Leadership and Scientific Thinking LO21920

Jon Krispin (jkrispin@prestolitewire.com)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:53:41 -0400

Replying to LO21671 - Leadership = Poweful Narratives (Winfried Dressler)
and LO21889 - Scientific Thinking (At de Lange)

First, a long delayed response to Winfried:

Winfried wrote the following:

>The approach of behaviour therapy would be (Jon Krispin, are you
>listening?) Set up an attractive goal, answer the question: "What do I
>want to achieve?" Then change the behaviour as if you would strive for
>that goal. Two things will happen: First, immediately the force of the
>goal becomes concrete. That's a great feeling. But shortly afterwards, the
>mechanics (body, soul, mind but also friends and relatives) drive out of
>their "comfort zone". That's pure pain. Fortunately the mechanics of a
>human is, unlike a plane, a complex adaptive system. After leaving the
>comfort zone, the struggle for coach and client starts. Will the client be
>successful in maintaining the new behaviour until his mechanics have
>adapted, setting up a new comfort zone, from which the goal can easily be
>achieved? (What should be the next change?)

Winfried, I think that you have wonderfully summarized the position that
behavioral interventions take in organization change. The transition
period that you mention (where the client is struggling to maintain the
new behavior until his "mechanics have adapted") is the precise period
where the "building the bridge" intervention that I have advocated (using
socially supplied positive reinforcement) fits. Without it, immergence is
imminent; with it emergence is possible. At some point, the bridge may not
be necessary - the positive reinforcement that comes with realizing the
"attractive goal" may be enough alone to support the new behaviors and a
new equilibrium is reached (a new level of organization is achieved and
becomes self sustaining - it was spontaneous).

Secondly, responding to At in LO21889:

At wrote the following:

>The reason why I selected the name "gem detector" is that in any
>well-formed, healthy person, although all five these senses function
>continuously, the person is more than often not aware of this
>continuous operating. The person is rather aware of their continual
>operating. This unawareness of their continuous operation, i.e the
>awareness of their continual operation
>results when the signals from the AMBIENT (immediate) "world outside
>me" change very SLOWLY or NOT AT ALL.

At, I like this distinction very much - I am with you all the way.

Q. Are we back to unconscious competence here? While we may be unaware of
our CONTINUOUS operation, in the unconscious competence (In my thinking,
the highest level) we have a heightened awareness of our CONTINUAL
functioning (our "detectors" will be triggered by much smaller changes in
our ambient "world outside of me" than they would be at lower levels of

Swamped, but still reading and thinking,

Jon Krispin


"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>