Our natural perception of the world and of ourselves is to assume the existence of an objective external world. We live under the assumption that we relate to objects, things, individuals and surroundings whose very meaning; value and existence are independent from ourselves.
Moreover, the traditional concept of human existence leads us to believe that we are essentially rational beings and that we know and understand ourselves in an objective manner. Language arises as a tool which allows us “to grasp” the absolute and true nature of the world around us.
Another belief, which is rooted in our western culture, is that history is nothing but the display of our self-expression. Life appears as the setting where our individual potential emerges from the moment of birth.
Furthermore, our conceptual and intellectual tradition has caused us to assume that the essence of things and of our own selves is something “invisible” which is beyond anything we can see or touch. Taken to an extreme, this has led us to split the notion of self from action, body from soul and essence from matter.
This perception is revealed in our daily life in very diverse ways. For example, when we state, “John is honest” or “Mary is not trustworthy” we are operating under the assumption that honesty and trust are features which belong to John or Mary. When we discredit the beliefs of other cultures because of ignorance, lack of scientific knowledge or mental immaturity, we are operating under the assumption that there exists a unique and true reality, which fortunately, has been made known to us. We say to ourselves, “Look at them, they believe the earth is flat,” or “How naive they are to live and believe in the existence of multiple gods.”
In a more familiar context, when we argue with our children or within organizations, we present the final argument,“This should be done, because things are like this.” We demand obedience just because we think we have a privileged access to the true knowledge of reality. In our personal life we state “I am like this…shy, extroverted, successful, etc.,” and we live with a strong belief that what we say belongs to our permanent and immutable being and cannot, therefore, be changed. We assume that we will always be like that, regardless of the circumstances we find ourselves in or the efforts we may make to change them.
My training at Newfield was an invitation to suspend, temporarily, our habitual way of being in the world and of understanding ourselves. This invitation came from the course leaders’ conviction that the changes that are taking place in our daily lives have caused a crisis in the historical paradigm in which we are immersed. The globalization of information and knowledge has begun to challenge our traditional convictions; the changes we are experiencing in the areas of business and technology challenge our ability to perform well and our ability to innovate; the environmental crisis causes us to question our way of life; and the crisis of ideological models has caused us to be responsible for making sense of our very existence.
The course leader (Julio Olalla – Founder of the Newfield Network) claimed that we live in interpretive worlds, that our reality is constructed on the basis of a set of beliefs, paradigms and master assessments. Julio also supports the concept that the consciousness of a human being is not restricted to rationality and that our self is a complex coherence between body, emotion and language. Julio further claims that through language we do not only describe the world but we also generate new realities and give meaning to our existence. Newfield believes that life is an open space in which we can invent ourselves.
Beyond what the world may or may not be, it is possible to observe that cultures, organizations, and individuals live within a set of interpretations, beliefs or paradigms which, for them, constitutes reality itself. The paradigms, or master assessments, on which a culture is sustained determine “what we are”, “the world we are or live in” and “what is meaningful for our community.” Pre-Columbian culture maintained with certainty that the Earth was flat; the medieval world assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe; the Greeks believed that the world was ruled according to the will and wishes of the gods.
Similarly, this can be illustrated by the child who believes in Santa Claus; by an organization that operates under the assumption that some things will never be feasible and that they will always be the market leaders; or by the person who lives in a world in which nothing or nobody can be trusted.
The beliefs or master assessments that make up the world for a given culture are not experienced by its members as “ideas” that people have about the world, but as reality itself. In our previous illustration, the child does not need to think of the existence of Santa Claus, and a distrustful person simply feels the world is cheating or attacking him/her. From a different perspective, we may express what was said about our beliefs in this way: “We do not own them, they own us.”
For us to acknowledge that we live in interpretive worlds, we must also question our traditional way of understanding the concept of truth. We can say that within the child’s world, it is “true” that Santa Claus brought the presents, that for medieval people it is “evident” that the sun turns around the Earth, or that for an indigenous culture the harvest was not good because the gods did not want it so. From this new perspective, we can observe that we speak of “truth” when our assertions suit the set of beliefs that constitute “the culture” and not necessarily when they suit reality itself.
Ultimately, Julio claims that we do not know how things really are; we can only say how we observe or interpret them.
Largely, coaching consists of “extending” a person’s interpretation of the world since his/her interpretations could be the source of suffering, dissatisfaction and weakness of action relating to the difficulties he/she declares.
One of the most remarkable consequences of admitting that we do live in interpretive worlds is that the type of world we live in reveals the type of being we are. Everything we do or say reveals the type of person we are when we say or do what we do. For example, whoever sees constant threats in the world, bad intentions or tragedies, reveals his/her fundamental attitude of distrust. In an organization, the person who always says “We’ll never be able to do it.” or “Yes, it’s interesting, but can we do it?” reveals his/her resignation toward the future. In the forest, whoever is in touch with divinity and transcendence reveals his/her mystical inclination. Whoever wonders about how life works gives evidence of his/her scientific curiosity.
This has been stated by Humberto Maturana in two aphorisms: “Everything we say in relation to what we observe (the world) reveals the kind of observer we are” and “Everything that is said is always said by somebody.”
A focus of attention for coaching is to observe what type of identity is revealed by a person on account of his/her difficulties or experiences.
Another consequence of admitting that we live in interpretive worlds is to observe that every belief, assessment or action regarding the world or ourselves opens a horizon of possible actions and closes others. Ultimately, it brings a world within reach.
All of us have probably gone through the experience of fixing an object. Let’s say some piece is missing. Our surroundings immediately turn into an instrumental world, a wire can become useful to fix the engine, a chair can become a step stool and a knife works as a screwdriver. Our technical concern gives rise to a world of tools.
The world of possibilities looks so different when we say, “I’ll never be able to learn Spanish because I’m hopeless at languages,” or “Learning Spanish is hard for me,” or “I need help to learn this.” The first assertion generates no possibilities for learning while the second opens up the possibility, and the third opens up a supporting network.
From an attitude of distrust, the possible actions are to defend one’s self, take precautions to remain secure, or isolate one’s self. From an attitude of boredom, the world looks dull and restricted in action; with motivation, the future looks challenging.
In short, we believe that the position or perspective from which we observe and live the world, or interpret ourselves, determines our possibilities for action. To accept that we live in interpretive worlds entails “giving up” the traditional criterion of truth which supports the existence of one correct interpretation of reality to which everybody else should submit or render themselves. If we drop the traditional criterion of truth, we must ask ourselves the following question: “What criterion do we use to evaluate or to decide between one interpretation or another?” At a pragmatic level, we believe in using criteria which allow us to choose from different interpretations and to observe the possibilities for action and well being available given different beliefs, assessments or explanations. At an ethical level, we claim that the criterion to evaluate such interpretations is based on the respect they inspire in ourselves, in others, and in the environment.
For example, the declaration “I’ll never be able to do it,” reveals resignation about the future and will permanently maintain the ineffectiveness and suffering caused by our inability to carry out what we wish. The declaration “I need help to undertake this job” opens a future of possibilities and learning opportunities and offers the possibility to put an end to the dissatisfaction caused by the situation.
What I took away from my coaching training at Newfeild was the assessment that, learning to observe the power for action and well being generated by the different interpretations available to us becomes a great tool for personal and professional change and for leadership within organizations. All of us have developed excellent interpretations and explanations for the situations we are in. However, when they are examined from the standpoint of generating powerful action or a sense of well-being, we often realize that our explanations keep us where we are or that they perpetuate continued suffering.
Our service as coaches is to trigger new interpretations in a person to provide him/her with a greater power to act and generate personal well-being.
The priority given to reason by western culture has almost cast our body and emotions into oblivion. Our “common sense” thinking has us view the body as a “wrapping,” which contains our true self and has us view emotions as that which alters or modifies our correct way of thinking, deciding, and assessing.
Any situation we find ourselves in triggers in us a particular kind of coherence of body, emotions and language. Although this may seem obvious, our body position always relates to our specific mood, and we live in a world of possible conversations or interpretations that is coherent with that mood and body position.
For example, when we are happy, the body expands and our interpretations about the future are full of possibilities. When we are sad, the body shrinks and the future is influenced by the loss of something we love. It may seem strange, but in our daily life we often take into account the coherence of emotion, body and language. For example, when we enter a meeting room and quickly glance at the tense bodies and tight faces of the participants, we sense the presence of conflict at the meeting and automatically know the type of conversations that are likely to occur. When we arrive home and say hello, the mere tone of our partner’s or kids’ answer gives us a hint of the moods they are in, and the type of conversations which are likely to occur or not occur in that emotional atmosphere.
When we watch people from a distance, moving their hands and body in different conversations or just walking along the streets, we can infer a certain emotion and a possible range of conversations.
Many of our attempts at personal and organizational development have been frustrated by thinking that having a clear notion about the necessity of change will be enough for the change to occur. Only to discover later that the mere declaration is not enough to create what we wish, whether it is to quit smoking, to exert authority, to learn to trust, or to adapt to changes. Change requires more than declarations.
The ability to observe the coherence between body, emotion and language opens an immense field for effective learning because we can design learning opportunities involving the three areas of our own coherence. Sometimes, our difficulty to trust or exert authority is related to our failure to develop an appropriate body posture. This difficulty can also be related to our lack of expertise in producing the emotions or conversations that may make learning possible.
In brief, the type of observer we are when we look at the world and ourselves is a function of the body, emotional, and linguistic predisposition in which we find ourselves.
One of the main competencies we can learn as coaches is to learn to see the body as a declarative space:
- What is the body telling us?
- What incoherence do I observe between the discourse of the client and her/his way of moving?
- What shifts in movement might give rise to new conversations?
As a part of western culture, we have lived with a passive concept of language, operating in the belief that language describes the outer, as well as the inner, reality. Assertions such as “This is a forest,” “John is honest,” “I am responsible” seem to describe properties inherent in the things we name. Language is a “code” used to describe the world that already exists.
Newfeild teaches about a generative concept of language. They believe that when we speak, think or communicate with others, we are not only describing reality but we are also causing things to happen; we create realities that would have never existed without our conversations. In brief, language not only describes the world but it also generates a world.
For example, a new world emerges when a couple becomes engaged, when a judge pronounces a sentence, when a referee calls a penalty, a father declares his love for his child, and when the manager hires, fires or acknowledges an employee. Something new is created when we forgive, when we commit ourselves to accomplish a new task or when a new product is offered in the market. In all these cases, a new reality has been generated with our conversation. This modifies our identity and our possibilities for action in the world.
If I commit myself to finish a document by a certain date, my schedule is affected, my professional identity is at stake and the other person may take on commitments with third parties based on my delivery date. When we forgive, we are putting an end to a conflict that took up our time and energy for a while and we are opening a world of new possible actions with the other person.
The generative power of language is present at least in four areas, which briefly stated are:
One of the key functions of language is to establish distinctions that allow us to observe, describe and act in the world. Colors, temperature, weight, mass, volume, name and classification of “things,” definitions of the parts of a system, are all distinctions with which we operate in life.
Therefore, it is easy to realize that the diversity of worlds we live in is closely related to the universe of distinctions we possess. Likewise, our ability to act in the world is connected to the distinctions we have. Just as an example, we can state that professional worlds can be distinguished because they share a great universe of distinctions that people not in that profession may lack. This can be observed, for example, when a mechanic identifies a faulty distribution belt and we can only hear an unidentifiable noise, or when a doctor identifies a problem in the intestines and we say “I have a terrible pain in my stomach”, when an economist finds a problem in the “cash flow” and we only see “a financial mess.” We see the world within the scope of the distinctions we possess.
Another key factor in the generative power of language is that through language we give meaning to our existence. It is through language that we look for meaning and ask ourselves who we are and what our mission in life is. The ability to open ourselves to transcendence is an act that occurs in language. If we observe a bit further, we discover that an important part of our suffering is related to the absence of meaning in what we do or how we live. Very often, one person feels fulfilled and willing to serve while others feel unappreciated even though they are doing the same thing. We insist, human beings do not only act in the world, they also give meaning to their actions.
It is important to stress that the meaning we give to our actions is a relevant aspect of the identity we produce for ourselves, and of the possibilities for action and well being we are able to create in our lives.
If we make an account of our daily life, we will find that most of it takes place in conversations interacting with others: asking, offering, or promising something, becoming involved, inviting, completing an operation, firing or hiring somebody, complaining or declaring love. Each of these “co-ordinations of actions” generates new possibilities for action in the world and influences our individual identity. In this way, when we commit ourselves to doing something, our identity is at stake: when we offer or make a request, we commit ourselves to behave accordingly; declaring a mission allows us to take actions according to a stated purpose, asking for help generates possibilities to learn and to overcome our difficulties.
In the traditional concept of language as descriptive of “reality,” propositions are the essential bond of communication; this is the sentence that predicates a particular quality of a given subject such as, “Peter is big” or “The table is red”. In the generative concept of language the essential bond of communication is the present or future commitment or action that is generated.
Experience with people and organizations has shown that an important part of our ineffectiveness, dissatisfaction and suffering is related to ways of communication that are not focused on commitment. For example, we attend a meeting where nothing seems to happen, the agreements reached are not operational, we do not fulfill the promises we make to others, we contradict our own basic principles, we assert something without knowing the facts, or we make ungrounded assessments.
One of the wonderful things about the language of human beings is that it allows us to observe ourselves and our way of being and behaving in the world. In other words, language is not only a tool to coordinate actions, but also to observe the way in which we do so. Not only can we give meaning to our existence but also reflect on the way we are doing it, and on what giving meaning really means. This ability of language to reflect on itself allows us to learn, innovate and enrich the observer that we are.
For example, when a team decides to reflect on what possible modifications can be made to improve the effectiveness of their actions, when a couple decides to talk about their usual way of talking to each other to improve their relationship, when a scientist decides to explore how we know what we know, when a community decides to observe their master assessments in order to improve their well being and effectiveness, or when a person decides to look at the way he/she observes life to make it better, all are using the ability of language to reflect on itself in order to transform their lives.
Our ability to observe the type of observer we are is not an intellectual refinement. On the contrary, it is a great opportunity to improve the quality of our life. It opens our minds to new interpretations that provide us with greater power of action and well-being. We can also extend the domain of actions available to areas unknown to us in the past.
If we accept that we live in interpretive worlds, we can assume that most of our problems and suffering do not depend on the external world, but on the interpretations we have of the world and ourselves.
For example, what expectations do I have of my children that make me evaluate them as ungrateful? What is my view of life that I keep on complaining about not receiving something that a colleague never promised? What is my interpretation of authority that I expect blind obedience from my team? What is our interpretation of nature that we believe it’s eternal? What kind of observer am I of the world of money that I live according to the notion of scarcity or abundance?
We cannot know exactly how things are; we can only say how we observe them. In other words, there is always a distance or difference between the interpretation we have of reality and reality itself. However effective this interpretation may be to explain our experience, we believe that, occasionally, when we act we achieve a full “merging” with the world. We can see this happening when the orchestra conductor is carried away by the music or when the football player, without thinking it, is at the right place at the right time; when the leader of an organization literally “receives” the right words to encourage his team, or when the professional “merges” with the task he is doing. Another example is the mystical encounter of a monk with divinity or meditation.
A loss of differentiation occurs when the self and the world (subject-object) fully merge. If we carefully observe these “moments of mastery” we notice that the individual is not thinking “How am I doing it?” “Where do I have to move?” “What do I have to say?” “What will they say?” We simply become the action of saying or doing. Furthermore, the words, actions and movements we perform do not arise from our “reflective-self” but from the very “dance” we are engaged in.
What kind of observer are you in the world ?
Posted by Carla Bobka 
Be Informed, Become Transformed.
Villanova Executive MBA 