Replying to LO25074 --
Winfried Dressler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> What is most crucial to achieve?
>Trust. Trust in the common goal of constructive creativity.
>> What are the most dangerous pitfalls?
>Hidden agendas. Any kind of acceptance of compromizing
>constructive creativity for any sake.
>> And generally: Do you agree with my approach so far?
>No. I thought I had to prepare something special. The best
>and most continuous preparation is my participation in the
>LO-list, caring for how to foster constructive creations, and
>then let go any specific piece of knowledge when in a meeting.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
Your reference time and again to constructive creativity as the central
issue was most rewarding to me.
However, it is always possible that what has become most
rewarding many also become a very restrictive Mental Model
through paradigm fixation. I observed that constructive creativity
often dwindles into trivialities when openness does not evolve also
with the rest of creativity. Your phrase
"and then let go any specific piece of knowledge
when in a meeting"
is a powerful aid to grow in openness.
For me catalysis is a major facet of leadership. For example, the many
different enzymes in our bodies are the biochemical leaders of our bodies.
A catalyst participates during a reaction, but does not get consumed by
it. In other words, the catalyst is neither a reagent nor a product of the
reaction, although it participates during the reaction like any reagent
With respect to learning as the becoming (epistemology) and knowledge as
the being (ontology), this know-how of the leader acting as catalyst does
not get consumed by the "deep interview" so as to occur as part in some
of the products. All of the products came from those who have been
interviewed. They have transformed their "old (reagent) knowledge" to
"(new) product knowledge" through authentic learning As catalyst you have
helped them to make this transformation, avoiding your own knowledge to
occur explicitly in it too -- your "let go any specific piece of knowledge
when in a meeting".
But for those who know how even a catalyst operates (i.e other authentic
leaders) your catalytic contribution (own leadership) in the final
products is unmistakenly there -- not in the lines, but between the lines.
That is why you can write:
>After my presentation he [the CEO] came to me in front of all
>others and he said how impressed he was.
In reminds me again of David Bohm's extraordinary insight of the
relationship between creativity and the implicate order.
>I can tell you, this is nothing that someone like me likes, who
>prefer to act more from the background.
This I can understand. It has been the same with me all my life. I always
wondered why it should be like that for me. Eventually I understood my
tacit knowledge -- to reverse an irreversible change of the system SY, the
"change for reversal" has to be made in the surrounding system SU so as to
promote the irreversible self-organisation of the system. If the seven
essentialities are sufficiently complex, the system will complexify during
the reversal. If they are not mature enough, the system will not respond
upon this change in the SU. But if they are not mature enough and the
"change for reversal" has been made in the system SY itself, the system
will most likely be subjected to destructive creativity.
>Nevertheless, it strengthend my position, one may say this
>was the real establishment of my position after the formal
>establishment 7 months ago.
This "laying of the hands" by one leader upon another leader has an
important effect on followers, something which was recognised already in
ancient civilisations. In terms of enzymes (biological catalysts), it
means that at least one enzyme is needed to produce another enzyme. The
most fantastic enzyme in this regard is RNA-polymerase. It has to read
information in a DNA sequence which defines the structure of any other
enzyme which needs to be produced. RNA-polymerase is perhaps the most
complex of all enzymes. In is like leaders whose task it is to help other
persons to become leaders too -- they have to be immensely complex
It is most important to bear in mind that this "laying of the hands" can
promote or inhibit leadership. In the world of catalysts those catalysts
which promote or inhibit the function of primary catalysts are called
secondary catalysts. In biological these enzymatic promoters and
inhibitors play a vital role in regulating the primary enzymes -- a sort
of "double loop learning" for enzymes. This "laying of the hands" had an
inhibiting effect when the "annointed" leader ceases with authentic
mental behaviour. In term of creativity it means that "laying of the
hands" can cause its constructive patterns to immerge into destructive
fragments. These constructive patterns can be expressed in terms of the
seven essentialities. Thus, by knowing all the patterns which make
creativity constructive, we will be able to follow the promoting rather
than inhibiting path of "laying of the hands".
I cannot help to think of the paradigm shift from simplicity to
complexity. In simplicity there are few leaders and many followers always
needing a leader. But in complexity most followers will have to become
leaders from time to time as the complex situation requires. Learning
about leadership will be very basic in a world operating on the paradigm
>>I'd be interested to hear how it all came out. In particular, I'm
>>wondering if the study of deep creativity helped you "in the field".
>It has just started to come out. And I don't study to acquire tools
>for the field - I value the study as worthwhile in itself, so the
>study embraces the field.
I really liked this answer because it tells of your sensitivity for the
harmony between the implicit and the explicit. The implicit here is
sustained by getting as much experience as possible. The explicit may be
supplemented by what others have expressed on "deep creativity", beginning
with me, but this is very dangerous because it may cause rote mental
behaviour. This brings us to the important harmony between the "dassein"
and the "mitsein", between the essences and the phenomenon, between the
Learning Individual and the Learning Organisation, between humankind and
the rest of Creation, between SY and SU, between the "whole" and its
"field" as you have put it.
What surprises me almost daily, is how much tacit knowledge many fellow
humans already have on constructive creativity. This tacit knowledge begs
to get expressed, but present leaders act like inhibited catalysts rather
than promoted catalysts. I have often thought on what inhibits them.
Surely, there are some opportunitic dictators among them. But the vast
majorrity are inhibited by the present paradigm of simplicity. As soon as
they begin to shift their paradigm to complexity and thus promote
leadership, the tacit knowledge of their followers begins to bloom
It reminds me of our winters here in South Africa. Most of the country
(80%+) relies on summer rainfall. Thus in winter, as a result of frost
drying out the air night after night, most of the vegetation become parch
dry too. Then, somewhere in July the first strong winds begin to blow over
this summer rainfall area as a result of the cold fronts coming from the
antartic sea. Suddenly, wherever such a wind blows and the vegetation is
dense, immense fire hazards ensue. One spark, smaller than even a
butterfly with flapping wings, can start a fire which will soon have
spread through hundreds of thousands of vegetation.
It took ecologists many, many years to realise that these winter fires are
necessary. They need not occur every winter, but when prevented for 10 or
more years, the vegetation begans to impair gradually. Similarly, paradigm
shifts are necessary from time to time.
I think we have now reach the high winter of the paradigm of simplicity.
It is easy to start a fire. It is dangerous to do it when the "community"
is dry and the "global changes" strong because the fire soon gets out of
control. We see this happening more and more among communities all over
the third world as the driest. But as the more prosperous communities in
the first world will become drier too, the potential destruction of fires
gone out of control will increase much. The case of Gemany and WWII comes
to my mind.
Some farmers here in South Africa have the strategy of creating
fire-breaks. On days without wind and weather reports not predicting wind
for the next two days, the vegetation still not too dry and with plenty of
fire-fighting people and equipment ready, regular fire break paths will be
created through the vegetation. Usually a path 50 meters wide will be
sufficient. But sometimes the winds can blow balls of fire through the air
over 200 meters. I have seen it and it is awesome. It is then when owners
wish they had made paths 500 rather than 50 meters wide.
The time has come for organisations and communities, small (like families
and shops) as well as large (like nations and corporations), to shift
their paradigm from simplicity to complexity while they are still not too
dry and the winds not yet blowing. By converting their "free energy" into
complexity, they will not burn again, but sprout as soon as the first
scanty rains arrive. However, those who keep on clinging to the paradigm
of simplicity may soon burn out of control once a spark has been made. It
takes but one ignoramus or one anarchist to make that spark.
Have you ever pictured all the contributions on complexity in our
LO-dialogue as making fire-breaks?
(Just before mailing this contribution, I went to the top of our building
NWI to see how many veld fires I can count. One cannot see the actual
fires, but the smoke rises for kilometers into the air. I counted three
Please learn as individuals and as organisations before it is too late.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <email@example.com> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.