8
How Shift Happens

As a young child I was a bright, straight-A student. But by the age of thirteen, I was apathetic and lost. I had no interest in anything, I had put on weight, had spots on my face, and got straight C’s on my report card. School seemed a waste of time; life itself just a succession of dull, gray, pointless days. I actually considered suicide. It was my life’s first big crisis. My parents were of no use. I had lost faith in my family some time before. All they could do was fight. Religion couldn’t help me. I had lost my faith in Christianity at the age of eleven and it seemed certain I would never feel such passion again.

I was jolted out of my crisis by two events. The first was a stunning lecture by my junior high school science teacher on the atom and nuclear physics. The teacher brought in colorful models, including a model of a nuclear reactor with moving parts. He told us how atomic bombs were made. Before that lecture I found science very boring. But now it seemed to hold out a whole new world of mystery, awe, and power, a tiny micro-world we could only imagine with its own quirky quantum laws and relationships that were beyond the imagination. I literally ran home from school filled with excitement and demanded to be taken to a bookstore.110

The other event, which happened within two weeks of my discovering the atom, was the Russian launch of Sputnik. That was the first satellite to orbit the earth successfully, and it sent a tide of fear through the American psyche. We were behind in the space race, the Russians were leaping ahead in science, and they would eventually use their superiority to conquer us. In a flash of insight my own life, and the motives that drove it, shifted radically. America needed scientists. I was now interested in atomic physics. I would become an atomic scientist to serve my country. That pivotal shift has directed the whole central thread of my life ever since, taking me into a passion for quantum physics, a university career in physics and philosophy at MIT, and then writing my books about the impact of the quantum vision on psychology, management, and spirituality. The motive to serve America has shifted to the wider motive of wishing to serve humanity, or the future, but the central theme remains the same. “I,” as I now know myself to be, was born in that two-week period straddling the two events that shook me out of my apathy and fear at age thirteen.

I tell my personal story because it illustrates vividly how a person can be stuck in lower motivations (ࢤ4, fear, and ࢤ6, apathy) but then undergo a sudden shift to higher ones (+4, mastery—of the physics and its philosophy—and +6, higher service). The shift in this personal case was brought about through two of the transformative principles of spiritual intelligence coming to bear on my life and original motives. It was as though they had shot my life full of sudden new energy. These were the principles of positive use of adversity (turning my patriotic fear into a mastery of physics), and sense of vocation (turning my apathy into a heartfelt wish to serve my country). This personal case of SQ shift is part of a larger map or pattern illustrated in Figure 8.1.

This chart, where twelve of the sixteen motives that drive human behavior are correlated with the twelve processes of change that give SQ its active qualities, reveals the particular dynamic that shifted the course of my own life. The chart also provides a first hint of how other such shifts could happen, to individuals or to cultures. It is the central visual image of this book and summarizes the way the book can be used to alter human behavior. It also summarizes the different natures and roles of motives and SQ processes, and how the dynamic between them results in long-term cultural and behavioral shift.

To recap earlier observations, motives are attractors in the shared field of consciousness or meaning. They are just energy states, not consciously chosen. Energy is distributed among them—reaching equilibrium scattered among these states. By contrast, SQ qualities require acts of consciousness and will. They can be freely chosen. They have the force to pump energy into the motivational states, and to redistribute human energies into higher-energy motivational states (into new attractors). To get a concrete image of all this, think back to the earlier example of the steel balls and gullies in a pinball machine, illustrated here in Figure 8.2. The gullies in the pinball machine are the motivational attractors, energy states into which we (the steel balls) can sink. The SQ transformation processes enter the stable pinball system when we pull back the spring and shoot a new ball (new energy) into the system. This new energy can move the existing balls out of their gullies into new, higher-valued ones.111

Figure 8.1 How SQ Processes Act on Motives

In my personal example, it was a sense of vocation (SQ process) that shifted my underlying motivation from ࢤ6, apathy, to +6, higher service. Other such shifts are easy to see on the chart. For instance, the SQ process humility could shift a motive from — 1, self-assertion to + 1, exploration, and a sense of holism (seeing the deeper pattern, all the interconnections) could shift a person’s motive from — 2, anger to + 2, cooperation. The chart can provide more insight into the full dynamics of possible shift, but first it is necessary to understand the basic conditions required to make shift possible.112

Figure 8.2 The Pinball Machine of Life

The Role of Crisis

Fossil records show that for the first 99 percent of the life of a species, it is stable. For the last 1 percent, when it has presumably hit an environmental crisis, it becomes unstable. It suddenly produces many mutations in all directions, some of which may survive the crisis as new species. It is the same with human beings and organizations. We spend most of our time in an ordered, habitual state, going about our activities in the same way we always have. Whatever motives drive us are also stable 99 percent of the time. The world couldn’t really carry on if this were not the case. Creativity is desirable but costly. It takes as much energy per unit of time to have a creative thought as it does to play a game of rugby football. Bringing any SQ transformative process into play to shift motives means pumping energy into the system. That energy has to come from somewhere.113

Shifting the qualities or position of a stable system requires enormous energy, but during that 1 percent of the time the system is evolving, things are different. When a stable system meets a crisis, it can move to the edge of chaos (become radically unstable). At the edge of chaos, elements of the system are less stuck. It is as though, on a pinball machine, the gullies holding the steel balls have suddenly become much shallower. Now when new energy (a new ball) is shot into the system, the existing balls fly out of their gullies much more easily, and in all directions. The balls are searching for new attractors (new gullies) into which they can fall. This is what happens to a human being or to an organization in crisis—it takes less energy to shift the underlying motivations that have been directing behavior. So bringing SQ to bear on a system in crisis is more likely to be effective than using it to shift a stable situation.

Here are some common examples of how crisis can move people to the point of changing their behavior. A man whose very bad temper upsets his wife may do nothing to restrain himself until one day his wife leaves him. An alcoholic will seldom give up drink until his whole life has reached a state of crisis—he loses his job, loses his wife, is told his liver won’t last another year. People seldom change their behavior unless they have to. Shifting behavior requires shifting underlying motives, that is, shifting a whole paradigm. We only garner the energy to shift paradigms when our old paradigm isn’t working.

At a steel plant in the north of England where I worked as a consultant, the impending crisis promised the imminent closure of the plant and the loss of twelve hundred jobs. The way this crisis unfolded, and the paradigms that had to be shifted, offers a good example of SQ transformation processes at work in shifting motives.

The steel plant in question had a long history of labor-management strife. Given the constraints of the English class system, the workers and their union leaders were working-class men while the managers were middle class. This alone laid firm foundations for strife and mistrust. But in addition the plant was not doing well. Competition from Eastern Europe had cut into profits. Indeed, the mill was currently running at a loss. Despite this, the unions would not consider wage cuts or changes in working practices. Both sides of the conflict just blamed each other, and civil communication between them had all but ceased. To top it all off, the parent company had brought in a new female CEO from the United States to try to turn the situation around. Aside from tea ladies and the occasional secretary, she was the only woman at the site. English working-class men do not easily abide being told what to do by a woman, particularly an American one.114

Looking at the possible motivations on the chart, it’s easy to see that both management and workers at the steel mill were stuck on the negative part of the scale. Management and union bosses were maintaining their right to call the shots (—1, self-assertion). There was incredible anger (ࢤ2) on both sides. Management wanted more power and higher profits and the unions wanted easy working conditions and better wages (ࢤ3, craving). Both sides also craved security. There was also a great deal of fear (ࢤ4)—on both sides—that the plant would be closed. For some of the workers at the plant, who had known no other jobs since the age of sixteen, fear of closure had even led to a certain amount of anguish, ࢤ5. By the time the consultants were called in, this was a plant in deep crisis.

After the usual period of analysis, our consultancy group decided that poor communication, lack of trust, and blinkered vision were the main enemies of cooperation at the mill. Without cooperation, the mill had no future and its twelve hundred people would be joining the unemployed. After consulting all the various warring groups separately, we settled on the establishment of a dialogue group as our first strategy. This was to be dialogue of the sort first articulated by the physicist David Bohm and then further developed by Bill Isaacs’ Dialogue Group at MIT. Representative members of the steel mill’s community, from furnace workers and foremen to division managers and the CEO herself were asked to attend the dialogue group regularly. All were asked to speak plainly and honestly while avoiding personal rudeness, and to speak without fear. There were to be no unwanted consequences of what went on in the group.

In this dialogue group, men spoke to each other across the usual barriers of job description or status. They spoke about issues that had never been openly discussed, and how they felt about them. It emerged that everyone was full of fear, and no one wanted to see the mill close. The conversations around this, where warring factions came to see each others’ points of view (holism), itself shifted group motivations from ࢤ2, anger to +2, cooperation, and then by means of the acquired humility, from — 1, self-assertion, to the more useful and positive +1, exploration. But the biggest shift of all was brought about through qualities driving the CEO.115

Instead of avoiding confrontation or pretending to have all the answers, this petite blond American woman spoke out honestly. She pointed out that it wasn’t easy being the only female on the plant site, nor the only American in that area of England. She, too, found the situation awkward. But most strikingly of all, the CEO confessed she was as fearful as everyone else. She couldn’t be certain the transformation plans designed to save the mill would work (humility). All they together could do was make the best of a very bad situation (positive use of adversity). They might have to remodel their whole notion of how the plant should function (reframing). Though expressing her uncertainty about the future, the CEO spoke with authority and inner conviction (+4, mastery).

In this particular case, the dynamics of the dialogue group itself brought into play nearly all twelve of the transformative process of SQ. This was managed in part by the facilitators’ directing the conversation so as to evoke those processes in participants, and in part just because that is what good dialogue does. The shift in the motives that drove the mill’s culture also owed much to the new CEO’s own higher motivation of mastery. When an organization is led by someone at least as high as mastery, its whole culture is moved toward higher motivations. For the steel mill it worked brilliantly. Within six months, the issues of communication, trust, and vision were cleared up, and all the people at the plant put their backs into making the company’s transformation program work. Camaraderie at the plant increased tenfold, across class, status, and gender divides. The mill took one more year to return to profitability.

The crisis at the steel mill worked out in part simply because it was a crisis. Before the entrenched negative motivations driving the mill’s culture had come to crisis point (imminent plant closure), the semblance of stability ensured that the situation remained stagnant. It was only when it seemed all was about to be lost that the people at the mill cried out for help. The mill was then in a state of radical instability poised at the edge of chaos. It now had the potential of a complex adaptive system. Shift was going to be possible if wisely directed.

Further Dynamics of Shift

In Figure 8.1, individual SQ processes are aligned with the individual motives. That can give a very biased, almost Newtonian interpretation of how SQ influences motivation. It is true that one-on-one shift does often happen, and when it does, two different degrees of motivational change are possible. If influenced by holism, a person or a group motivated by anger (ࢤ2), can make a “quantum leap” to the opposite, positive quality of +2, cooperation. The steelworkers at the mill made that sort of move. But under the influence of holism, a person might equally well make the smaller shift from — 2, anger to — 1, self-assertion.116

One-on-one influence is only one way, however, that the SQ processes can shift motivation. This kind of shift is, if you like, the “particle-like” aspect of SQ transformational energy. It behaves rather like one billiard ball hitting another and transferring energy to it. But SQ energy also has a “wave-like” aspect, resembling ripples on a pond (the field of meaning). In this more wave-like way of influencing things, several, or all, of the SQ processes can come to bear on a motivation or motivational complex. It is as though the individual or the group has become generally open to the whole SQ phenomenon. In this case, the holistic nature of the SQ processes, the fact that each process is rather like a fractal that contains within itself all the other processes, becomes evident. The British steel mill’s dialogue group brought into play at least the linked SQ processes of humility, holism, positive use of adversity, spontaneity, self-awareness, and reframing. It was the gestalt, or pattern, of energy input that raised the group’s motivational level.

There are most likely dozens of ways to work with the SQ transformation principles to bring about desired motivational—and hence individual or cultural—shifts. This is a new field of psychology and motivation theory that yet has much to discover. But it’s useful to look in some detail at the two most classic ways that SQ can influence motivational change—the one-on-one, particle-like sort of shift and the more general, wave-like sort of shift. The salient features of each can be seen, in turn, in a one-on-one counseling or mentoring session, contrasted with a discussion of the dynamics of the dialogue group.

A One-on-One Counseling Session

This case is an abbreviated report of a counseling session from the practice case notes of Ian Marshall. All the conversation reported took place in just one forty-minute session. It was the client’s first session with Marshall. It was recorded, and is published with the client’s permission.

The client was a highly intelligent widower in his mid-fifties. He was Jewish, of Middle European origin. He was an office worker who also did some writing in his spare time. When he arrived at Marshall’s office he was dressed in an almost ostentatiously disheveled fashion, with a long, baggy, and not very clean overcoat and longish, unkempt hair. He had brought several parcels in brown paper bags with him to the interview, and he continually rearranged these around his feet as the conversation proceeded.117

This man had come for counseling because he felt his life was being dominated by feelings of antagonism, and that by letting them upset him so much, he had let other people gain too much control over his life. Marshall had given him Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Test (the “16-PF”) the week before, and knew that the man scored very highly on intelligence, anxiety, guilt proneness, and frustration. Marshall placed him at — 2, anger, on the Scale of Motivations.

Marshall began by asking this client about his week, and whether anything in particular had caused him to feel antagonism. This allowed him to become a sort of audio witness to a sea of incidents and woes that had upset the client—his boss, people who had wronged him in the past, his mother, his landlords. His voice filled with anger, and he confessed that nothing would make him feel better but revenge. “I spend a lot of my time thinking about revenge.” The counselor then asked him to pick out one particular incident or person that most upset him that week.

“My landlords,” he finally answered. “They’re always picking fights with me, always cheating me, and this week they wouldn’t listen to me.” He detailed several alleged cheats with the electricity meter, the gas meter, a disagreement about rent money, and then complained at some length about “being overlooked as a person. For them, I just don’t exist.”

At this point the counselor attempted to bring some understanding to factors underlying his client’s anger by directing him toward getting a broader picture of it (holism). The client focused on his landlords’ making him feel small and worthless (“not listening to me, not trusting me”) and his voice soon changed from rasping antagonism and a bit of whining to a more assertive tone. Under the influence of holism, he shifted from ࢤ2, anger, to ࢤ1, self-assertion. He then spent several minutes assuring Marshall (and indirectly his landlords) of his own worth: “I am a human being in my own right. I am the king of my castle. I don’t care what they think.”

Next the counselor nudged his client gently with humility. Could he be a big enough person to rise above all this bickering? Could he see any wider context for his daily squabbles with his landlords? The client soon came to the insight that he was letting little things bother him too much and began to explore why. That reflected a shift from — 1, self-assertion, to +1, exploration. The conversation proceeded along those lines for several minutes, then the counselor asked the client how he felt about his landlords at that point. Did he have any new response to them (spontaneity)? The client fell into a long silence, as though going through images in his head. Finally, he said in a low, almost gentle tone, “Poor bastard. The husband. He’s crippled and confined to a wheelchair. No wonder he just sits around stewing about little things all day. It’s him I should be feeling sorry for.” At this point, the client has shifted again, from +1, exploration to + 2, cooperation, a feeling of some empathy and compassion for his landlord. He commented that he no longer felt angry with him, and in general felt better.118

This was a very dramatic series of shifts for one interview, and had to be reinforced and sustained by further sessions on other upsetting topics. But after eighteen months of counseling, the client had become more relaxed and confident, had begun to sharpen up his appearance, and soon after, remarried.

The Dialogue Group

The dialogue process is the most effective way known to bring about deep motivational shift and the resulting behavioral change in a group or an organizational culture. The dialogue circle itself acts as a container for the field of meaning common to the group, and thus exposes the group’s collective and individual motivations (and attitudes) to the twelve transformational processes of SQ. In this case, the SQ processes act more as a diffuse, wave-like, and interconnected whole, energizing many levels of participants’ consciousness. That is why it offers a second good model for the dynamics of shift.

Dialogue as I mean it here is not just any way of talking or discussing. It has its own distinctive rules, structure, and dynamic. Like any effective use of SQ, dialogue makes us surface and challenge the assumptions that support our motives. It leads to a change in our existing paradigms or mental models. It is a structure that dissolves previous structures.

The concept of dialogue began in the Athenian agora twenty-five hundred years ago and flowered with Socrates, but it then lay dormant in Western culture for centuries. In the 1940s, the practice was revived by group psychology as a new approach to group discussion and conflict resolution. In the 1970s, the quantum physicist David Bohm took up the cause of dialogue. He thought the process could change society. Through Bohm’s work, dialogue began to spread. It was adopted by the MIT Learning Center and featured widely in Peter Senge’s best-selling The Fifth Discipline. Bill Isaacs, a young protégé of Senge’s, began the MIT Dialogue Project and took the practice into large companies. Today it is practiced widely, but its implications for bringing about SQ transformation and motivational change have not been articulated fully before.

In group psychology and in the corporate world, dialogue is practiced in what are called dialogue groups. Dialogue groups are also being run in schools, prisons, and local government offices. They’ve been used for conflict resolution in the Middle East and in western Asia. I personally have run them with companies, schools, and local politicians.119

In the dialogue group, people sit in a circle to emphasize the lack of any hierarchy. A shop floor worker’s voice has as much impact as that of the CEO. The ideal group size ranges from seven to twenty—large enough for diverse views, small enough so that everyone has an opportunity to participate fully. There can be no observers in the dialogue group, no fence-sitters. But one or preferably two members of the group also act as facilitators. They participate fully, they are members of the group, but they have the task of holding the group’s energy and guiding the conversation gently to activate the twelve qualities of SQ. Many of those qualities are activated by the dialogue process itself—it does encourage spontaneity, develop self-awareness, cause members to reframe their paradigms, and incite compassion. Dialogue is by its nature a celebration of diversity, and so on.

The only real rules in dialogue are that each group member should express personal feelings and thoughts openly and honestly, and that no one should be abusive. Members must commit to attending the group regularly and vow to keep its conversation within the group itself. If the dialogue conversation should become too “clever” (cerebral), if there is abuse, or if the conversation collapses into confrontation, a facilitator gently brings it back on track.

Figure 8.3 Debate versus Dialogue Note: Dialogue is not about reaching consensus.

The dialogue conversation acts as a powerful container for SQ transformation and behavioral shift because it has certain qualities that distinguish it from our normal way of discussing things. In these past two thousand years of Western culture, we’ve fallen into the habit of “debate,” a peculiarly power-oriented, confrontational form of speech. As illustrated in Figure 8.3, debate is based on knowing and fighting for a personal position; dialogue is more about exploring the future and honoring the difference of many possible positions.

Figure 8.3 Debate versus Dialogue

Note: Dialogue is not about reaching consensus.120

Good dialogue differs from debate in the following ways:

• Finding out rather than knowing. When I take part in a debate, I know what I am advocating or defending. I know my position is right. I participate in a debate with my head, with my IQ. Dialogue is about finding out (asking Why?), about discussing something openly until I break through to some new knowledge or insight. I might go to a dialogue knowing what I think is the case, but I am willing to suspend my certainty and listen to the discussion with an open mind. And with an open heart. Dialogue involves my emotions and my deeper sensitivities as well as my best intellectual thinking faculties.
• Questions rather than answers. In debate, because I know, I have all the answers. I am here to teach you, or to convince you, or to defeat you. I talk at you. Dialogue is about questions (asking Why?), about the things I don’t know (humility) or would like to find out. It’s about exploration—of myself, of the others, of the matter at hand. Why do these words make me feel angry or anxious? Why have you said that? Where are you coming from? What is your point of view, and why do you hold it? Is that possibly another way to look at things? (Reframing.) What assumptions have I been harboring? Where has my point of view been coming from? What is my paradigm? (Self-awareness.)
• Sharing rather than winning or losing. In a debate, somebody knows, somebody has the answers, and the other person is wrong. One of us will win and the other will lose. One point of view will be judged better than the other, one line of argument best. Dialogue is about sharing (compassion). We share our points of view, we share our assumptions, our doubts and uncertainties, our questions, our fears and wild ideas, our being. We propose as many paths from A to B as we can jointly imagine and we consider them all together. We feel them together.
• Equal rather than unequal. Debate is unequal because one side is right and the other is wrong. One of us has the answers; the other is in error. One point of view will be judged better than the other. Someone will choose who has been more clever or more eloquent or more entertaining. Dialogue is equal because we all have something worthwhile to contribute (celebration of diversity). The vast majority of people have some valid reason for holding a point of view or harboring a feeling. There are no wrong points of view, no invalid ways to feel (humility). I am here to learn your reasons and your feelings and to understand their origins (compassion). And to understand my own response to them (self-awareness).121
• Respect or love rather than power. Debate is about power. My power to defeat you or to persuade you or to make you compromise. My power to win you over or to make you look like a fool. Dialogue is about respect (humility). My respect for your point of view and how you have arrived at it, my respect for your feelings, your contribution. It may even be about love. My gratitude to you for seeing things differently than I do (reframing), my love for your different personality, your different history, your different experience, your ability to enrich me with them (celebration of diversity). Each of us can only live one of life’s possibilities, and in dialogue we love those who can show us that other possibilities exist, love them for making those others possible.
• Listening rather than proving a point. Debate is about proving a point or defending a position. I attack you and I build defenses against you, against your point of view. I close myself to you, your words, and your feelings. I don’t want to know. Most of us are not very good at listening. Our education and our experience have taught us to be ready with a thought or a reaction or a good argument. Conversation is a game of Ping Pong. This overpreparedness blocks out what we might learn or hear or become. It makes us insensitive—to others and to ourselves. Dialogue is about exploring new possibilities. It is about listening. I create a space inside myself where I can hear you, where I can feel what you are saying. I create a space inside myself where I can hear myself (self-awareness), where I can listen to and feel my own reactions to what you say (spontaneity).

Dialogue groups are powerful vehicles for deep motivational and behavioral change. They embed the main principles of SQ and they encourage us to relate to ourselves, each other, and our work from a place of higher motivation. They instill vision and values and, at their best, create leaders who act from +5, creativity, or even +6, higher service (servant leaders, or knights). A good dialogue group is an enriching and creative experience. A great one is almost a sacred rite.

To me, dialogue is essentially an attitude. It is a radically different attitude toward oneself, toward others, toward knowledge and problems and relationships. It is a new paradigm, SQ in practice, and an important tool for building the kind of culture required for spiritual capital to flourish. If, deep inside ourselves and in our approach to others, we replaced knowing with finding out, answers with questions, winning or losing with sharing, power with respect and love, and proving points with exploring possibilities and listening, then I think we really could change ourselves and our world. We would certainly see a different approach to work, innovation, challenge, and relationship. The deep purposes of our corporations and business lives would alter and broaden, making the building of spiritual capital possible.122

The Right Conditions for Shift

I have already pointed out that motivational, and thus cultural, shift happens most readily in times of crisis, when our existing way of going about things has not worked and we or our organization are in a period of instability. But the possibility, or indeed the direction, of shift is also influenced by the attitude with which we go about it. An attitude of control or manipulation can block or distort the SQ energies that might bear on the motivations underlying the crisis. Those who want to grow or change for the wrong reasons may well end up more stunted.

I knew a business consultant in South Africa who feared (ࢤ4, fear) that he lacked power with people. His wife agreed with him, and indeed nagged him that their marriage would improve if he showed more power with her. She thought he would make more money if he could show more power with his clients. To please his wife and to impress his clients, he decided to join Aikido classes. This is a martial arts technique that teaches participants to find their own physical center of gravity (in the abdomen), and to act from there. They should acquire +3, power-within. But this consultant’s motive for taking up Aikido was ࢤ3, craving, a craving to please his wife and to impress his clients. And he thought he could overcome his lack of power by sheer self-assertion, through learning a technique. After a year of attending, the Aikido classes had done him no good. Indeed, he now felt some anguish (ࢤ5) because his efforts had failed.

It is impossible to raise a low motive to a higher one without some help, either, as noted in Chapter Three, through the beneficial influence or example of a leader or a culture, or through opening ourselves to the energies of SQ transformation. In both, the operative word is openness. It is impossible to ride with the creativity of a complex adaptive system by trying to control it. It is impossible to make a significant shift in attitude, behavior, and outlook without a certain surrender to forces (or something or someone) larger than ourselves. In Christianity, this is known as surrendering to grace; in Buddhism, the surrender of craving; and in Taoism a surrender to the forces of the universe, the Tao, The Way. Jesus, on committing his life to higher service, said, “Not my will, Lord, but thine.” In Alcoholics Anonymous, they say, “Let Go. Let God.” Great motivational shift is a deeply spiritual process. Through it our deepest meanings and values shift, our deepest purposes alter. We come into possession of a new life (or organizational) strategy. A shift of such magnitude is beyond the unaided power of the human ego.123

Five Steps to Shift

• Know that shift is possible. No one ever has to be stuck.
• See where you are now, and thoroughly analyze its causes and consequences.
• Want to shift, and be prepared to let go.
• See where you want to get to.
• Nurture the relevant qualities of SQ, or all of them.