver (1995) refers to this as the redistribution of power, where “power” is defined as the ability to influence progress toward goals. As a power conflict develops within a system, an effective system “self-rights” by making adjustments to reduce conflict and get back to a balanced state. Sometimes, however, the adjustments are resisted.
Relationship therapist Harriet Lerner (1989) calls this a “change-back” reaction. She “inoculates” clients who are making changes in their relationship behavior by letting them know that their partners may pressure them to change back to their old ways in order to reestablish a balance that is at least familiar. This concept is important to consider in coaching. When a client is changing behavior, he or she can expect that some forces in the system will resist this change. Normalizing this resistance for clients and supporting them through it is an important role for the coach.
The nonlinear and dynamic characteristics of complex systems are variations on chaos principles of nonlinearity and dynamic. The next, emergence, is different from chaos’s deterministic principle. Emergence is closely related to the fourth principle of complexity, self-organization, and is important to the fifth, co-evolution.
EMERGENT SYSTEMS Emergence is one of the most fascinating aspects of complex systems. A system as a whole may have properties that do not exist in their parts nor could they be predicted from knowing determinants of elements, their relationships, inputs, and rules for inputting. These properties of complex systems are described as “emergent” based on the idea that “properties will ‘emerge’ when we put together more and more complex systems” (Weinberg, 1975, p. 60). Examples of emergence include consciousness arising from the aggregate behavior of neurons, the global stability of ecosystems, and the “invisible hand” of economics, which arises from the behavior of companies, consumers, and markets.
SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS Emergence is possible because agents in complex systems effectively organize themselves rather than being controlled by some central authority. An example is our immune system, which consists of agents throughout our body that identify, communicate about, and respond to threats to our physical dynamic stability.
The discovery of self-organizing behavior seems to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that systems tend toward disorder, or entropy. Self-organization is defined as “matter’s incessant attempts to organize itself into ever more complex structures despite the ever-present forces of decay and dissolution” (Anderla et al., 1997, p. 34). A self-organizing system can readily respond to its environment, adapting if possible. According to complexity theorists, this adaptation generally leads to increased complexity in the system.
John Holland, an expert in self-organization and emergence and professor in the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Complex Systems, identified in 1998 these self-organizing characteristics:
• Tagging—recognizing, naming, or labeling entities. Examples include pricing, job titles, and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign cells.
• Internal models—simplified representations of the environment. There is some disagreement among experts about whether these models are implicit (embedded in the system) or explicit.
• Building blocks—components that can be recombined to make new components (e.g., the four proteins of DNA).
CO-EVOLVING SYSTEMS Open systems not only adapt to the environment, they also influence the environment by importing and exporting across the system boundary. The environment is changed as a result, and so it also evolves over time as the systems within it evolve. For example, Wheatley (1992) cites James Lovelock’s “Daisyland” model, which showed that daisies help to regulate Earth’s temperature. This concept is called co-evolution. “In this view of evolution, the system changes, the environment changes, and, some scientists argue, even the rules of evolution change” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 97).
As a more recent example, Apple produced the iPod, which has profoundly impacted both consumers’ music purchasing and listening behavior as well as other companies’ product offerings. “Organizations and their environments are evolving simultaneously toward better fitness for each other” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 98).
SELF-REFERENCE SYSTEMS Closely tied to the concept of evolution as a property of complex systems is the idea of self-reference, meaning that complex systems evolve in ways that are consistent with their current form. Wheatley (1992) explains: “The presence of this guiding rule allows for both creativity and boundaries, for evolution and coherence, for determinism and free will” (p. 135). Human consciousness is an important aid to self-reference. When members of an organization or team commit to a vision or mission as defining who they are as a group, they set boundaries within which their problem-solving can be operate freely.
Self-reference is a sort of strange attractor (a concept from chaos theory), a pattern that makes change more orderly in the face of turbulence. “Instead of whirling off in different directions, each part of the system must remain consistent with itself and with all other parts of the system as it changes” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 146). An exception to the principle of self-reference is Prigogine’s (1996) discovery of dissipative systems, which can re-create themselves to a significant degree when faced with extreme environmental disturbances.
Linking Systems Theory and Coaching
Coaching is not an analytical practice that seeks to understand people by examining their individual parts in a reductionist process. Instead, coaches observe people as systems that are part of and that are trying to influence other systems. In coaching, as in systems theory, we are concerned with the evolution of behaviors and activities over time and the use of feedback in that process.
Coaches look for patterns in order to understand events and behavior. In chaos theory, unlike other fields of science, “patterns are substitutes for laws.” Coaching is about “finding patterns in observed data, patterns that give insight and meaning” (Anderla et al., 1997, p. 45). As coaches, we may see a pattern in a small setting, such as an individual coaching session, and suspect that what we have witnessed could be representative of behavior happening more generally, like a fractal that repeats itself in small as well as large magnification.
An analogy may help explain this principle, called “self-similarity,” and its relationship to coaching: If we remove a section of a regular photographic negative and then shine light through the portion we have cut out, we see only that portion of the original image. A holographic “negative” is different. Shining a laser through a small portion of a holographic image yields the full holograph, but in less detail. That is, every portion of a holograph, and every portion of a nonlinear dynamic system, yields information about the whole. In coaching, a client’s behavior in a session may reflect patterns that hold true at work.
In Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Timeless Wisdom from the Science of Change, Briggs and Peat (1999) view chaos theory as a metaphor for life, with our world as one big system. They evoke the image of a mountain stream that is continually changing but remains stable as a whole and is interconnected with the natural world of which it is a part.
Similarly, each of us as an individual is inter-connected to the systems of nature, society, and thought that surround and flow through us. We live within movements constantly affecting each other and creating an unpredictable chaos at many levels. Yet within this same chaos is born all the physical and psychological order that we know. (p. 4)
The main thesis of the Briggs and Peat book is that chaos theory teaches us, just as it teaches scientists, to question our long-held assumptions. It encourages us to look at our lives and the world in new ways. Next is a high-level summary of the seven ways Briggs and Peat (1999) suggest for doing this, with the addition of a few supporting comments from Wheatley (1992):
1. Approach life with creativity, not control. “Making a pact with chaos gives us the possibility of living not as controllers of nature but as creative participators” (p. 8). The butterfly effect shows us how much we cannot know or control. Briggs and Peat encourage us to flow like the stream, to awake each morning “open to the possibility that we can make our lives afresh” (p. 10) and to be open to the subtlety and nuances around us.
2. One individual, or subtle influence, can make a difference. The butterfly effect and Mahatma Gandhi show us this. “We can never be sure how important our own individual contribution will be. . . . The best we can do is act with truth, sincerity, and sensitivity, remembering that it is never one person who brings about change but the feedback of change within the entire system” (p. 51). Along these same lines, Wheatley (1992) observes that, when it comes to seemingly small acts, “the world is far more sensitive than we had ever thought” (p. 127).
3. Self-organized communities can be powerful. Communities can go with the flow and spontaneously respond to chaos in a self-organizing and collectively creative way without a lot of formal structure. The World Wide Web is an example of this. In facilitating groups, one of us (Linda) developed a rule of thumb: “When in doubt, trust the group.” She has never been disappointed with the results of applying this rule.
4. Simplicity and complexity are two sides of a coin. Chaos theory shows us that what seems complex may have simple causes and that simple patterns can be found amidst chaos. We are capable of finding order beyond the chaos. “Our brains have evolved to spot the patterns within complex and ever-changing situations, while at the same time uncovering the nuances within these patterns” (p. 97).
5. Be open to seeing the art of the world. We are surrounded by nature’s patterns (fractals), which are beautiful and energizing. Compare this to the often mechanical and constricting patterns that we create for ourselves (schedules, subdivisions, and streets).
6. Time is fractal and elastic. We feel constrained by a lack of time, but many different meditative practices demonstrate the immense satisfaction that comes from relaxed absorption in the moment. Time passes quickly when we are engaged and slowly when we are bored. Despite this, we often fill our time with activities that are not challenging enough to create that optimal condition.
7. We are part of a whole. We operate holistically, on biological, individual, and societal levels. Wheatley (1992) believes that by studying the universe in pieces rather than holistically, we create uncertainty.
Briggs and Peat’s list is by no means exhaustive, and other sources describe additional life lessons (see Boulding, 1985; László, 1972; Lewin, 1992; Prigogine, 1996). Wheatley (1992) offers an eloquent idea tied to “meaning” as a strange attractor:
By the end of our lifetime, we are able to discern our individual basins of attraction. What has been the shape of our life? What has made seemingly random events now appear purposeful? What has made “chance” meetings fit smoothly into the movements of our lives? We discover that we have been influenced by a meaning that is wholly and uniquely our own. We experience a deeper knowledge of the purpose that structured all of our activities, many times invisibly and without our awareness. Whether we believe that we create this meaning in a retrospective attempt to make sense of our lives, or that we discover meaning as the preexistent creation of a purposeful universe, it is, at the end, only meaning that we seek. Nothing else is attractive, nothing else has the power to cohere an entire lifetime of activity. (p. 137)
Ian Stewart (1989) concludes his book Does God Play Dice?: The Mathematics of Chaos with a similar observation: “What controls the relationship of equation to solution, of model to behavior, is not form, but meaning” (p. 301). Viktor Frankl’s (1984) work, as discussed in chapter 1, strongly supports the observations of Wheatley and Stewart.
Attractors may be thought of as values, not espoused values, but the actual guiding principles that result in the “typical behavior” of a system. Although we know that systems may be dynamic and chaotic—that they change and sometimes behave in surprising ways—attractors (values) create relatively stable and recognizable patterns. In a coaching context, attractors could be clients’ values, attitudes, beliefs, strengths, and unconscious perceptions that underlie their thoughts and decision-making processes. Understanding attractors within a system and raising awareness of them help clients understand and perhaps change their patterns.
Tools for working with values as attractors include:
• Seligman’s VIA Strengths Inventory (University of Pennsylvania, 2008b): values exercises
• Cognitive-behavior therapy exercises around exploring beliefs
• Personality profile assessments (e.g., Myers et al., 1998)
• Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) preferences (see chapter 3 in American College of Sports Medicine, 2006)
• The “Discovery” phase of Appreciative Inquiry (Orem, Binkert, & Clancy, 2007)
There may be other attractors present, such as the leadership style within an organization, cultural influences, policies, and processes.
Working with clients to understand their internal attractors and develop a clear vision of their “ideal self” into the future provides a foundation for change. Our ideal self is an image of the person we want to be and a reflection of our intrinsic values. Daniel Goleman (1995) provides evidence of the potency of focusing on the desired end state. Numerous studies have shown that intrinsic motives have more enduring impact on a person’s behavior than extrinsic motives (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
When adults change their behavior, they engage in a series of epiphanies, or discoveries, that make up what Richard Boyatzis has called the Intentional Change Model (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005a), one of the action-reflection models we discuss more fully in chapter 5. He provides a model based on two key attractors: an individual’s strengths and the gap between the real self and the ideal self. Strange attractors may pull us unconsciously, or they may be created consciously as a means to change our behavior. Research shows that coaching toward aspirations, dreams, and desired states such as our ideal self can access and engage deep emotional commitment and psychic energy.
In coaching, minor events may lead to dramatic results, as with the butterfly effect. If a system is chaotic, it is unpredictable over the long term, but shorter-term or more general attractor like predictions still may be possible. For example, in a group or team context, if the leader is demonstrating certain behaviors, other individuals in the team are likely to behave in the same way. This relates to the biblical admonition to search out the mote in one’s own eye before demanding that someone else remove their imperfection.
We may discover with our clients that a few simple principles or factors are keys to addressing difficult situations, so that what appears complex on the surface ultimately has a simple solution. Surface chaos may cover underlying patterns.
Wheatley (1992) also sees the voluntary introduction of chaos into a situation or project as a useful tool, despite the uncomfortable uncertainty that comes with it. We have a natural tendency to try to move from confusion to certainty as quickly as we can. She explains that “science is helping me understand, among many things, the uses of chaos and its role in self-organization. I think I not only expect chaos now, but I’ve grown more trusting of it as a necessary stage to greater organization” (p. 149). As a result, she has started to introduce more chaos, in the form of less formal guidance and more freedom, into her projects. Coaches may recognize the use of chaos, and the associated discomfort and uncertainty, as a creative force in their coaching work. This idea has links to the change theory models that propose a need to go through a stage of chaos and uncertainty before something new is created.
Self-reference is a concept from complexity theory that has particular relevance to leadership. Wheatley suggests that if a leader can identify a core of values and vision, and can refresh this core through dialogue, she or he can reference this in order to maintain personal integrity through difficult times. “When I look at the shape and meaning of my own life, and how it has evolved with change, I understand the workings of this principle in intimate detail” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 147).
The principle of self-reference applies also at the organizational level, especially during turbulence. A strong corporate identity can provide independence from environmental change and can serve as a guide to the organization’s evolution. “When the environment demands a new response, there is a reference point for change. This prevents the vacillations and the random search for new customers and new ventures that have destroyed so many businesses over the past several years” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 94).
A well-developed organizational identity includes a strong sense of purpose. When they have a purpose to refer to, staff members are able to work more independently and effectively. “Employees can be trusted to move freely, drawn in many directions by their energy and creativity. There is no need to insist through regimentation or supervision, that any two individuals act in precisely the same way” (Wheatley, 1992, p. 136).
This same idea can be applied to the development of an individual’s personality. Self-reference is the systems theory explanation of having clear values, a purpose, and established goals. The clearer we are about our own values, the easier we can build a system around ourselves that is in line with these values. This concept is at the core of coaching. Often a key piece of the coaching journey has to do with raising a client’s awareness of his or her own values, beliefs, and behaviors. A coach’s role is to facilitate the client’s clarity in these ways, therefore empowering future decisions.
Biologists and physicists have published research in journals dedicated to complex systems. Nonlinear dynamics have also been studied in all fields of psychology. For a survey of findings, see Stephen Guastello’s (2000) summary of perception, learning, memory, cognition, development, motivation, social cognition, attraction, creative problem solving, leadership emergence, work group coordination, and management research.
Linking Systems Theory and Coaching
In summary, the coach’s job is to help the client, a complex, chaotic system, boost functioning and performance within complex, chaotic systems. The science tells us that:
• We are drawn to certain attractors, creating patterns of meaning and regularities amidst seeming chaos.
• Existing patterns indicate strong attractors such that a client may experience resistance or push back when trying to influence change.
• Understanding patterns is a key step to being able to influence systems effectively.
• What we cannot control, we may nonetheless be able to influence in small ways.
• Small things can make a big difference, and sometimes big things make no difference.
• Systems made up of self-organizing agents with shared values and good communication can maintain dynamic stability in the face of challenges.
QUANTUM THEORY
In 1900, Max Planck discovered a constant that is one of three basic quantities woven into the structure of the universe. The others are the gravitational constant, as described by Newton, and Einstein’s speed of light. Einstein’s discovery required a rethinking of Newtonian principles, but Planck’s “quantum of action” required a full rewrite of physics theory.
There was considerable resistance to rewriting what had stood the test of three centuries. However, experiment after experiment to test Planck’s work has revealed classical mechanics to be merely a special case of quantum principles. This is because Planck’s constant is very small, and including it in a mathematical prediction of big events, such as how fast something falls from a fifth-story balcony or a planet’s orbit around a star, makes very little difference. As a result, and as history and experience have shown, quantum principles can be ignored when we are predicting how long to leave our cake in the oven. But at the very smallest level, at the level of interactions of atoms and particles and ions, Planck’s constant makes a big difference.
Whether these differences need to be taken into account in the “Who are we?” inquiry depends on the answer to this question: Does classical mechanics apply well enough to understanding human beings, or must we take quantum theory into account? Physicist Henry Stapp wrote Mindful Universe (2007) partly to answer that very question. In doing so, he closes a gap that has puzzled philosophers and scientists for centuries: How do the objectively measurable physical processes of the brain give rise to the subjectively experienced ephemeral processes of the mind?
We have discussed the consequences of a deterministic materialist view of human beings. If all that we think or do is predetermined by a clocklike mechanism that is merely playing out past causes, then responsibility or morality is an oxymoron. An ethical code for coaches makes no sense if control over our behavior is an illusion. But we continue to insist on the importance of choice, awareness, and accountability in many areas of life, not just in coaching. To a great extent, this is because we experience having to make choices among alternatives that we experience as being equally likely of being chosen. Classical mechanics demands that we ignore subjective experience and instead put our faith in the claim of classical mechanics, bolstered until the mid-20th century by a united scientific establishment, that objectivity is attainable and that all would be understood if we could completely describe each constituent piece of reality.
As Stapp (2007) explains, quantum mechanics closes the gap between subjective and objective and places human activity at the center of what we can know about the world. Here is our simplified, seven-step understanding of his argument:
1. All that we can perceive, anything in nature, everything is, in actuality, constantly flowing and changing. Dynamic. In development.
2. If we want to know anything about anything, we have to capture that thing at a moment in time.
3. We accomplish this capture by some measure or other. Especially for tiny, tiny things that make up atoms, we cannot see their activities directly, so we place an instrument such as a Geiger counter next to them. If the Geiger counter pings, we take that as evidence that the “thing” we are studying exists. At that moment, our knowledge takes a big leap, from zero to 100%. It is there!
4. But remember that “it” is a flowing process, not a thing. The process itself is what Stapp calls a “smear” of possibilities. There are many possible answers to the question “Is it there?” (i.e., will the Geiger counter ping?) The ping is almost triggered by this or that or the other aspect of the process . . . or not even close . . . or would have pinged except the timing was off or. . . . Statistically speaking, there are only probabilities for a ping or not. But those probabilities turn into certainty, into facts once we get the results of the experiment.
5. The questions we pose and the methods we use to answer them are an integral part of the facts we observe. Our questions do not determine what the answers will be. We ask and nature responds. But with every answer, the smear of possibilities collapses momentarily into a certainty that has been set up by the question and measurement. And that is the ground on which we stand to ask our next question: If there’s no ping, “Would there be a ping if I moved it over here?” No ping. “What about here?” Ping. “Oh, it’s here! Is this the only place it is? . . .” The actual ongoing process gets divided by human activity into packets of question answered, question answered, question answered. In this way, we participate in organizing our experience into what we call “knowledge.”
6. Is there anything about human activity to which this smear of possibilities can be applied? Stapp notes that the activity of neurons in the human brain depends on a flow of tiny ions that fits quantum principles exactly. Whether a neuron will fire is a matter of probabilities. But by paying attention to our thoughts, we are essentially asking questions and setting a subjective measure to test the answer. “Did he disapprove?” “Am I upset?” “Did that feel good?” Ping. “Oh, he must like me.” Each question answered, question answered, question answered represents connections among neurons that are strengthened with each repetition. Stronger connections mean the question/answer combination is more likely to be repeated in the future. “He likes me” becomes more and more an assumption, a certainty that we act on automatically. Not only are the connections between neurons strengthened by repetition, there is evidence that new neurons are formed. The very physical structure of our brains is affected by what started as attention, as being conscious of what we are thinking and feeling, as asking a question and then noticing, or measuring, how the environment responds.
7. Therefore, by the conscious mental activity of paying attention, we can affect our physical brains. Siegel’s “notion that mind is using the brain to create itself” (2007a, p. 32) is no longer preposterous.
Stapp’s Mindful Universe (2007) explains in much more detail how quantum theory demands participation of the observer, replaces the study of reality with the study of knowing, and shifts inquiry from observing to doing, from stasis to process, and from being to becoming.
Linking Quantum Theory to Coaching
Coaches must assume that change is possible and that clients can make choices rather than being predetermined by a mechanistic universe. Quantum theory explains and supports our subjective experience of making decisions in the face of indeterminacy. The quantum principle of entanglement, or the capacity of particles to be coordinated over impossibly long distances, supports the idea that all entities in the universe are connected. Specifically, human beings are socially embedded and connected to one another in ways we can scarcely understand.
SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS AS A COACHING PILLAR
In the coaching relationship, we are inviting people to do things differently, recognizing that one new decision can open up a whole new world. Doing a simple exercise for only minutes every day can change the way people think of themselves.
In any system, some things are in clients’ control and some are out of their control. Clients always have the choice as to how to interpret what happens. Clients can utilize “life lessons of chaos” and approach life with creativity rather than control. With creativity, clients are more likely to influence the system. Using the concept of self-organizing communities, clients can focus on values and purpose and allow the system to organize itself, to evolve and reveal a deeper source of collaborative power.
The recurring thoughts that we have are attractors. Unless we consciously change these patterns, they will keep bringing us back to the same place. Coaching can be useful in raising awareness of these thoughts, in naming and in categorizing them. This is important in being able to move past them. Neuroscience is further revealing the mechanisms behind these principles.
An individual is a complex system and is part of other complex systems—families, social groups, organizations, and so on. As coaches, we are helping our clients see the patterns in these systems and make desired changes.
It must be clear by now that one answer to the question “Who are we?” is this: Human beings are nonlinear dynamic complex self-organizing systems that display quantum principles. We are embedded in larger systems that are also nonlinear, dynamic, complex, self-organizing, and quantum. This systemic understanding provides a bridge to the emerging characterization of the brain, mind, and relationships as mutually interdependent subsystems of the human system.
Next we turn to the contemporary platform of neuroscience, specifically the topic of mindfulness, in our attempt to answer the question “Who are we?”
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.