Posts Tagged ‘group relations’

Quotation on Freedom

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

[The words of the Guardian of the threshold]

Yet my Threshold is fashioned out of all the timidity that remains in thee, out of all the dread of the strength needed to take full responsibility for all thy thoughts and actions. As long as there remains in thee a trace of fear of becoming thyself the guide of thine own destiny, just so long will this Threshold lack what still remains to be built into it. And as long as a single stone is found missing, just so long must thou remain standing as though transfixed; or else stumble. Seek not, then, to cross this Threshold until thou dost feel thyself entirely free from fear and ready for the highest responsibility.

From Knowledge of Higher Worlds, The Guardian of the Threshold

I am amazed how clearly Steiner sees the Guardian being connected to our freedom. I am reminded of Bruce Irvine speaking of our profound longing to find something outside of us that is responsible for our experiencing reality as we do; and of the terrifying liberation that comes when we realise that we ourselves are responsible for our experience.

WELCOME TO T-CONSULT – REBEKAHS BLOG – Leaders with purpose

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

WELCOME TO T-CONSULT – REBEKAHS BLOG – Leaders with purpose.

Leading – crossing the threshold

Sunday, November 28th, 2010
I’m reading the executive summary of Theory-U which is proving very rewarding. What it’s connecting with for me is the whole idea of the Holy Spirit as the spirit of connection, and communion.In figure 2 on p 4, I think what he calls Ecosystem corresponds to the System of Group Relations.
Here’s a gem, which I found quoted on another website (looks pretty interesting itself, too).

Otto Scharmer points out, The Indo-European root of the word ‘lead’ and ‘leadership,’ *leith, means ‘to go forth,’ ‘to cross the threshold,’ or ‘to die.’”

Leading means constantly letting go, opening for what wants to come.

Scharmer on leadership

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Here’s a taster from a really interesting paper by Otto Scharmer:

Leadership is the capacity of a community to co-sense and co-create its emerging future. This shifts our framing of leadership development from the single-person-centric concept to a concept of leadership that is more about “igniting fields of inspired connection and action.” (Otto Scharmer).

The full paper is here.
I don’t think this means that there shouldn’t be leaders – the position of those who see leaders inevitably as tyrants. It is a question of the kind of leadership. If the leader’s role is seen as facilitating the co-sensing and co-creating Scharmer speaks of, his / her strength will be welcome in holding the boundaries and making it possible for everyone to be involved in that process.

Helpful book

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

Difficult Conversations“. Full of great insight. You can even have a look inside at Amazon. Quite a few really important things in this. 3 levels of conversation: factual, feeling and identity. Lots of good stuff about transcending blame without saying the bland ‘everyone’s right’!

Purpose – owned and unowned

Friday, March 26th, 2010

One big problem in organisational life comes from the discrepancy that may exist between the stated purpose of an organisation and the actual purpose. Normally we think that we have a purpose, which is our ideal, and what hinders us from reaching it is our human shortcomings. It’s frightening and strange to think that there are other purposes at work – are we to think that we’re conspiring against ourselves? This is a place where the concept of the system of an organisation helps. Let’s say for the moment that this is made up of all the unconscious drives and motives that the human beings in the organisation bring into it. The less these are acknowledged, the more power the unowned motives will have. Far from being frightening, it’s liberating to step back from our organisation, in which we invest so much hope and effort, and see what purpose it is trying to realise. A crass example is the organisation with a charismatic leader: the stated purpose may be education, or care, but if we examine the evidence we find that, whilst these are important, they take second place to the aggrandisement of the leader, or his protection from painful self-knowledge. Some anthroposophical institutions make conducting an experiment into consensual decision-making without clear leadership structures into their purpose, sacrificing their stated purpose to this end, even in the face of very strong evidence that their stated purpose is being hindered.
(This is not to dismiss the importance of trying to find appropriate forms of leadership for today; in fact if we examined what ‘appropriate’ means, we might find that our definition included the idea of enabling us to work to our purpose. )

The mirror we look in when we examine this discrepancy is a great liberation. The problem can of course be on either side: we may need to realign to our stated purpose; or we may need to restate our purpose to include new elements which have become important to us. Then we can integrate these into our mission statement or leading thought, and all stakeholders will have the opportunity to decide whether they can identify with them. In the crass example of the charismatic leader, could we imagine what would happen if the mission statement was recast to say “the purpose of X is to provide Y with an opportunity to realise his aims, and to mirror positive reflection to him in doing this. One of the tasks that enables us to do this is Z (eg education etc).” Leaving the absurdity to one side for a moment, how liberating would that be for all concerned! How much time have I spent agonising to understand how to square my experience of unstated purpose with that which was stated.

To recognise all this is one thing. The next challenge is to find ways of communicating it that don’t alienate, but liberate!