UN-NGLS Publications: Development Dossier

To see differently, we have to think differently. We have learned to think according to Newtonian or Cartesian principles-this particular scientific stream has formed the bedrock of most educational systems adopted by the west, which has in turn influenced most others. One of the characteristics of this view of the world, as noted earlier, is the emphasis on quantification and analysis, on reductionism, on the belief that one must study the separated and dissected parts to discover the whole. This has generated a "thing" view of the world, and a belief in scientific objectivity. This is a mechanistic world view where "things" act on other "things" and thus effect those "things" in ways which are theoretically determinable and predictable. The world as a gigantic clock, where one thing strikes another and causes a third event, and the process is reducible to a set of simple laws which-once again theoretically-can be described, predicted and controlled. Thus the world is presented as a passive mechanism which can be programmed. This is the view which has largely prescribed our perception of organisations, and our attempts at building organisational capacity.

But the new sciences-quantum mechanics, quantum physics, microbiology-describe many aspects of the world differently. "Things" have disappeared; as scientists delved deeper and deeper in their search for basic building blocks they discovered that such blocks, such things, finite and discreet, do not in fact exist. Instead they found that "things" change their form and properties in relation to each other, as they respond to each other (and to the scientist observing them). This is difficult to grasp, but has irrevocably been demonstrated-the nature of "substance" is not easily definable, is not one thing; each "particle" of the world can hold many different, even contradictory properties, depending on their relationship with other "things". Thus the world is now seen to consist of "relationships" rather than "things". And what we think of as things are actually intermediate states in a constantly changing network of interactions and relationships.

Systems, then, are not reducible and predictable; everything depends on the particular and unique relationships which configure and disappear in an ebb and flow. We have, then, to substitute our notion of predictability for another concept of potential-everything is different and new depending on different interactions, relationships and settings.

This gives us our first intimation of a new way of seeing. Instead of looking for discrete things, instead of reducing a complex whole to dissected parts, we need to begin to develop the ability to look at relationships, at the interactions between component parts. It is in the spaces between things that the world arises; it is in the spaces between organisational elements that organisation itself emerges; it is in the relationships between people that organisational realities emerge. We need to begin to look, not at things, but at the spaces between things, at relationships and interactions. We need to begin to apprehend the order which moves the whole, beyond the parts. We cannot map all the variables of a system and then think we can control the system; we must see beyond the fragments, to the order being expressed by the whole. Which means we have to step back and allow flow, process, motion, the gestalt of the whole, to impress itself upon us. We have to learn to appreciate, and to appreciate pattern, rather than simply analyse. It is the configuration of the various elements which we need to observe-the system is discerned through the pattern which is expressed. It is found in the form which reveals the order of the whole, rather than in the discrete pieces.

When we begin to appreciate relationships, the spaces between the parts, then another angle provided by the new sciences becomes available to us. In Newtonian science, space was regarded as empty, as a void; material reality consisted of discrete things which acted upon each other across the nothingness of space. But in quantum mechanics it has been proved that "instantaneous-action-at-a-distance" occurs; in other words, "non-local" causality is real. (The so-called "butterfly effect" refers-that a butterfly fluttering its wings on one side of the planet can be the final event needed to precipitate a hurricane on the other side of the planet. The El Niño climatic phenomenon is a topical case in point.) There are connections between things which escape us when we think of the spaces between things as empty. But what if space is not a void? Scientists now believe that space is filled with "fields", invisible "mediums of connections", invisible structures, invisible relational webs which influence material things and which provide matter with form. Fields may in fact be more "real" than matter; it is now thought that discrete particles come into existence, often only temporarily, when fields intersect. These invisible fields, then, are the underlying foundations of reality. They structure space, and it is through this structuring, through such formative forces, that observable reality is made manifest. Material reality is not the only form of reality.

As an illustration, and to lead us further, there is a particular type of field called a morphogenic field, which is built up through the accumulated behaviours of species members, and shapes the future behaviour of that species. After some members of a species have learned a behaviour, others will find it easier to learn that skill. The form resides in the (morphogenic) field, and it patterns behaviour without the need for labourious learning of the skill. [Footnote 4: Wheatley, M. (1992), Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organisation From an Orderly Universe, Berret-Koehler, San Francisco.]

The point of this brief and seemingly tangential foray into the new sciences is not to learn specific "things" which may aid our understanding of organisations, but rather to appreciate that a revolution is required in the very form of our thinking in order that we are able to apprehend the invisible realities which form and pattern organisational life and functioning. We can take the elements at the top of the hierarchy of organisational features as metaphoric or actual "fields"; the fact is that we need to learn to see differently. We need to learn to see through the parts to the whole. We need to learn to intuit the relationships between the parts, for it is out of these relationships that organisation emerges. We need to learn to apprehend the invisible fields which are the formative and fundamental forces behind organisational capacity. We need to learn to appreciate pattern and form, flow and process. We need to stand back, gain a whole picture, see the order which informs the whole, beyond an analysis of parts. And we need to learn to work with these patterns, help organisations to become aware of their own functioning in this respect, and in so doing help them to play a more active role in forming and patterning their whole existence.

The point is that-with respect to organisational capacity-contextual grasp, focused vision, coherent strategy and enabling culture act as powerful invisible fields which form the organisation and its functioning. The relationships between these, and the condition of each one in itself, are the formative forces through which capacity emerges. Piecemeal and ad hoc interventions in response to a fixation on particular parts or on the (visible, material) elements at the bottom of the hierarchy, may be what we generally provide, but they do not form the basis of an adequate capacity-building methodology. The discipline of organisation development demands a new type of appreciation, a new way of seeing. A living, vibrant and holistic picture of the organisation must be elicited, and the organisation enabled to appreciate itself as a living, vibrant and holistic organism. We need to stand back, apprehend the significant organisational formative patterns, and facilitate the organisation's awareness and comprehension of itself, so that it (re)gains authority over its own destiny. As capacity builders, this is our first challenge.