Deeper Inquiry Group On February 21, 2006 eleven Learning Group members took part in a special meeting on "Presencing/Theory U" to further explore the ideas of Presencing and Theory U, as presented by Otto Scharmer at our September 2004 and December 2005 program meetings. The discussion was so stimulating that the idea of forming a special interest group to explore "deeper inquiry" was put forth. Following a meeting on May 2 a plan was devised and approved by our Coordinating Committee. The new “subgroup” is for Learning Group members who wish to explore presencing and related topics through unstructured, open inquiry, dialogue, discussion and, oftentimes, simply being present to what comes up for us as a group.  The group operates as a team with rotating facilitation. An e-group is used for administration; membership in it is open to all Learning Group members who would like to participate. The February 3 meeting was postponed due to snow. To RSVP for the March meeting, write to deep@learninggroup.org, but members should feel free to attend even if not able to give advance notice. If you are not a Learning Group members, you can join at this meeting; membership in ODLG is required to participate. To RSVP for this meeting or find out more information about the Deep Group, write to to deep@learninggroup.org. However, members should feel free to come even if circumstances do not permit sending advance notice. Nonmembers may join at the meeting; for membership information, click here. Past Deep Group participation is not necessary to be part of out presencing experiment. All one needs is an open heart, open mind, and one's personal truth. Prior Meeting notes Almost by its very nature, the subject matter of the Deeper Inquiry Group (sometimes nicknamed DIG SIG) is not easy to describe. Likewise, discussion has been free-flowing and note-taking is somewhat like writing on the wind. Nevertheless, we are trying to capture some of the flavor of the meetings here, with "back-sequenced" reports. However, the following can at least give some idea of the nature of the Deep Group discussions. 2008 The December 2 meeting had no facilitator or topic, being "pure" dialogue. Some of the ideas and issues that came up were as follows: Enthusiasm over the recent elections as conducive a more dialogic approach to world and national issues (and some scepticism about the amount of change to be anticipated) Scharmer's Theory U indicates that crisis may be needed for deep change - an optimistic note to bear in mind in the present time. The pro-change forces may be overcoming the nay-sayers. The Mumbai attacks show how much intolerance there still is - what approach would we advocate if we were to solve this problem? Polarities being observed: world concerns/personal concerns, abstraction/feelings, head/heart, discussing questions/attending to what is happening in the group Though it is difficult to describe, we are demonstrating a kind of practice. We are creating a resonant field (though at a given moment everyone may not feel it). We have differing expectations for the group, and "the group" somehow decides that it will be and which will be met. We demonstrate a feeling of caring about one another and a welcoming to those coming back and those who are new to the group. Difficult situations still occur when people describe feelings that make others hurt or defensive. When participants are silent, that does not mean that they are not connected - they may be just "taking it in" to learn or may just feel that they don't have something to say at the moment. Periods of silence may still tend to make as uncomfortable, but we have seen that they can be learning experiences.  We can learn from our interactions and develop an ability to be open with one another. We are creating a space where we can open up in the interest of shared learning. In the wrap-up, we reflected on what we had learned at this session. Some observations were as follows:  Developments depend on the people in the group and the structure of the group. The group dynamics is affected by its not being a fixed set of people and its coming together only once a month. We are creating a safe open space to tell each other what is really on our mind and to discuss issues that concern us. We are a "training group community," illustrating group learning and group interactions. "This was the first time I felt connected with everything." I can learn about myself and am able to work things out in a way that I could have otherwise done. We can learn from our interactions and develop an ability to be open with one another. It is a gift to be able to share ideas in a way that suspends judgment and assumptions. I was not comfortable with certain interactions. I am learning to accept, while being present. I respect the diversity of the group. Any one of us could have felt what each member reported at one time, as we become free to be what we are and to examine ourselves. We are able to work out disagreements and conflicts. Overall, it was felt a very rewarding session, demonstrating the "one love" that will bring us back again (and we hope to share with newcomers). - - - The November 4 meeting was facilitated by Even Root. It was a very open-ended meeting, with no predetermined topic. The national election was in process and those attending were hopeful for an outcome in favor of transformative change: Evan suggested following guidelines: To bring awareness to our process in the present in at least equal measure as we do to paying attention to the content of our conversation. Notice our behavior, as and individual and as a group. Suspend judgments and assumptions Listen Share as moved Some themes that came up in the discussion were as follows: Creating sacred space Healing Transformational leadership A death in the family How to deal with death The power of holding a space "Just being" in a group Trusting and letting go A new sense of hope about the election Overcoming fear and cynicism Little points of light around the country Stories of trust and coming together in the prison "What do we need to let go of?" Personal interactions in the meeting Being in unsettling times Cynicism versus transformation Deep change and transformation in society Personal stories What takes us deeper? "Just let it be" Nothing to do How we doing together as a group Trusting that everything is OK - - - Our October 7 meeting, facilitated by Judy Wallace, was on the following topic: "What is possible if dialogue and collective process become the way we and our leaders come together to address tough problems? What might look different? What would you envision?" Judy began with a short account of her experience at the 2008 conference of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. For a video clip report on that meeting, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQISPNcBIEs. We then did an ice-breaking round of short observations on some learning or important part of the day that we could share. Judy then introduced the methodology we would use for this meeting: Conversation Cafe. Conversation Cafe originated in Seattle and is being utilized all over the United State. It provides procedure, clearly derived from Dialogue guides, for information conversation that work toward collective understanding. The six principles for Cafe discussion are as follows: Open-mindedness - respect for all viewpoints Acceptance - suspending judgment Curiosity - understanding, not persuasion Discovery - uncovering assumptions Sincerity - speaking from the heart Brevity - depth without going on We followed the four steps in the Cafe process. For the first round, each person speaks briefly on the topic, with no feedback or response. For the second, people add comments trying to deepen or add new meaning. The third round consists of dialogue, with open and spirited communication. In the final round, each person brief speaks on what they found to be meaningful.  - - - We will have notes on the June 10, July 1, August 5 and September 2 meetings soon. - - - The topic for our May 6 meeting, facilitated by Malaena Nahmias and Gillian Orlinksky. was accessing and integrating one's "shadow side" to bring us into deeper collective awareness and presence. Our facilitators offered the following definition of "shadow side," based on the writing of Debby Ford: The shadow contains the parts of ourselves that we try to hide, deny or suppress. It is the keeper of aspects of ourselves that we dislike and the qualities that we judge as unacceptable. The shadow wears many faces: angry, critical, fearful, lazy, controlling, selfish, weak, and pathetic. These are the faces we don't want to show to the world and the faces we don't want to show to ourselves. Most of us expend huge amounts of energy trying to get rid of or control these unwanted aspects of ourselves. We hope that by hiding or fixing our "bad qualities" we will have the peace, success and happiness we desire. Most of us are convinced that we are flawed and inadequate so we become masters of disguise, and go to great lengths to hide our bad qualities from those around us, even from ourselves. Our shadow can become the source of creativity, humility, and compassion if through self-awareness we can accept our selves as whole, including our shadow. They all cited the following poem by Rumi: The Guest House This being human is a guest house Every morning a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness, some momentary awareness comes as an unexpected visitor. Welcome and entertain them all! Even if they are a crowd of sorrows, who violently sweep your house empty of its furniture, still treat each guest honorably. He may be clearing you out for some new delight. The dark thought, the shame, the malice, meet them at the door laughing, and invite them in. Be grateful for whoever comes, because each has been sent as a guide from beyond. We began with an exercise in which we wrote words descriptive of our own personal shadow side on pieces of paper. This were mixed together and in rotation we drew out and commented on these descriptions. Some of the issue and ideas that arose from the subsequent discussion were as follows: What are the barriers that prevent from openly discussing our shadow sides? Many of the "shadow characteristics" would seem to be normal behaviors, natural under certainly circumstances. The same item given might mean different things to different people. What would it be like if we did not attempt to conceal our shadow side? Is it possible to interact with one's shadow? Can a group have a collective shadow? If so, can and should it be explored? Is it desirable to advance beyond the normal boundaries of conservation in order to identify and work on shadow selves? Could this group agree not to hold back in the interest of being a laboratory for exploring thought and behavior? Should agents of change identify their own shadow side with the client or the group? These questions proved both complex and interesting, with some points being rather controversial. We thus decided to follow up on this topic at our next meeting. - - - Our April 8 meeting was co-facilitated by Jiahong Juda and Judy Wallace will following up on a question from our March 4 meeting on whether co-facilitation is better than solo facilitation, with the topic continuing our consideration of "use of self" approach as a mean to promote deeper conversation.  We began with a check-in describing our present state of mind. "Excitement" was the most commonly cited feeling about the meeting, but joy, anticipation, peacefulness, openness, curiosity, a "state of calling," hopefulness, caution, and nervousness were also mentioned. Paper and stickies were put on the table, with participants urged to write down any thoughts they had during the discussion. Later we would "harvest" these to create a shared sense of the meeting. Our facilitators then put forth two question for the discussion: (1) Is there an experience that you would be willing to share in which you applied use of self to be an instrument of change? (2) How is use of self helpful to groups? Jiahong Juda compiled the harvest into a document she called the "random list". It is an interesting method to record the spirit of and learning from the meeting. A few "thoughts" or "themes" that survived onto other paper notes from the discussion: We are always instruments of change, whether consciously/intentionally or not. To understand the change, we need to listen to our "voice within". Changing the container can promote change in the group. We need to get away from considerations of self-interest to find and meet the needs of the group. Facilitators and consultants can see themselves an instruments of change. - - - The March 4 meeting continued with facilitated discussion, with Marci Shaffer leading us as we further considered use of self as a means for deep organizational change. We began by summarizing our last meeting, noting the importance of the "container" and the role of OD practitioners in enabling discussion not to yield to the "default container" but rather take a deeper direction. We also noted again the Deep Group itself as an experiment in such conversations. And a connection was noted to Otto Scharmer's ideas concerning how we can get out of the "blind spot" and move toward deep innovation and change. Some ideas emanating from the the subsequent discussion on use of self and deep change were as follows: "The success of the intervention depends upon the intervenor". The inner place that we work from is an instrument of change. Peter Block's Flawless Consulting shows how change agents need to be reflective to succeed. Change agents need to return what they have experienced and learned via use of self to the group. Change agents need to promote the well being of the group. There are different levels of the self and groups may need to go through different stages. As opposed to self as ego, we need to promote a collective sense of self. To promote deep change, we need to take the group to a higher level (e.g., ask, "How are we doing as a group?"). There needs to be a balance between the individual and the team or group, with each being tolerant of the other. How can we make "magic" happen? "Give to the group and open something new." Change agents need to bring out what is in others. Are there structures or techniques for taking a group higher? If you can approach the group from a higher state, you will be more able to advance them (provided they see that your higher state is "real'). How can we convey what we can feel but cannot articulate? The groups needs to feel that everyone is present to one another. There is a tension between pushing further ahead and pulling back. One question that came up was whether co-facilitation may be more effective. We accordingly decided to experiment by continuing this discussion at our next meeting with two facilitators. - - - Our February 5 meeting was facilitated by Jim Ritscher and continued with the “safe container” theme from our previous meeting. The group applauded Jim’s efforts at creating an excellent, reflective summary of his definition of a container, which as he sees it, is the core organization developmental skill. According to Jim, ‘the container refers to the set of forces, agreements and interactions that bind and control a group or organization. It is the boundary that expresses what is and is not acceptable for the group.”  He cited, and we discussed, the following nine areas as tools for shaping the container: Focus directly on the container (guidelines, etc.) Explore big questions Focus on business and organization needs Perform standard facilitation functions Use Self as instrument of change Engage in inner development Build group capacity Focus on Healing Use exercises (visualization, etc.) Jim also presented some suggested guidelines, which we dialogued about for most off the session. Strong feelings emerged around the use of first person (e.g., I agree to participate and to make sure other people participate). In terms of our group, the consensus was that individual participants should be considering as having responsibility for other's behavior. The meeting evoked much divergent conversation.  While some of the participants viewed the session as informational and, therefore, not an entry point into “deep” conversations, others chose to reflect on the experience as that’s what emerged and felt accepting of the result. As in all meetings, participants strive to remain open to what comes up in the moment, and the core group seems to have developed its own safe container through unspoken guidelines. - - - At our January 8 2008 meeting we discussed what proved to be the selected topic for our next meeting: how can a "container" be created for deep change. Often, it was noted, a container is seen as providing a "safe place" for open discussion, but paradoxically change may not occur unless people are willing to take "dangerous" risks. We also put that question into the context of our meetings: What is enabling for some people (e.g., candles) may make other uncomfortable. We talked about how we can honestly fact up to personal issues such as that, using the Deep Group as a "laboratory" for human interaction. This discussion related to the ongoing theme of what we are creating and exploring in these meetings. There was some feeling that to get better in focus the "no topic" parameter should be abandoned, though we felt that self-facilitation was still appropriate. We used a one work check-out to capture attendees' feeling about the meeting, with the following list ensuing: Excited Reflective Stimulated Curious Processing Thinking Looking ahead At our November and December meetings we continued with the visualization and meditation processes employed in October. At the former, we reached a very "metalogic" state in which those present felt having received deep insight into to question of what the group is accomplishing, without being able to "name" the experience. We decide to try to pick up exactly where we left off and continue with self-facilitation. The "where we left" experiment had a mixed success, perhaps in part due to a slightly changing composition of the group. We tried to start with a recent member's experience but got somewhat "stuck" before resuming the quest. However, there was agreement that it was a valuable experience and that participants had been able to state their feelings and understanding in a reciprocally respectful way. So we again decide to continue the same "undefined process" next time, again using self-facilitation. At our October 2 meeting, Michele Simos and Paul Weisman facilitated, showing us a device for "Brilliant Decision-Making," as developed by Ron W. Jue, Ph.D. and Volker Schad. We began by formulating an opening question of "What are we exploring and creating through the Deep Group?" Each of us formed a visual image of the group, the following list emerging: A playground A spider's web Clasped open hands A labyrinth A living cell A sheet of yellow paper A monkey A magnifying glass An underground river The ocean A garden - - - Judy Wallace facilitated our September 11 meeting, in which used dialogue, this to discuss the U-process. Judy's handouts are available in the Deep Group e-group. In a variant of a talking stick, Judy set out various objects on the table for us to take indicating our willingness to speak and (from our choices) as an indication of our current state of mind. We discussed each of the stages of the U process and the role of dialogue at each. Those attending again found the dialogue methodology very helpful for the discussion. Our August 7 meeting continued our exploration of Dialogue and was facilitated by Allyn Bradford (the coordinator of out Dialogue Group). Following a check-in, Allyn explained the use of a talking stick and asked us to create the dialogue container by following these principles: Listen with an open mind. Be aware of your assumptions. Seek a collective meaning. Speak the truth as you see it. Share your thinking process. Nurture emerging ideas. Balance advocacy with inquiry. Suspend judgment. Find your own voice. Be in touch with your attitudes. In a rather free-flowing discussion, we touched many topics. Some ideas that were expressed were as follows: By being explicit about our assumptions, we can get feedback on our thoughts. Consider whether you "own" your assumptions or whether your assumptions "own" you. Slowing down the conversation process allows for better understanding. Dialogue can create a "peaceful oasis" that leads to collective emerging thought. Our early conditioning effects our judgment, and our being quick to judge can keep us from learning. Certain organizational cultures (such as that of Toyota) are receptive to suspending judgment and being open to new ideas. Judgment can be turned on and off. We do need to make everyday judgments simply to cope with our environment. One result of dialogue can be the acceptance of our not all being in agreement. Another principle useful in Dialogue (analogous to the practice of the Quakers) is to refrain from speaking until you are sure that what you say will improve the quality of the discussion. The "letting go" of the urge to speak may resemble the "letting go" in the U process. Judgment often is exhibited in our parenting. How does judgment differ from discernment? Dialogue allows us to tap into a deep need that we have lost in a culture. We can experiment with the principles of dialogue in our day to day life. Dialogue helps us connect with other people. What creates the container for dialogue? There may be a relation between dialogue and diversity in that both involve accepting others (but also accepting yourself). How can we bring dialogue into organizations? Can dialogue "spill over" into the larger organization? Dialogue has been used in some organizations. Ford has a practice of identify meetings as "triangular" (decision making) or "circular" (opening up new possibilities). There are some similarities between dialogue and Co-Active Coaching. Dialogue has been used in the classroom. To use dialogue in organizations means that people have to let go of their organizational roles and to be committed to the process. What lies "beneath" our judgments? In a concluding check-out, we compared our experiences with using dialogue. In particular, whether a talking stick is helpful and how silence for reflection can be promoted were discussed. But overall there was a consensus to keep using dialogue as the format for these meetings. Some books that were cited in the discussion: Otto Scharmer, Theory U Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now and A New Earth David Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue - - - Our July 10 session was on the role of Dialogue in presencing and in the Deep Group and was facilitated by Jim Murphy. Note taker was Judy Wallace. In part, this topic was selected because at our June 5 meeting that has been some feeling that the nature of our conversations should be reviewed. After some introduction about dialogue from Jim and discussion among the group, the evening’s topic seemed to hold the questions Will dialogue becomes the process for discussion in this group going forward? How could dialogue and adhering to dialogue guidelines improve the quality of conversation in organizations? This became the guiding topic/question for the evening’s discussion.  After the opening of the space with the reminder that silence is OK, we moved into dialogue around a "sample" list of dialogue guidelines, viz.: Speak to the group. Listen without resistance. Speak again only after others have had their turn. Specify your assumptions. Balance inquiry and advocacy. Build shared meanings. Move beyond your individual idea to a deeper understanding. Allow silence for reflection. It was later commented that this permission to have silence seemed to relax the conversation, slow the pace compared to previous times. The guideline that seemed to bring out the most questions or comments was “Speak to the group”.  There was a tendency for open interpretation on this and others, but the group agreed in principal to the guidelines and moved into the broader dialogue with these in mind. Lots of very rich thoughts were expressed about how these guidelines in organizational conversations and contexts might make a difference. There was also the sense that the individual’s role in relation to the group would be more one of less focus on self and one’s own ideas and identity and more openness to other’s ideas and seeing the bigger what might benefit the group or the organization.  One line of inquiry that guided our conversation honed in on the very results and competitive orientation of most organizations that we might have as clients.  It was also mentioned that innovation is seen to come out of competition.  Could dialogue produce these kinds of results?  Could the cultures of dialogue and competition be compatible?  Could there be a “both and” way forward? Another expressed the fast paced atmosphere and sense of urgency around time, how things need to happen at a speed that requires meeting deadlines with no time for slowing down.  So this whole question of how dialogue practices could be effective or even introduced into the organizational context where competition, results, deadlines, efficiency, egos, and action-orientation predominate became part of our conversation.  It also seemed to point to further conversations.  Along with this were ideas expressed about how dialogue might actually produce more long term productivity, quality, and employee satisfaction.  It was pointed out that most organizations in our culture are so good as “doing” or “taking action” and not good at “being” or “stillness” or “slowing down”.  We are good at talking and not so good at listening.  It was said that “silence can be the connective tissue of collaboration”. It was also pointed out that science and the need to control, to predict, to replicate results has influenced our culture.  In quantum physics that all got thrown up in the air as the outcome could not be known or predicted; so is the case with dialogue. We concluded by reflecting the process we had just experience and comparing the conversion/dialogue of this evening with those of previous meetings. These were some of the thoughts put forward:  Equality of participation – not really there in the past. Because silence was OK, there seemed to be a shift in the group, a slowing down of the pace No debate No competition to speak, could put out ideas more easily Sense of safety More restful, receptive, sometimes almost meditative atmosphere Not trying to convince or persuade Could hear different points of view, ideas not thought of before, so opened wider perspective Realization that don’t have to voice all thoughts Listening Inviting, welcoming, like being held Organic process, not controlled Would like more time to go deeper (maybe three hours?) It was agreed that the group would continue with dialogue as the process, at least for the next meeting. It was suggested that the evening’s facilitator provide context or guidelines for each evening. - - - On June 5, our facilitator was Tom Matera, with the topic being whether presencing is an evolutionary or a transformational process. We began with a round of introductions and why we were drawn to the Deep Group, producing some of the following comments: I like the concept of "deep" learning. I am interested in spirituality and find support in the group. I get energy from the group. I am interested in the subject of presencing. I like the mixture of individual and group ideas on change, which provides emerging learning. I enjoy the richness of the discussion. I find the ideas presented useful in my work. Tom the suggested that, while at first that difference between "evolution" and transformation" might seem abstract or semantic, examining our view on these concept could help us better understand presencing. Some thoughts that came up in this first part of the discussion were as follows: Presencing involves both evolutionary and transformational components. When we look back at evolutionary change, it may seem that it was at some point a transformation; this may occur at the point of "letting go," when the acceptance of a new paradigm occurred. External change, such as disruptive technology, can produce the need for transformation, but organizations (cf. the experience of Digital) often cannot make the change. [There is a brief discussion of the case of Digital in Chapter 18 of Scharmer's Theory U.] Perhaps one could say that organizational change is always evolutionary but transformation occurs when there is awareness of the new state. Personal transformation may begin as evolutionary, followed by a transforming "shift". Transformational change means a new group identity. Transformation involves letting go of a frame reference - of what we were or what I "owned".   Is change harder for organizations than for individuals? Letting go often requires abandoning a previous worldview (cf. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Change comes when leaders take people on a journey and coach on new behaviors. Presencing and Theory U show cases of deep change by organizations conducting a vision quest. A change may take place over time (evolutionary) but their may be a "quick jump" (transformational) to a new place. The U change process involves adopting new mental models. Could the U become a spiral? There can be a point of letting go and "getting stupid" before the transformation. A period of practicing over and over may be needed before there are results. For deep change, we need to consider our assumptions - do we own them or do they own us? Transformation occurs throughout the U process but is most evident in the "letting go" stage. We then made a pause for reflection and resumed the discussion by considering what gets in the way of transformation. Some of the points raised were as follows: How can we determine the steps needed to reach the place where change is possible? Scharmer outlines three levels: open mind (readiness to consider change), open heart (embracing the change), open will (not being able to go back). A key issue is how to deal with the fear of making the change. Change agents need to be able to demonstrate a future that can be seen. We need to test organizations as to whether they can change. We finished with a debrief. There was consensus that the session has been very valuable. Some admitted that the topic had seemed "academic" but that the flow of ideas showed that in fact it led to fruitful discussion. Some concerns were raised over "process" issues such as more equal participation and the use of silence for reflection. It was suggested that the topic of dialogue for next week might help the group not only to continue learning about presencing but also to make another periodic check on its operating principles. - - - The May 1, 2007 meeting was facilitated by Peter Kouzmov. Extending the theme previously discussed of how our own emotions affect the results of our work in organizations, Peter compared the Presencing model with that of Use of Self. We began with an ice-breaker in which we instructed to maintain eye contact with another person or persons for two minutes. We then reported our feelings, generating the following comments: The experience was uncomfortable, as it made me feel like an "intruder". A similar process is used in Speaking Circles. I was bothered not only my own discomfort but by my supposing the other person was feeling discomfort. To avoid the discomfort, I "disassociated" by wondering what the intent of the exercise was. I had to shift from person to person because it was too much to stay fixed on one face. Though I always thought of myself as visual-oriented, this showed the limitation of that mode. The discomfort may be because this behavior runs against social norms. Next, we reviewed the Presencing/Theory U model, commenting on our understanding and experience of each of the steps (consciousness and awareness of the present moment; being open beyond one’s perceptions and historical ways of making sense; "letting go" of the need to control; readiness to "let come"; shifting from re-creating the past to realizing an emerging future; consciously participating in a larger field for change). Some remarks from this section included the following: Letting go means acknowledging that there are new ways to think and being willing not to follow cultural assumptions. To let go, there needs to trust that something will indeed come. Letting go can involve a destabilizing of our world view (cf. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Letting to is hard because we hate to lose control.   A sense of control is considered by some a key need for human happiness (cf. Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi, Flow). The sense of not having control can lead to a loss of hope. We frequently "let go" and let new ideas come by turning off the conscious thought process (e.g., taking a walk or going to sleep); a new idea may come through our subconscious when we wake up, are in the shower, or engaged in some other activity. Sometimes there has to be a transition period (cf. William Bridges, Transitions) between letting go and finding the new way. Perhaps letting go, transition, and letting come are analogous to Curt Lewin's freeze phases. Individuals and organizations tend not to let go; they continue in a groove that becomes a rut and then a grave. If we can learn from looking at the future, does that mean that the future can influence the present? You can overcome fear of change if you centered within yourself as opposed to being centered on what is external (cf. Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning and Stephen Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People). We then examined another model, the Use of Self. This involves gauging and using emotional reactions, initial perceptions, understanding bias, postponing judgment, and images/fantasies/associations. Some comments that came up in this discussion were as follows: If you learn about yourself, you are learning about others. How does one square this method with the idea that the self is illusion? In considering emotional reactions, we need to separate "my issue" from "your issue". In examining perceptions we have to be careful of blind spots. A good reference on postponing judgment is Jerome Groopman's recent book, How Doctors Think. Images, fantasies and associations can help us generate new hypotheses (as has been shown in science). We then compared presencing and use of self. Peter noted that best recommendation is that the latter should be used not by itself but in conjunction with at least one other method, and preferably two others ("triangulations"). We broke into small groups, each discussing one aspect of the comparison between presencing and use of self. In the reports back from this segment, the following observations were made: Part of the use of self model were used in a case in which planning a training effort seemed to get bogged down, leading to discovery of the real issues faced by the organization. Is it always needful to create a new system or is it sometimes better just to make the system work better? Use of self can be used at each stage of presencing; indeed, the presencing model may be said to assume that use of self and other techniques will be employed to monitor the process. In a sense, we always apply use of self, whether we do so consciously or not. In closing, we felt that this was a provocative session, linking ideas for helping organizations undergo deeper change. In addition, it gave us a better understanding of how we are actually practicing the ideas behind presencing. Of course the issue remains of whether organizations are willing to examine new futures and whether individuals are too concerned about their own job security to participate in deep change. Note: For more references and documentation for this meeting, see the Files and Links sections in the e-group. - - - Our April 10 meeting continued  our exploration of the role of emotions, with Jiahong Juda on the topic of "What is the role of emotions in presencing? What is the role of presencing in emotions?" With a relatively large number of newcomers to the Deep Group, we began with introductions and quickly reviewed the history of this SIG. We then shared some thoughts on how we consider emotions and feelings. Some comments from this discussion were as follows: Buddhism distinguishes between feelings, which are instinctive, and emotions, which can be regulated. Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden popularized the notion of the triune brain: reptilian, mammalian (where emotions reside), and human (which controls thinking that may regulate emotions). Emotions should not be considered as inferior to rational thought; the two have different roles. Thoughts and emotions can be integrated. People who don't understand emotions cannot fit into society. We then reviewed the core concepts of presencing and considered how they relate to the emotions, with the following observations being made: In the "U process" people experience differing emotions as they make the journey down the U and then back up. Presencing creates a deeper form of meaning. There is are common ideas between presencing and emotional intelligence and with Buddhism. Cognition without emotion is insufficient to reach reality and clarity. If the their origin is physiological, then is it really possible for us to control emotions? We can have somatic learning that is not consciously recalled (e.g., being able to remember how to ride a bicycle). Emotions can lead us to discover new facts; the reverse is also true. Focusing is a technique that can be helpful in this area. Do our assumptions own us or can we overcome them? We then broke into small groups, each discussing a particular topic on emotions and presencing. In the reports back from these discussion, these points were made: The emotions play a role in driving movement along the U; creativity serves as a conduit for that process. Presencing creates a space so that we can deal with emotion and get away from judgments that prevent us from going deeper. There are thoughts behind emotions and changing our thoughts can thus change our emotions. Our ego often causes us to "mess up," and this is especially true when emotions are involved The force of emotions can felt in a positive way (e.g., we can channel anger) so that they can even lead to healing. It may be best not to categorize feelings as negative or positive. Emotions seem to have a "bad rap". Our view of the emotions may depend upon our view of what reality is. Organizations may be said to have shared emotions just as they have a shared vision. Our emotions depend on our assumptions. Emotions are more influential than logic. We then concluded with a wrap-up. As is common in these meetings, this led to some new questions and further comments on questions brought up before. Ideas that were raised included the following: Talking about our emotions in organizations is hard. When the social contract between employer and employees was "abrogated" in the 1980s, emotions became part of organizational discourse. Can organizations really be said to have emotions? Emotions can be both an asset and a liability in using presencing. Proper use of the emotions can enable a practice of compassion, of awakening reason, and of building one heart. How do enable organizations to handle issues pertaining to emotions? There are three scales of emotions in organizations: (1) individual, (2) small group, and (3) organization. Process observation: The use of small groups was especially beneficial given the relatively large number attending.  From the various threads, we decided to return next meeting to the question of how our emotions as practitioners effect our work. Some books that were cited in the discussion: Tara Bennett-Goleman, Emotional Alchemy Antonio Damasio, Descartes' Error and The Feeling of What Happens Joseph LeDoux, The Emotional Brain Laurel Mellin, The Pathway Another important source on emotions in the workplace: http://www.dilbert.com/ - - - On March 8, we pursued a subject that came up at the previous meeting. Barbara Bates facilitated, with the topic being the topic the experience of emotions and whether or not we can choose how we feel. Barbara set the groundwork for an "emotions laboratory" by having us listen to an NPR Story Corps story told by a loving couple, one of whom has Alzheimer’s, entitled "A Late Love Blooms Brightly". We then gave our reactions, using the following questions: What emotions did you notice (pleasant, neutral, unpleasant) and when? What physical sensation did you notice and when? What thoughts did you notice and when? Was there a sequence in what you notice (e.g., thought before emotions or vice versa)? If you tried to change the emotion, how did do so and what happened? In sharing our reactions, the predominant emotions reported were fear, sadness, compassion, empathy, and admiration. In some cases, too, there was disappointment or even anger about some the behavior shown in the video. Some also reported some doubt as to how truly the video represented the actual situation. And there some who said that they had not really felt emotional about it. Some of the observations that came up in the discussion were as follows: Physical sensations accompanied the emotions, but it was not always clear which preceded which. At some points, there was inclination to laugh but this was suppressed because it seemed inappropriate. There was a tendency to hold back a reaction (e.g., not to cry or laugh) that might not have been suppressed if we were alone instead of in a group. How we reacted often appeared to relate to our own personal experiences with situations like that in the video. Likewise, our own family and personal histories may determine what kind of emotions we felt and the degree to which we show or are in touch with our emotions. There was some tendency to react against our emotions, e.g., disassociating, having skeptical thoughts, or intellectualizing. Sometimes emotions from the past are "packaged and on the shelf" so that we feel them again. We often associate thoughts and actions so that when one reappears it is accompanied by the other. Our emotions may be manipulated by outside influences such as advertisements - or NPR's style of depicting people. It seems harder to admit to some emotions (e.g., anger) than to others (e.g., pity). On the original "presenting question" of whether we can control our emotions, thee was (perhaps predictably!) no consensus. Sometimes it did seem as if we could "go with flow" and give in to the emotion or that we could decide to set the emotion aside and think instead of feel. We did seem to have more control of how we reacted to our emotions (and even to our physical sensations) than on whether we would feel them. Likewise the group situation or that fact that we processing our emotions in the "intellectual form" of a question for discussion may have affected our experience. - - - Our February 8 meeting, facilitated by Steve Frigand, was on the link between the “Deep Conversation” work we have been engaged with, as presented in Otto Scharmer’s contribution to Presence, and the concept of the “heart at peace", as described in The Anatomy of Peace, by the Arbinger Institute. We began with a round of introductions in which we choose a word or that could describe why we were coming to this group. Some of the answers were as follows: Learning more about presencing Exploring ideas Chaos Stimulation from the group Spiritual growth The range of topics discussed The particular topic of this meeting Dialogic conversation in general  Steve then led us through an visioning exercise (available in the Deep Group e-group). This asked us to choose a relationship (business or personal) that is "stuck" and to consider our concerns about, our hoped for outcome, what words we would choose to describe the other person, how concern or fear over this relationship is impacted us, and a word or phrase that would convey how we feel we anticipate or are actually involved in the relationship situation. We then chose from a set of images one that captures the essence or key part of that feeling. We then thought about how our own behavior is affecting the other person or persons involved. Specifically, is that behavior promoting the desired outcome or reinforcing the feeling that is illustrated in the image that we selected? Next we thought about another relationship from our past that had been nurturing and positive and considered what feelings it had produced. We then selected another image that seemed to represent the feelings produced that relationship. The words we then chose to described that feeling included serene, calm, peaceful, spiritual, joy, mindfulness, growth, strength, stability, predictability, attentiveness, openness, childlike wonder, trust, reflection, communicated and nonjudgemental. Steve next asked us to think again about the "stuck" relationship and to consider the following questions: What don't you know about the other person? What needs does that person have? Could you assist in making those needs obtained? What would they expect from you? What help would they receive? What keeps your from acting? Is there an aspect of they need that you would feel comfortable about helping with? Is you made that attempt, what could that do for you? What do you need to do to take the first step? Everyone found the exercise to be valuable, and most felt the experience of thinking about the positive relationship provided insight into dealing with the negative one. Interestingly, those who chose a personal relationship reported more success than those who chose a business one. It was suggested that personal relationships may be more compelling and provide motivation to act, whereas business ones may be more difficult to impact. The contrast between a structured exercise and a completely flowing discussion was also discussed in the debrief. It was recognized that, although the Deep Group "center of gravity" is toward the unstructured side, facilitators may want to take a more structured approach.  In the discussion about such insights, the topic for our next meeting emerged: can we control our feelings about people or are we able to control only we act, not how we feel? In addition, some references were cited for further learning on the issues we discussed, viz.: Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens  Douglas Stone et al., Difficult Conversations Shinzen Young, Break Through Difficult Emotions - - - Our January 11 meeting was facilitated by David Roitman and had as its topic global warming and its relation to OD practice. We began by a review of what members hoped to get out of the meeting. Concern about global warming, interest in deep change for "saving the world," and the inspiration provided by Deep Group meetings were all cited. We then began a "flowing" discussion on global warming itself and what OD practitioners can see from it as an issues. Among the points made and questions bought up were as follows: How can we discover share values that would lead to resolution of this crisis? How can consensus be developed on such a complex and controversial topic? Could OD techniques (such as whole scale change, systems thinking, and dialogue) be utilized on this issue? How can you deal with problems for which you can't have "all the actors in the same room"? How can we promote innovation to solve this problem? How can a sense that change is possible be promoted? Is it possible to get away from negative, fearful motivators and enable people to visualize positive results from the changes that have to be made? Is global warming an example of the "tragedy of the commons"? As change agents, how should be approach this problem? How we can create a compelling vision for its solution? How do issues of risk and uncertainty affect the resolution of the problem?   Who is the "we" that will create the change? Is there a lesson in great changes promoted by charismatic leaders such as Martin Luther King or John Kennedy? How can the space /foundation needed to gain awareness and consensus be created? Is there an innate human feeling for nature (biophilia) that can help produce the needed consensus for action?  In debriefing the meeting those attending felt it was a very fruitful discussion. The respectful and dialogic nature of the group was felt instrumental in allowing us to develop new ideas and mindsets from one another. Some reported getting insights that they intended to put to future use. Concluding thought: We all own a piece of the planet. It was noted that there a current discussion on global warming was in progress on the OD Network main list server. - - - Our December 5, 2006, meeting  "How do we create deeply inclusive group processes that lead to more meaningful and satisfying dialogue?" Claire Reinelt facilitated and began with a guided reflection. She asked to think about a successful team experience we once had, to examine the reasons why that experience was good, and to compose one question for the group to consider. From there, we went to a free-ranging discussion about inclusion and deep change Some of the comments, thoughts and questions that arose were as follows: Although at first an experience may have seemed very successful, looking back and "knowing what I know now" raises questions as to whether it as good as I thought then. When we talk about inclusion, one question is who should be included? Inclusion creates diversity of styles, a valuable asset to organizations. What is the role of leadership in producing inclusion? Teams create energy and thus promote faster change, as everyone does not work "at their own little pace". Inclusion means that people don't feel "outside" the group or organization. Qualities that lead to well functioning groups: purpose, empowerment, responsibility. Is achievement necessary to create a successful experience (or can we have a great one even though we failed)? Is clarity of purpose needed for success? Does there have to be a goal or is merely going on a journey together sufficient for a good team experience? Such good experiences are characterized by "acting in the moment". A feeling of trust (and of not being judged) helps promote such experiences. There needs to be a balance between personal motivation and organizational goals. Trust has to created by how we behave; it cannot be a goal in itself. A good track record is a strong indicator for trust. Sometimes when everyone in the group challenges one another than can make for a good experience. Groups have to be comfortable in facing the truth and not to have people fear to speak up about what is not working. Groups have to learn how to deal with conflict. But sometimes conflict may be a way to get inclusion. It takes skill to create a place where different styles are appreciated and people feel they are being treated fairly. Empathy can be a guide to inclusion. One goal: having decisions be based on evidence. Another: creating a place where people can discuss things that have not been talked about. Still another: driving out fear. Settling for what we can do as opposed to considering what should be done. We have to overcome blind spots. What values will improve authenticity? Can our becoming more authentic successfully model behavior in others? Authenticity can help us bring up undiscussables. Developing self-awareness makes us more authentic. OD practitioners can help release some of the creativity that we had as children but lost in growing up. We need to be able to recognize the dark side of things. When we are authentic, sometimes we get "shot down". In the debrief, there was general feeling that the opening exercise had helped us to get in a good frame of mind. - - - On November 14, 2006, Gillian Orlinsky facilitated on the topic of ""How important is the alignment between the personal values of the members of an organization and that organization's core values?" The conversation ranged very widely!  We began by reviewing what we individually feel we are getting from participating in this group. Some of the answers were as follows: Opportunity to engage with other OD practitioners. Learning from others who have dealt with these issues in organizations Exploring ideas Re-examining our beliefs Benefiting from one another's strengths Feeling of being valued Chance to go deeper into organizational issues Energy arising from deeper understanding Developing a sense of community and trust Spiritual values and personal development Sharing of values and making connections This led to a very free ranging exchange of thoughts. Some issues that came up were as follows: "Personal" vs. "deep" issues "Deep" as seeing things very clearly The connection between values and depth Why some transformation efforts do not lead to organizational benefits Sharing experiences as a means to deep change Spirituality, emotions, deep thinking, and intimacy as providing more "dimensions" Going deeper and deeper and progressing to a goal The difference between the values that organizations espouse and what they actually practice People telling their life stories as a way to influence organizations - and as a tactic for this group Peter Senge's ideas (from The Fifth Discipline) on achieving depth by identifying patterns and seeing systems Senge's comparison of "good ideas and governing ideas" (Presence, p. 171) How internal conflicts undermine values Maintaining values in one's work as opposed to in the whole organization Conflicts over differing organizational view and values Our family histories as influences on our values - and the comparison between family conflicts and organizational conflicts Using questions to get deeper How situations promotes promote lying "You can't tell the truth if you want to stay here" How one says it as more important than what one says The relationship between this month's topic and last month's (attachment) How to be open and nonjudgemental Toward the end, there was some questioning as to whether our discussion was in fact consistent with goals we espouse and as to whether we need to develop explicit group norms. The December session was thus framed so as to address those concerns. - - - Our October 10, 2006, meeting, following up on discussion at the September meeting, was on "Attachment". It was facilitated by Paul Kampas, who began by showing us a diagram. "To Be Unattached, Our Center Must Be Inside". Our center includes our principles and our attitudes. The next level of our existence includes thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and egos. At a further distance from our center are bodies and appearances. At still a further periphery are such items as job, work, and career; money; possession; food, drink, and drugs; pleasure and pain; ways of doing things; politics, religion, ritual, teams, and heroes; friends and enemies; family and pets; and status, position, role, power and being right. We then discussed the concept of "attachment" as a barrier to personal and organizational change. Capturing these thoughts was more than usually difficult, but here are at least some examples of the ideas that originated: We are "attached" to something when it causes suffering to do without it. Our culture encourages attachments, e.g., via brand loyalty. What we are (our core being) is not the same as our thoughts. Our assumptions about other people affect our beliefs Without letting go, there can be no learning. If we are too settled or isolated, we cannot change. Organizations have core beliefs that can hinder change or promote it. Do organizations work better if they are not that attached to certain ideas or values? Or are organizations better if they have strong core values and follow them? Are we more effective as change agents if we are not attached to our own beliefs? Our sense of identity can be a source of attachment. Our ego can be a barrier to awareness. Willingness to change and to grow is necessary for individuals as well as organizations. Power can be used in positive or in manipulative ways. Our ability to promote change is dependent on the power of our client. The roles that we take on or the beliefs that we hold can make us more attached or less attached, more effective or less effective. We often attribute our actions to others' behavior when in fact it is our assumptions or beliefs that made us act as we did. Attachment to certain beliefs can make it hard to discover underlying assumptions and to find deeper meaning. You are attached when "you don't own it, it owes you". As change agents, should we act on our own values or those of the organization? Can we align our values with that of the organization? How does organizational diversity affect having core values and making deep change? The following books were cited in the discussion: David McClelland, Human Motivation Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth Alan Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity In processing the meeting, we noted certain themes for further exploration (as cited above). We also discussed the pro and cons of a visual aid in guiding the discussion. - - - The September 12, 2006, meeting was a planned as a kind of stock-taking as we reached the milestone of our sixth session. Michele Simos, whose initiative was responsible for the original meeting of what became this group, facilitated and we welcomed three new members. Those attending had been asked to think about what they found interesting about presencing and related topics, why they were coming, what they wanted to get out of the group, what personal needs it meets, and what the group should become. In the "Deep" tradition, our review of this agenda found that part of it did and did not resonate with us individually so that we began our discussion by addressing these issues as we each saw fit, rather than handling them on a  point by point basis. Following that, we had free-form discussion on the various points that came up. As always, the record can only identify some "selected themes/points" that were voiced, viz.: Connecting our personal issues with the organizational ones that we work on The question of attachment: how being centered in what is outside of us makes us fear change, whereas being centered in what is inside us makes us able to change. Going deeper as a way to understand/overcome what we are attached to Attachment to individual positions as a barrier to organizational change The need to be careful when guiding a group to deep transformation Seeing what is really happening and being to describe it as necessary for promoting change The group as a source of help for problems that we face Getting ideas from the group on identifying key questions that can help organizations go deeper The "magical" experience of conversations that, starting with individual thoughts, develop collective understanding Losing one's self-centeredness and becoming more interest in others' thoughts than in our own The possibility of finding some structure so that the group makes some kind of progress Differing conceptions of what "deep" means (e.g., deep personal experiences and identification of root causes) The relationship between feelings and going deep The technique of pauses for reflection between speakers as a help toward deep understanding Conscious vs. unconscious creation of meaning The different perspectives that different members of an organization see as leading to differencing receptivities toward change Group vs. individual experiences of finding meaning The need to create a safe space - to create a place where things can happen Getting a stimulus for making deep change Developing questions rather than answers Unstructured discussion that creates resonance Taking a group to a "place that is inside you" The group as creating the experience of going on a journey Many speakers described the group as "feeding" its members. Perhaps that reflects the fact that, unlike in the program meetings, food is not served on these occasions! - - - At our August 1, 2006, meeting, facilitated by Jim Ritscher, we shared experiences with  personal transformation. This followed a decision at the previous meeting to actually "do what we have been talking about". In part, too, this enabled us to examine the experience of those conducting presencing or similar OD interventions. Jim asked participants to "share a secret, not necessarily a deep secret, but something you feel comfortable telling us". Nine members thus told a story about a transformational experience. We also used silence and questions as tools for further inquiry. Some of the "themes" that arose in these discussions: Ability to trust others as prerequisite for transformation Opening up as a tool for change Clearing out the past as a means to become different Suspending fear as a way to overcome resistance Concern for others as a motive to change Sources of change from within one's self vs. from the outside Being able to "do nothing" as a step in the change process Desire to become a better person as leading to transformation Transformation as giving up a "fixed identity" Overcoming needs in order to change Being in touch one's self as a necessity for change Small changes leading to larger ones A sense of being connected to everyone as an indication of change Leaving a comfortable life in order to lead a good one Change as painful but meaningful Transformation from finding out what is real A healing process in transformation In reviewing the discussion, we felt that we had achieved our purpose of deeper inquiry and connections. We noticed a growing sense of trust and sharing. Although in the opening round of introductions, there was considerable citing of our "OD identities," we gradually opened up to one another simply as persons. Very interesting ideas came up, and we had helped one another draw out the meaning of our stories. The use of silence was felt beneficial, as was the habit of active listening. An almost reverential attitude developed as we spoke concerning ourselves and from our own feelings, while at the same time being attentive to others. Support was a common theme: none of the change stories involved one person doing it alone. Still, we recognized that both the process and the content would be hard to explain to others who were not there. Change processes have to be experienced to be understood. - - - Our July 11, 2006,  meeting was on "The Relation of Personal Transformation to Organizational Transformation" and was facilitated by Jiahong Juda. Some of the points that came up in this discussion were are follows: There is a transition zone between the person and the organization. As change takes place place, there can be connections and gaps between the individual and the organization. Is "deep" in opposition to "broad"? Is deep change necessarily a slow process? Personal transformation means seeing one's self in a "deeper" context. We association "deep" with the heart and with caring. Deep change would seem to mean arriving at underlying causes. When study something "deep enough," we learn more about it. To go deep, one must relapse the ego.  "Deep" can be related to "flow". A "deep" change process is a theme in world literature (cf. Dante's Commedia and Virgil's Aeneid), as well as in shamanism (shamanism being in turn an influence on the authors of Presence). Talk is "shallow" instead of "deep" when it does get us to the bottom of things. We also talk about "delving" into something (digging deep). Most organizational behavior and discourse is at a "shallow" level (premised on ideas such as that people are interchangeable, that emotions do not belong in the workplace, that we function in a rational manner, or that it is best interest of organizational and individual to maximize efficiency, which may even be advantageous in some ways but block us from deeper inquiry, from seeing things as a whole, and from being in touch with our emotional and spiritual selves. The prevalence of practices, such as outsourcing, that treat people as commodities seems to show that organizations are more "superficial" these days. Or was the paternalism that was characteristic of organizations in the past actually not respect of person's growth? Organizations can be seen as "economic beings". Organizations naturally tend to stability, but change means instability and is thus disturbing. Organizations vary considerably and general statements about "organizations" may lack validity - and may reflect the biases of our experiences. We have gone "deep" when we are grounded and looking from within. We are all moving forward in some respects and there are various trends and shifts that affect people, organizations and their relationship. Some organizational change may occur because of personal transformation, but there are other factors such as industry trends and organizational life cycles. Change can brought about by the organizational leadership or by a change agent. Change agents can be either internals or externals. Change agents need to fit into ongoing organizational trends to move it in the direction of the intended change. Sometimes the change agent is a "wizard": the one person who can go deep. Who can be a change agent - maybe everybody? Can organizations "mandate" personal transformation? Sometimes send people on a change journey, but what happens if people come back changed in unanticipated ways? We may attempt deep change but not be allowed to reach it - "there is no time" - we are always on a treadmill. To get deep change, we need to create environments that allow for meaningful conversation. People need to be able to express their feelings to establish open communication.  Learning about yourself can help your ability to promote organizational change. How does Presencing compare with whole system change methodologies such as Future Search? Do other forms of practices than OD promote deep change - or are some "deep change agents" doing OD without knowing it? Sometimes organizational change come about and personal transformation afterwards, as an result of it. What questions, if asked, will make organizations more open and will create more opportunity for deep change? Discovering what people are passionate about - and making them passionate - is part of the deep change process.  Do practices such as 360 degree feedback and visioning support deep change? At this time, we noted that evolved to a point where the participants believe the next step is to bring the ideas they have been talking about more to life by sharing their own experiences of profound personal change. As OD practitioners, our personal development can be critical and integrated part of our practice in Organizational Transformation. The idea would be to explore deep change at a level we can create ourselves. The experience would be in the style of Presencing and Theory U but with our own content and not necessarily based on those sources.  - - - Here are some of the ideas put forth at our meeting on June 6, 2006, facilitated by Peter Gorer on the topic "Deep Change Needs Time, But Organizations Never Have Time": Organizations say they have not time for going deep, but is that really a cover for not wanting to face certain things? Or is it an issue of trust - going deep requires more trust? Is it possible to attain deep change quickly? Where would the energy for quick but deep change come from? Can we go/do "just enough" and still get deep change? Is the change process dependent upon the client's energy? How does "magic" come about to produce real change? Can parameters be set for deep change? What is the relationship between personal transformation and organizational transformation? Are there identifiable leverage points that promote deep change? What role models are there for deep change agents - court jester, charismatic leader, speaking truth to power? Can the arts be used in change interventions? Must we "not be afraid to die"? Is it necessary to develop a sense of urgency to create change? How can demonstrate what "deep" means? How does shifting between realities affect the way see change efforts? If we succeed in going deep, how do we "get back up"? Can there prototypes for change? Is is possible to induce deep change simply by, saying, giving everyone a copy of Presence? How much awareness does the client need to have and what the effects of a gap between the mental model of the client and the practitioner? Does change have to come from the top or can be created upward in the organization? Can we create "seeds" for change? How can we make people aware of the need for changes at all levels - organizational, community and social? Is there sometimes a gap between authority to change and competence in changing? Is there a role for marketing in change efforts? How can we bring a meeting of hearts and minds? How does the fact that organizations may have different identities and/or a gap between the official culture and the actual culture affect our work as change agents? What is role of spirit in organizations? - - - At our May 2, 2006, planning meeting, the following ideas, questions and metaphors were put forth: Developing "radical authenticity" Using deeper inquiry in practical contexts The relationship of integrity to authenticity Experience vs. inquiry The connection between being authentic and going deeper Observing what is emergent Follow a path - going into the wilderness Self development as a means toward organizational effectiveness Getting away from "rules" Authenticity: normal behavior or acquired skill?  - - - Some of the issues discussed at the February 21, 2006, original meeting were as follows: What are the sources of resistance in individuals and organizations toward deeper inquiry and transformational change? Having persuaded an organization to go deeper, how exactly do we get them there (or is better just to go without knowing how)? How can we ensure that “shift happens”? Can we make a typology or map of techniques for going deeper? In addition to Presencing, Dialogue, Focusing, intentioning, interventions based on poetry and other arts (our October 2005 program presented an example), getting people to tell the truth, were mentioned - can we incorporate these approaches as well? How can we maintain the “magic” and energy that deeper practices create? If people don’t want to go deeper, can we persuade them – or should we just let them fail? Can we create a “container" that lasts”? What is the role of critical thinking in developing deep change?