li&lin(2011)

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

1/27

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

A New Paradigm of Organizational Transformation:

Enacting Wholeness Praxis in the Oneness of Problemand Possibility

MingFen Li KingKong Lin

Published online: 15 July 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract In view of the emerging complicated global problems intertwined with the

degradation of the natural environment, we need to probe the nature of the problems

caused by human thinking and action in order to find new possibilities and opportunities

for our future. In this paper the authors analyze the problem maze humans create to depict

the nature of organizational problems across public, private, and the third sectors. In order

to cultivate the capacity to envision the possibilities inherent to organizational problems,

we approach organizational transformation from the perspectives of epistemology, ontol-ogy, methodology, and practicalogy. We also propose four approaches to organizational

transformation, namely involutionary, evolutionary, revolutionary, and, holo-volutionary

transformation. We expect that by highlighting the oneness of problem and possibility, and

by characterizing wholeness praxis of organizational transformation, we would probably

offer a new path of sustainable organizational development. We also use three social

enterprises to demonstrate how social and organizational problems might be transformed

into possibilities and opportunities.

Keywords Wholeness praxis Organizational transformation Involution

Evolution

Revolution

Holovolution

Problem

Possibility

Introduction

We are living in an age of complexity and chaos, with new conflicts and problems con-

stantly emerging from various corners of the world. Under the impact of globalization, any

local problem might quickly spread and evolve to become a global problem. In spite of the

existing innovative knowledge and state-of-the-art technologies for coping with

M. Li (&)

School of Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

Syst Pract Action Res (2011) 24:107132

DOI 10.1007/s11213-010-9179-z

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

2/27

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

3/27

been embraced by both practitioners and academics since the 1990s, they are inadequate to

cope with the complex problems arising from the increasing deterioration of the natural

and human environment. Second, wholeness praxis could help integrate the emerging

global communities which have long endeavored in the fields of environmental and cul-

tural sustainability. We would argue that closer relationships between global and localorganizations have much to offer in nurturing human capacities for creating new oppor-

tunities for our future.

The four approaches to organizational transformation we propose are involutionary,

evolutionary, revolutionary, and holo-volutionary transformation. By accentuating the

essential oneness of problem and possibility, and by characterizing praxis of wholeness

organizations, we take a humble attempt, rather than an assertive claim, to create a new

path to sustainable organizational development. We expect that more and more learning

organizations might be able to transcend themselves to become wholeness praxis organi-

zations through the possibilities envisioning capacity. Such wholeness praxis organizations

are generative and regenerative in nature, which often share the spirit of global con-

sciousness or integral wholeness, i.e. spirit for relating, sensing, presencing and creating

with the greater whole. It is very likely that these organizations are more proficient in

uniting the many interconnected communities and organizations to participate in global

dialogues and ultimately co-creating a more sustainable ecology and world. We expect that

this contemplative and philosophical reconceptualization of organizational transformation

would bring forth intellectually inspiring discussions about the emerging wholeness-praxis

organizations in the new age.

Exploring the Nature of Problems and How We Relate to Them

When attempting to analyze or solve a problem, it is essential to probe the nature of the

problem itself. It is even more important to reflect upon the role we play in creating or

aggravating the problem since our attitudes toward the problem tend to determine how we

define the problem itself. In the section, we will first clarify the roles we might implicitly

and unconsciously play as problem creator, which once being well recognized could be

further turned into problem transformer.

Transformers of Organizational Problems, or Creators of a Problem Maze?

Problem solving has been the major focus of organizational development and change since

the 1970s. When encountering with an organizational problem, some people focus on

analyzing the phenomena caused by the problem, which leads them to treat its symptoms

rather than its cause. Others, when challenged by a devastatingly urgent or recurrent

problem, may resort to what seems like an efficient solution but is in fact a merely short-

term fix. Neither approach, however, will create a fundamental solution, because neither

approach can lead to a new representation of the problem and thus to the problems

inherent possibilities. Therefore, while the value of problem diagnosis and problem solvingis embraced by many organizational leaders, calls for reframing or restructuring problems

are nonetheless echoed by several scholars across various fields, such as Akin (1994) from

Syst Pract Action Res (2011) 24:107132 109

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

4/27

Every individual defines problems in his or her particular way, but this particular way is

in fact only one of many possible ways. Recent development in the theory of organiza-

tional change emphasizes transforming human perception, thus leading to new ways to

represent and solve problems. For example, the world-renowned quantum physicist Bohm

(1986) points out that there is a close relationship between mind and matter, observer andreality, and individuals and organizations or societies. According to Bohms (1996) the-

oretical argument, change in ones perception can result in transformation of the reality one

observes. However, even though we might recognize the importance of restructuring our

framing of an organizational problem, we still tend to be imprisoned by our habitual

perceptions and interpretations. The constant emergence of new problems, evolution of

existing problems, and the complicated interplay of these old and new problems form an

intricate maze, and it is this maze that confines our perception and understanding of the

human world. Such a problem maze can be characterized as follows:

Habitual perceptions and framing of problems complicates the patterns of problemarising and formation, turning problem solvers into problem creators.

Endless vicious cycles of problem framing and problem solution leads us further away

from the exit of the problems we have been struggling with.

Lack of reflection upon and search for the root causes of problems make it impossible

for us to recognize that the entrance to the problem maze is exactly its exit.

Quick and simple solutions to problems often complicate the problem maze, making it

even harder for us to find our way out.

The paradox of such a problem maze reveals that if we stand inside it we cannot clearly

observe its tricky patterns, while if we stand outside it we cannot see our part in itscreation, which can deepen the mentality of shifting the burden to others. To resolve such a

dilemma, we could hardly rely on strategic systems tools to depict the problems we

encounter. We also need to shift our attention from the outer world to the inner world,

cultivating our inner insight so that we may reframe or reinterpret the problems we

observe. Indeed, the ancient Chinese and Buddhist philosophies have long espoused the

value and power of a clear, unattached mind when facing all kinds of human problems and

challenges.

According to many wisdom traditions, purifying our attachment to personal desires and

the vexations that grow up around them will help us clarify the nature of a problem and its

constantly dynamic and evolving processes. In fact, complexity and simplicity are twosides of a coin. If we take a one-sided view of an organizational problem, we would lose

our capacity for insight, and thus forfeit our chance to transform the problem into possi-

bilityto realize the possibility within impossibility, as it were. Therefore, when under-

taking any organizational change initiative, we need to look into the problem maze we

have been collectively creating, understand the close relationships between human minds

and organizational problems, and cultivate our insights into the roles of both personal and

collective mentalities in shaping the predicaments of organizations.

Recognizing Habitual Patterns in Solving Organizational Problems, and the Nature

of Existing and Emerging Problems

110 Syst Pract Action Res (2011) 24:107132

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

5/27

Kahanes (2004) discourse on types of complexities embedded in the ways we solve

problems. He pinpoints three types of increasing complexity at the root of our toughest

organizational and social problems: social complexity, dynamic complexity, and genera-

tive complexity. Social complexity is created by diverse stakeholders with different

agendas and worldviews. Those who are involved tend to stay confined at the level ofmutual difference and superficial dialogue. Dynamic complexity takes place over great

distances in time and space as well as in cause and effect, making those who are involved

feel powerless, helpless, and hopeless. However, once new realities emerge for which past

solutions no longer fit, generative complexity also grows incrementally. Table 1 shows the

three types of complexities, along with the ordinary and extraordinary approaches taken

when encountering either simple or complex problems.

In the past decades, more and more research centers, nonprofit organizations, and

government projects are taking steps to address the complicated problems created in

human society, particularly the deterioration of the natural environment caused by human

ignorance. Organizations across both the governmental and nongovernmental sectors have

realized that they must come together to face the imminent challenges-crises, even-in order

to maintain a livable and sustainable earth. It is under the influence of such global trends

that more and more organizations are searching for new paths to organizational develop-

ment and transformation.

Although Senges formulation of the learning organization has been widely applied in

various fields since 1990s, Senge et al. (2004) started to undertake a global leadership

initiative in the turn of the century. They have been working to cultivate a collective

consciousness of global sustainability, aiming at fostering a new social technology of

presencing.Senge (2003) also contends if our primary role is to fix problems, whether individually

or collectively, rather than to create something new and meaningful, it is difficult to

maintain a sense of purpose. Without a sense of purpose, it is difficult to harness the

energy, passion, commitment, and perseverance needed to thrive in challenging times.

Therefore, we need to frequently go back to human purpose by asking fundamental

questions, and distinguish problem solving from future creation. If organizations could

simultaneously focus their efforts on resolving day-to-day problems and generate new

possibilities, they would be able to cultivate a sense of co-relating and co-suffering, and

eventually make the best use of both problems and possibilities.

The sixth Zen patriarch-Hwei-Nengs proverb that Vexation and wisdom arise fromthe same true nature represents the oneness of problems and possibilities. Another more

prevalently quoted Chinese proverb is Crisis may serve as turning point. To better

understand the essence of such oneness, we could take a step further to see how human

Table 1 How to solve problems

Type of

complexity

Definition Ordinary approach

for simple problems

Extraordinary approach

for complex problems

Social Actors have diverse perspective

and interests

Experts and authorities Actors and stakeholders


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

6/27

minds and mentality interact with the observed phenomenon, instead of taking an ana-

lytical approach to investigate the problem per se. If we come to realize how we define,

approach and relate to a problem, the problem itself is more easily to be dissolved or

resolved. In other words, problems are dynamically changing and evolving with the

observers or participants evolving thinking and action. This is what Bohm (1983, 1996)called oneness of the observer and the observed.

However, the capacity to envision possibilities in problems demands both professional

experiences and daily practice in order to bring vision to reality. Misinterpretation or

misrepresentation of the current reality might inhibit the nurturing of such envisioning

capacity. To observe reality with this new vision would help clarify and reconceptualize

organizational problems, and transform them into possibilities. This is indeed resonant with

Roses (2002) five suggestions for positive thinking to be fostered in organizations. They

are:

1. Learning to be comfortable with contradictions.2. Learning to look at problems as possible opportunities.

3. Learning to focus on peoples better sides.

4. Pausing to look for connections in the big picture.

5. Looking for systems and developing an appreciation of them.

Moving from the Confinement of Organizational Problems to the Cultivation of Inner

Limitlessness

How do people with different mentalities, visions, and paradigms work together in anorganization? How do people with different paradigms of leadership guide the whole

organization to their envisioned world? How could we identify all the various constella-

tions of minds and souls in the divergent communities within an organization? To respond

these questions, one approach is to build horizontal networks among communities and

organizations in the real world. Another approach is to extend the vertical network from

our real world to our envisioned ideal world by deepening and cultivating our insights. An

alternative approach, however, is to design a bridge for people with divergent minds to

create a new language so as to unintimidatedly communicate with one another between the

real world and ideal world.

What would be the language for people to travel between reality and ideal, betweenobstacles and opportunities, and between problems and possibilities? Indeed, efforts

expended to harness such an enabling language for collaborative inquiry are revealed in

approaches like appreciative inquiry, open space, future search, whole scale change, par-

ticipatory design, liquid cafe and world cafe. Nevertheless, we still need a holistic spirit to

better articulate this new language for nurturing human beings shared wholeness in order to

bridge the divergent and conflicting values embedded in numerous societies and organi-

zations. The shared wholeness we would explicate is indeed the very core of Kelleher and

Barrett (cited from Fairholm 1997) corporate spirit or organizational consciousness.

Kelleher and Barrett (cited from Fairholm 1997) contends that corporate spirit is a

spiritual force that honors excellence in the leadership of job performance. He clarifies that

the corporate spirit plays a critical role in shaping organizational culture and expanding the


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

7/27

corporate spirit, they would be more inclined to relate themselves to the larger society, as

well as to lift the spirits and deepen the souls of their partners and workers.

In responding to Arjuna Ardaghs workshop on Business in Fullness, Rose (2002)

contends that when we feel ourselves to be separate from others, we experience ourselves

as disconnected and become suspicious and on guard. He further reflects that if a problemis real, its solution requires action in linear time. If a problem is imaginary, its solution

requires waking up from the dream in which there is a problem. It doesnt take time-just a

moment(s) of realization (an aha!). This understanding can be applied radically to the

most fundamental beliefs about reality and about business.

Barrett (1998) further argues that Successful business leaders of the twenty-first

century will need to find a dynamic balance between the interests of the corporation, the

interest of the workers and the interests of society as a whole. To achieve this goal they will

need to take account of the shift in values taking place in society, and the growing demand

for people to find meaning and purpose in their work. He categorizes organizational

cultures into seven levels based on the quality of their collective consciousness, namely

Survival Consciousness, Relationship Consciousness, Self-esteem Consciousness, Trans-

formation Consciousness, Organization Consciousness, Community Consciousness, and

Global/Society Consciousness. In his analysis of these levels of organizational con-

sciousness, he argues that successful organizations in the twenty-first century will be

those that complete their transformation and live out values that support the common good

(three higher states of consciousness). The transformation from the lower to the higher

states of consciousness involves liberating the corporate soul. Moreover, when there is an

alignment between an organizations values and its employees values, then people would

respond by fulfilling their potential and tapping their deepest levels of creativity.In addition to recognizing the significance of corporate spirit and organizational values,

we need to further probe ways of making the best use of both problems and possibilities to

unleash such organizational potential. In the following sections, with new perspectivisms,

we will propose a holistic approach to organizational transformation.

Holistic Approach to Transforming Organizational Culture

In the previous sections, we explored the nature of problems and highlighted the interre-

latedness of problems and possibilities. However, to transform organizational problems

into possibilities demands deep understanding of both personal and collective mentalmodels. Between the two poles of problem and possibility there exist emotional and

creative tensions between restructuring of problems and emergence of new visions. The

system dynamics of problem restructuring and possibilities emerge from various constel-

lations of organizational culture and leadership.

In the article entitled Reinventing the Health Care System from Within: The Case of a

Regional Physician Network in Germany, Scharmer and Kaeufer (2003) present an

illuminating conceptual map of the four levels of patient and physician relationship. This

map was later revised by Scharmer (2007). The essence of the four levels of patient and

physician relationship is very resonant with the iceberg of organizational problems analysisused in Senges The fifth discipline. While the former focuses on transformation of rela-

tionship from repair defect to therapy behavior, reflection thought and self


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

8/27

and instructor, he or she will become a coach guiding patients reflection on the root causes

of their problems. In this more expanded role, the doctor becomes comparable to a midwife

who assists her patients in bringing forth new life, nurturing their self-transformation and

self-transcendence.

The iceberg model of physician-patient relationship lay out the four levels of trans-

formation for both patients and physicians in the context of hospitals. But, how could we

depict the depth of organizational transformation in other contexts and enact the possible

transformation? Although Senge (1990) and Senge et al. (1999) proposes ways ofexplaining reality (see Fig. 2) for tracing problems phenomena to collective mental

Fig. 1 Scharmers (2007) four levels of the patientphysician relationship

Fig. 2 Senges (1990) ways of explaining reality


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

9/27

new paradigm encompasses four approaches of organizational transformation, which could

be observed in divergent organizations, namely in-volutionary approach, evolutionary

approach, revolutionary approach and holo-volutionary approach. Each of the four

approaches will be interpreted from the epistemological, ontological, methodological and

practicological perspectivisms in the following sections.Although each organization might be oriented toward one specific or combined

approach, it is rarely observed that one organization undertakes all of the four approaches

to organizational transformation. Because each of the four approaches embodies a different

paradigm of thinking. However, most organizations might be composed of divergent

communities oriented toward the four different approaches. The values treasured by certain

communities in one organization might be ignored or even sacrificed for pursuing orga-

nizational shared vision. Accordingly, they might be assimilated or accommodated into the

mainstream approach embraced by the higher leaders or the majority. The new paradigm of

organizational transformation is thus a new world view to be brought forth by incorpo-

rating the divergent mentalities of various communities within one organization.

We frame this new paradigm as wholeness praxis of organizational transformation,

which is characterized by the spirit of holo-volution. This holo- volutionary spirit is

manifested in the envisioned actions of communities or organizations which endeavor in

travelling across the four approaches. In order to explain the essence of this new paradigm,

we construct a framework of wholeness praxis of organizational transformation by laying

out its epistemological foundations, ontological essence, methodological strategies, and

practicalogical actions along the two axis- knowledge vs. wisdom and spirituality vs.

world. Below is a brief description of the conceptual map of wholeness praxis of orga-

nizational transformation, and the essence of its four approaches (Fig. 3).1. Involutionary transformation: This approach focus on observable problems, quick and

short-term solutions, cost-effective investment; and consensus reached through

superficial participation.

2. Evolutionary transformation: Because of the competing forces between problems and

possibilities, and the co-existing, unending cycle of problems and solutions,


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

10/27

organizations tend to take the evolutionary approach to transform problems despite its

incremental effect.

3. Revolutionary transformation: Organizational leaders who are adept in envisioning the

wholeness of two seemingly contrasting and conflicting driving forces might not be

willing to be confined within the problem realm, and tend to determingly enact anychange with quantum effect. They are the adventurers of revolutionary transformation

in an organization.

4. Holo-volutionary transformation: This approach arises from the collective conscious-

ness, inner growth and holistic wellbeing of an organization. When organizations

come to grip with the quantum effect of energy flow and the synchronicity of deep,

positive consciousness, they would enter the holo-volutionary transformation stage.

Therefore, organizations aiming at holo-volutionary transformation would expend much

effort on nurturing positive collective flow and enacting a zeroing process of social

problems and world phenomena. Finding a means to maximize the value of eachencounter, whether we define it as a problem, challenge, hurdle, dilemma or adversary,

becomes the focus of organizational transformation. In the following sections we will

further elaborate the essence of the four approaches to organizational transformation. It

should be recognized that the four approaches are not four distinct entities. Indeed, any

single organization may transform across different levels of transformation with divergent

patterns. Among them, holo-volutionary transformation is the deepest and most encom-

passing approach to enacting the other three approaches for organizational innovation at

various situations.

The Essence of Wholeness Praxis of Organizational Transformation

Having clearly defined the four approaches of organizational transformation, we will now

present the new paradigm of organizational transformation from the epistemological,

ontological, methodological, and practicological perspectivisms. In this section, we would

explain in more details the essence of the four approaches, each embodying divergent

interpretations and actions with regard to problems and possibilities. Although the four

approaches are represented analytically, they should not be conceived as clear-cut entities

of the linear process.

Epistemological Perspectivism on Wholeness Praxis

In the early 1970s, Habermas (1971) proposes three approaches of human cognitive

interest. They are the approach of the empirical-analytic sciences incorporates a technical

cognitive interest; that of the historical-hermeneutical sciences incorporates a practical

one, and the approach of critically oriented sciences incorporates the emancipatory cog-

nitive interest. Likewise, the knowledge interest of the first transformation approach

emphasizes domination of the information environment, that of the second focuses on

construction of meaning and interpretation, the third uses critical awareness to deconstructand reconstruct social systems, and the forth integrates wise pursuit of the highest human


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

11/27

values transformability of problem into possibility, and thus could frame problems as

opportunities for envisioning and enacting possibilities. This also echoes Ackoffs ( 1999)

four different ways of dealing with problems and messes in the real world, which are

absolution, resolution, solution and dissolution. He thinks that effective management

requires dissolving messes, not solving or resolving problems. Meanwhile, if we take adeeper look at the generative knowledge resources, we might be more aware of whether we

could guide our seeing through the material/environmental field, information field, and

even consciousness field. Beyond the consciousness level, we will be closer to the

wholeness field, which will extricate us from our mental models and release the spiritual

energy necessary for envisioning possibilities with greater ease.

The four approaches also differ in terms of the type of knowledge they might pur-

posefully or incidentally use and create. While involutionary transformation approach

relies on and reproduces explicit knowledge, the evolutionary approaches depend on

knowledge transfer from explicit to implicit and from implicit to explicit. Nonaka and

Takeuk (1995) framed four modes of knowledge conversion more than a decade ago. They

are socialization (from tacit to tacit), externalization (from tacit to explicit), combination

(from explicit to explicit), and internalization (from explicit to tacit).These four knowledge

conversion mechanisms are mutually complementary and interdependent that change

according to the demands of context and sequence.

As mentioned above, the revolutionary approach focuses on fostering the organizational

collective unconsciousness and aims at arousing the stakeholders pure awareness. Tran-

scending knowledge shared by them would bring up more transpersonal experiences for

organizations collective efforts. Scharmer (2007) claims that self-transcending knowledge

is knowledge about the sources or place where thought and action originate and fromwhich they come into being. But because holo-volutionary transformation emphasizes

enacting life wisdom, it frames knowledge as transcendentally generativeneither explicit

nor implicit, and, at the same time, both explicit and implicit. Such generative wisdom

bridges the inner and outer systems, empowering the human worlds collective quantum

leap. This is what (Zohar 1990; Zohar and Marshall 1994) refers to as insight into the Zero

Point Field which could leads to a quantum leap in consciousness. Her quantum world

image overrides the traditional dichotomy between body and mind, between inner and

outer. Fergusons (1987) The Aquarian Conspiracy also represents the spirit of the holo-

volution movement. Her studies of the scientific advancements involve entropy and syn-

tropy, holism, holographs, paradigm shifts, the uncertainty principle and evolution. Morethan a decade ago, she claimed a renaissance which is taking place in all disciplines,

breaking the boundaries between them, transforming them at their farthest reacheswhere

they all converge. Indeed, the way each of the four approaches treat problem and pos-

sibility would create different fields or micro worlds. The authors propose four different

fields or micro worlds in corresponding to the four approaches, that is material/message

field, consciousness field, collective unconsciousness field in Jungs term, and col-

lective shared wholeness field. When we are open to certain field or micro world, we

would be oriented toward that field. It is when we transcend ourselves beyond the

boundaries between two worlds, we are more likely to envision the hidden possibilities.In an organization, those who take the involutionary approach are inclined to focus on

ensuring expected products and improved process. In addition to product and process, the


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

12/27

advocators, with strong belief in humans positive potential, would play the role of guide or

coach to redirect their followers professional practice to the deeper level, and inspire their

inner vision to look into their habitual confinement. They are good at converging divergent

points with relatively enlightened vision, which could provide them with deep insights into

the nature of observed phenomena or problems.Below is a conceptual map of the knowledge perspectivism on the wholeness praxis

paradigm of organizational transformation (Fig. 4).

Ontological Perspectivism on Wholeness Praxis

The above knowledge perspectives should have shed light on the various knowledge

foundations of the four approaches, and offered some insights into the depth and levels of

organizational transformation. To further probe the nature of holo-volutionary transfor-

mation, we try to elucidate the three previous approaches: the involutionary approach,

which takes pre-framed vision as given; the evolutionary approach, which moves toward

situated envisioning; and the revolutionary approach, which envisions possibilities in

problems. Through taking the three approaches, organizational leaders might experience

how their visions are expanded and deepened, and how they could reflect upon their

presumptions. While they move toward holo-volutionary envisioning and enaction, they

would be challenged to experience an infinite inner state, leading from an egocentric world

toward wholeness embodiment. The essence of such embodiment, highlighted by Varela

et al. (1993) in The Embodied Mind encompasses both the body as a lived, experiential

structure and the body as the context of milieu of cognitive mechanisms. It also culminates

in humans deep encountering with interconnected wholeness when we pass from whatGangadean (2003) calls egosphere to logosphere to holosphere.

The highest goals of all four approachestruth, beauty, holiness and public goodness

have been so frequently and widely proclaimed that we can easily find them in fields as

diverse as science, humanities, religion and social sciences. We believe that this could


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

13/27

extend Wilbers (1999) three value spheres which he borrows from Sir Karl Poppers

three worlds-subjective, cultural, and objective, Habermas three validity claims- sub-

jective sincerity, intersubjective justness, and objective truth, and Platos Beautiful, Good,

and True. However, rather than elaborating the manifestations of the four approaches in

each field, we would propose that in pursuit of truth, beauty, holiness, or public good,people might unconsciously develop divergent organizational development strategies

based on their implicitly world views.

Organizational leaders who prefer any of the four approaches would carry fundamen-

tally different values and mentalities. Those who embrace the first approach tend to value

human resources most, but those who undertake the second approach not only know how to

develop their human resources, but also highly appreciate human legacy and treat it as their

human capital. Leaders who take the third approach would highlight the significance of

human value, and are more willing to incorporate their implicit values into organizational

leadership. The best examples are Robert K. Greenleafs servant leadership in 1970s, and

James Collins and Jerry Porrass visionary leadership in 1990s and James OTooles

values-base leadership in 1996. Along with the devastating ecological environment, more

and more organizational leaders come to realize that cultivation of humans shared value is

indispensible and critical to global sustainability. The values inherent in in-volutionary,

evolutionary, revolutionary or holo-volutionary approach are all taken into account when

they are engaged in collective dialogue with and across organizations. Accordingly, the

human energy sources necessary for nurturing the four approaches are thus represented as

matter/information potential, consciousness potential, holiness potential and wholeness

potential, respectively.

Meanwhile, the involutionary approach conceptualizes timespace as linear cause-effect relationship. On the contrary, the evolutionary approach frames timespace as

nonlinear cause-effect relationship. Moreover, the revolutionary approach regards time

space as nonlocal synchronizing causeeffect relationship, which could better engage

the pilot group in an organization to form mindful communities for initiating funda-

mental transformation. However, organizations which aim at enacting holo-volutionary

transformation would need to take a local synchronizing view of cause and effect in

order to realize the ideally sustainable world. According to Jung (1973), synchronistic

events reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework that encompasses, but is

larger than, any of the systems that display the synchronicity. Although Jung variously

described synchronicity as an acausal connecting principle, meaningful coincidenceand acausal parallelism, he concluded it as a governing dynamic that underlies the

whole of human experience and historysocial, emotional, psychological, and

spiritual.

While explicitly articulate the fundamental differences of the four approaches, we need

to recognize that no matter how each transformational approach appears to differ from the

other three, they are in fact mutually complementary and could be applied to effectuate

synergetic power through deep dialogues in logosphere and holosphere. Because most

organizations are composed of divergent communities with different world views,

potentially oriented toward each of the four approaches and exerting great influence on thecollective minds of the decision makers. Therefore, how to include divergent voices with

different world views for managing organizations would reveal the organizational leaders


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

14/27

Methodological Perspectivism on Wholeness Praxis

In addition to uncovering the nature of wholeness praxis, it is necessary to further inquire

into the methodology to be applied at the four levels of organizational transformation.Whereas observation and dialogue are the dominant methodologies for the involutionary

and evolutionary approach, deep reflection on mindfulness encountering and enlightened

enaction for re-envisioned new world lead to possibilities and collective wholeness at the

levels of revolutionary and holo-volutionary transformation. With regard to strategy, the

first approach aims at problem solving simply as a reaction to problems, the second

approach at creating innovation for restructuring problems, the third at pursuing excellence

for reframing possibilities, and the holo-volutionary approach at nurturing sustainability

for regenerating mindful enaction.

As a result, the four divergent methodologies demand different modes of thinking and

different models of application. Organizational leaders who rely on systematic thinkingtend to adopt divergent modified beliefs on Revisionism for resolving problems, which

might easily backfire, creating new problems at the other extreme. Leaders who engage in

systemic thinking, however, tend to search for ways to prevent the new problems likely to

be created by taking an extreme approach. They would are inclined to engage themselves

in divergent multiple discourse on pluralism. When leaders realize the significance of

diving into the problem sea to search for root causes of problems, they would have more

opportunities to come to grip with syntonic unthinking for emerging possibilities and

consequently undertake the convergent experiential emptiness approach to zeroing the

nature of problems and maximizing the presencing of possibilities. In Scharmers viewon the emerging social technology of presencing, presencing is regarded as

Fig. 5 Ontological perspectivism on wholeness praxis paradigm


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

15/27

using the Self as the eye of the needle for transforming social substance (Scharmer

2000, p. 29).

More importantly, if organizational leaders are engaged in cultivating synergetic thinking

for encompassing possibilities, they, as well as all stakeholders, will undertake both

divergent and convergent dialogues on infinite mastery of problems and possibilities for

awakening a collective consciousness of shared wholeness, ultimately enhancing

convergent infinite practice of wholeness for nurturing a more sustainable world. As

more and more people come to realize William James famous quote, we are like islands in

the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep, the wholeness nature of diverse

cultures and values will be more deeply appreciated. Hubbard (1998) also emphasizes that

new economic, social, educational, environmental, and political systems naturally emerge

out of the wholeness consciousness. What seems (and is) impossible in self-centered

consciousness is natural and normal in cosmic, whole-centered consciousness. Buber

(2004) in I and Thou also reveals his world view by splitting the world into two differentword pairs: I-It and I-You. I-It is the world of experience, objects, content and

information (O piling up of information! It, it it!). I-You is the world of relation, and it is

described in mystical terms: unquantifiable, it approaches but cannot be approached, it

arrives but cannot be sought, etc. I-it is anchored in the past, I-You is always present.

More over, Goleman (2006) proposes that from Them to Us is the only way to transcend

the contemporary social problems (Fig. 6).

Practicalogical Perspectivism on Wholeness Praxis

It has been widely acknowledged that a paradigm, be it long-existing or newly-emerging, isusually depicted as a new world view encompassing three core dimensions: the episte-

mological, ontological, and methodological perspectivisms. However, in addition to these

three pillars, the authors posit a forth pillar of the new paradigm of organizational

transformation: practicalogical perspectivism. Without this forth pillar, it would be more

difficult for the organizational leaders to enact humans shared value and vision, and would


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

16/27

probably take a winding path upwards to the holo-volutionary level. It is practicalogy that

makes the holo-volutionary spirit enactable for creating the sustainable ecology we need so

badly in the contemporary world. Below is more detailed description of the human rela-

tionships to be envisioned from the viewpoint of practicalogical perspectivism.

In the area of intrapersonal relationship, involutionary transformation focuses onknowledge of ones physical language and cognition, while the evolutionary approach

fosters appreciation and sensing of ones inner and outer worlds. The revolutionary

approach frames intrapersonal relationship by tracing ones consciousness and uncon-

sciousness for mindfulness. Finally, the holo-volutionary approach seeks to integrate ones

embodied mind with enlightened actions, and embraces collective enaction for public

good. Varela et al. (1993) provide very insightful analysis of such enaction. They contend

that as ones mind grasps the concept of enaction as something real and solid, it auto-

matically generates a sense of the subject and object of the embodied action. This is why

such enaction needed to be grounded in the integration of embodied mind and enlightened

action. As for interpersonal relationships, the involutionary approach emphasizes manag-

ing conflicting relationships, whereas the evolutionary approach seeks to create beautiful

relationships. These first two approaches take efficiency and subjective feelings, respec-

tively, as their yardsticks. But the revolutionary and holo-volutionary approaches, in

contrast, emphasize ethics. The former aims to catalyze positive relationships, while the

latter focuses on cultivating wholeness relationships (Fig. 7).

In addition to the roles intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships play in organi-

zational transformation, the kinds of social and ecological systems generated by the

organizations are deeply related to their values, goals, culturesand, of course, to their

products. Most social and organizational problem analysts rely on problem diagnosis fordesigning more efficient and effective social systems. Ackoffs (1999) interactive plan-

ning for closing the gap between the present situation and the desired future represents

such systems thinking. Nonetheless, if they over-rely on their role as depicters of existing

systems or designers of new systems, they might be confined to the involutionary


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

17/27

transformation level. It is not until they begin to design new systems through recon-

ceptualizing the nature of problems that they can initiate evolutionary transformation in

the society or organization in question. At the level of revolutionary transformation, if

the fundamental values and beliefs of a social system could be reflectively deconstructed

and reconstructed according to human value, an even more unbounding and integratinghuman inner systems might be wittingly created. Since human beings are the primary

actors in all social systems, we should recognize that it is the integral life systems that

determine the divergent forms of social systems, not the other way around. When a

society or organization endeavors to build integral life systems, they engage all those

involved in holo-volutionary transformation. Such integral life systems, as Wilber (2000)

argues, are both whole and parts, namely a whole/part. He further contemplates that we

could be looking at holons in the cosmos, in the bios, in the psyche, and in theos; and at

the evolutionary thread that connects them all, unfolds them all, embraces them all,

endlessly.

Likewise, the four different approaches to social and organizational transformation

imply four different human-ecological systems. Involutionary transformation aims to

maximize the use of ecological resources. The evolutionary approach, at its best, tries to

improve the use of eco-energy and resources. Both of the two approaches treat the eco-

logical systems as objects to be used, or even exploited, without much reflection. Revo-

lutionary transformation guides a society or organization to look for new energy sources,

especially rich energy from the ecology of mind. The concept of ecology of mind was

used by anthropologist Bateson (1979) for describing the nature of culture. He depicted

culture as a mutually interdependent world wherein individual relationships shape socially

shared meanings while these collective meanings simultaneously inform the individualsunderstandings of their actions. Consequently, such mental eco-system of the revolu-

tionary approach could lead us to rediscover the rich resources embedded in humans

collective shared meaning, which could prevent our limited natural resources from being

over exploited. However, it is only through holo-volutionary transformation that a society

or organization can engage its activists and leaders in envisioning and enacting a more

sustainable human-ecology relationship. Figure 8 summarizes how the transformational

processes of societies or organizations can move their framing of the human-ecology

relationship from confrontation to holism.

Oneness of Problem and Possibility in the Enactment of Wholeness Praxis

Organizations

As mentioned above, organizations focus on analyzing and synthesizing problems would

be inclined to design more workable outer social systems while those aiming at creating

positive relationships and treating problems as evolving would endeavor in reconceptu-

alizing inner social systems in order to redesign the outer social systems. If organizations

regard nurturing of possibilities as essential and try the most efforts to enact them, col-

lective actions to redesign the global systems would be indispensible. Furthermore, ifproblems are recognized as opportunities of arousing critical awareness and deepening

mindful enlightenment for nurturing possibilities, then regenerating integral life systems,


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

18/27

Enacting Holism in Organizational Transformation: Dynamics of Problem

and Possibility

Ackoff (1999) claims that effective management requires dissolving messes, not solving or

resolving problems. He provides four very different ways of dealing with problems and

messes in the real world. The initial way people mostly bring into play is ignoring a

problem or mess and hope it will take care of itself and go away of its own accord. The

second one we often unconsciously adopt is resolution, namely doing something that yields

an outcome which is good enough and look satisfactory. The first two ways, in Ackoffs

definition, belong to the involutionary approach. His third and forth way of dealing with

problems is resonant with our evolutionary and revolutionary approach respectively. He

terms the third as resolution, which means doing something that yields the best possible

outcome, and ultimately optimizes. The final way is dissolution. It aims to redesign eitherthe entity that has the problem or mess, or its environment, in such a way as to eliminate

the problem or mess and enable the system involved to do better in the future than the best

it can do today, in his word, to idealize.

When taking the involutionary approach, because problems are often regarded as

given, most practical resolutions tend to be oriented toward managing conflicting rela-

tionships. Organizations hence would be easily confined within the problem maze, but

also submerged in their search for more and more ways to analyze and synthesize

observable problems in order to better represent their reality. They tend to react to

problem phenomena by creating efficient effective strategies for optimized problem

solving. Hence, most policies and programs are designed with short-term problem-

solving goals in mind. With the evolutionary approach, problems are regarded as

Fig. 8 Practicalogical perspectivism on the wholeness praxis paradigm-2


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

19/27

Mid-term policies and programs as well as short-term ones can be developed to prevent

negative social impact.

At the revolutionary level, problems no longer take inordinate amounts of attention. The

possibilities inherent to problems are highly valued for their contribution to positive rela-

tionships, and their realization takes place along with participants growing capacity forenvisioning the future of their organization. The question of how to catalyze the envisioned

possibilities thus plays a critical role in revolutionary transformation. In order to discover and

realize possibilities we must trace problems to their source, which will help us find new paths

toward maximizing realizing the envisioned world. In the holo-volutionary approach, neither

problems nor possibilities are subject to value judgments, but rather are treated delicately as

co-embodied wholeness. Zeroing problems for possibilities and transforming possibilities into

opportunities become the top priorities. The ultimate goal of the holo-volutionary approach is

to co-create holistic and synergetic policies by integrating interrelated systems, which will

then simultaneously resolve problems and create opportunities at the practical level.

Drawing upon examples from families, governments, corporations, and nonprofits,

Kahane (2004) explores the connection between individual learning and institutional

change, and shows how to move beyond debate and defensiveness toward deeper and more

productive dialogue. He believes that by engaging and inspiring, personally and practi-

cally, we could harness lasting change through a way of open-minded, open-hearted,

open-willed talking and listening. We believe that more organizations will be undertaking

collective efforts to realize their envisioned world through such deep learning and lasting

change. Table 2 shows the dynamics of problem and possibility at the four levels of

organizational transformation.

Transforming from Learning Organizations to Wholeness-Praxis Organizations

Regarding the roles most demanded, organizations taking the involutionary approach tend

to focus on training excellent problems-solvers and building professional communities in

Table 2 Dynamics of organizational problems and Possibilities

Nature of

problems and

possibilities

Type of

problems and

possibilities

Ultimate purpose

to be achieved

Policies and programs derived

Involutionary

transformation

Problems as

given

Reacting to

downstream

problems

Optimizing

organizational

problem solving

Short-term policies and

programs for inhibiting and

solving problems

Evolutionary

transformation

Problems as

evolving

Proacting to

midstream

problems

Innovating

organizational

performance

processes

Mid-term policies and

programs for preventing

negative social impact

Revolutionary

transformation

Possibility as

becoming

Tracing

problem

sources to

discover newpossibilities

Maximizing

organizational

possibilities

Long-term policies for

harnessing positive social

environments to catalyze and

enact possibilities

Holo volutionary Problems and Transform Co creating Holistic and synergetic policies


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

20/27

order to diffuse professional knowledge. They often rely on effective training programs to

accelerate performance improvement for enhancing organizational competitiveness. This is

also in resonance with Dixons (2000) so-called common knowledge for certain task in a

knowledge organization. It is the knowledge gained from the experiences of performing

unique tasks. When taking the evolutionary approach, organizational leaders would valuethose who could probe the fundamental problems and allow deep dialogues among various

stakeholders in order to foster dialogical communities. Various forms of dialogue are

encouraged in order to nurture innovative performances of the organization. With the

revolutionary approach, organizational leaders would place high value on those who are

willing to envision possibilities and try their best to seek opportunities in spite of the

existing problems. To maximize opportunities, they would enact insightful dialogues and

encourage the design and creation of new systems for organizational change with divergent

integrative approaches. A good example (case) illustrated by Schein (1992) reveals such

eclectic and encompassing spirit for enhancing the learning culture in organizations. He

advocates that it is appropriate for humans to be proactive problem solvers, that reality

and truth must be pragmatically discovered, that human nature is basically good and in any

case mutable, that both individualism and groupism are appropriate, and that both

authoritarian and participative systems are appropriate provided they are based on trust

(p. 373). At the level of the holo-volutionary approach, those who could see possibilities

within problems and problems within possibilities are critical to organizations wholeness

transformation, for both problems and possibilities are dynamically evolving and those

who could master both of them would create the most opportunities for organizational

development and global sustainability. From the perspective of the holo-volutionary

approach, social and global sustainability is the ultimate goal of organizational develop-ment and change. Ehrenfelds (2008) vision of sustainability is the possibility that human

and other life will flourish on the planet forever. He also identifies problematic cultural

attributes and outlines practical steps toward developing sustainability as a mindset. He

asserts that if human beings could shift to the being mode of human existence from the

unsustainable having mode, a sustainable world is within our reach.

The roles demanded in organizations taking the different approaches also provide us

with a clear picture of the different orientations of divergent communities. The involu-

tionary approach would encourage communities of practice, which share common tools

and knowledge, and aim at diffusing the constructed knowledge. The concept -community

of practice was first proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) for clarifying the notion oflegitimate peripheral participation. According to them, communities of practice hold

similar beliefs and value systems through sharing similar goals and interest, and employing

common practices to pursue these goals and interest. Wenger (1998) further enriched the

concept-communities of practice and applied it to organizational development, which was

later adopted by more people to promote organizational innovation, facilitate knowledge

sharing and spread tacit knowledge. The evolutionary approach, however, tends to engage

people in social construction and reconstruction through critical reflection. It is expected

that praxis communities might be more prevalently observed at different levels of orga-

nizations. According to Martin (2010), praxis communities usually take deeper and moreengaged approach to offer the possibility of creating non-sectarian spaces for analysis,

debate and action, including the development of perspectives and strategies amongst a


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

21/27

communities. One of the well-recognized mindfulness communities is Thich Nhat Hanhs

Community of Mindful Learning worldwide. To take a step further, organizational leaders

who are willing to undertake the holo-volutionary approach will be concerned about both

mind ecology and global ecology, and hence engage themselves in co-creating a sus-

tainable world by collaborating with other organizations. Such collaboration acrossorganizations would help foster wholeness praxis communities to inspire collective wis-

dom from organizations taking various approaches. In the past decade, more and more

wholeness praxis communities interrelate with one another in order to conserve the eco-

logical crisis and decaying global economies. These divergent wholeness praxis commu-

nities, be they soulcentric or not, would encourage and enable people to maintain a high

quality of life, to pursue true adulthood, and to become closer to nature and spirituality.

In Fig. 9, we present the roles in demand and the orientation of communities in various

approaches of organizations. We will also clarify their ultimate goals of organizational

development. Organizational leaders with involutionary approach usually emphasize

competitiveness of their employees and the organizations in general. The belief in orga-

nizational competitiveness is accompanied with a mindset of accelerating performance and

productivity. They are also more interested in fostering learning within and across orga-

nizations by applying numerous ways of effective training. In contrast to such a mindset,

leaders who take the evolutionary approach are more inclined to enhance performance for

excellence. They are more willing to invest in human resources development to cultivate

their employees capacities, and regard various forms of deep dialogues as essential for

organizational and cross-organizational learning.

Since those who take the revolutionary approach could expend great efforts in har-

nessing mindfulness communities, they usually aim at deepening presencing for infinitepossibilities (Senge et al. 2004). There is nothing impossible, and all the well-established

forms, structure and spirit could be constructed and reconstructed. In order to pursue

infinite possibilities, they would undertake divergent approaches to organizational


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

22/27

reconstruction for new possibilities. Above all, leaders with wholeness spirit would relate

to as many organizations as possible in order to co-create collective transformation and

co-engage in wholeness practice for realizing a sustainability world. Ehrenfeld (2008)

contends that nature and being could be the most relevant sources for sustainability.

Because he found that interconnected, complex, holistic, organic, and communitarianspring from observable characteristics of natural systems. He also found that

Enchantment, or spirituality, springs from both nature and being. Nature, the well-

spring of human life, is the source of mystery and enchantment. Communitarian

reflects the social foundation of Being and also the holism of an ecosystem. All of the

new psychological entries derive from Being (pp. 1778).

Figure 10 summarizes the ultimate goals of organizations with the four different

approaches, and how they may engage their employees (or participants) in learning within

and across organizations.

Now that we have come to grip with the essence of the oneness of problem and

possibility, we will take a more in-depth look at the implications of this oneness on the

development and transformation of organizations. Based on the spirit of wholeness, we

treat the involutionary, evolutionary, revolutionary, and holo-volutionary approaches to

organizational transformation as four dimensions of organizational transformation process,

varying only in scope and depth. Indeed, the holo-volutionary approach encompasses the

other three approaches by creating platforms for deep dialogue and understanding.

Enacting Social Enterprises and Wholeness Organizations with Wholeness Spirit

of Organizational Development and Transformation

In this section, we would offer two examples to support our analysis of how the revolu-

tionary approach, instead of the involutionary approach or the evolutionary approach,

could create a more promising future for our world. We would also use another example to


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

23/27

explain why the holo-volutionary approach is what contemporary organizations need to

take in order to resolve global unsustainability and deterioration human beings are

encountering.

In How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas,

Bornstein (2004) shows that social entrepreneurs have existed throughout history. BillDraytons Ashoka Foundation, named after the great Kong Ashoka of India who created a

new age with his wisdom and compassion, takes the support of such social entrepreneurs as

its mission. St. Francis of Assisi, the founder of the Franciscan Order, is the archetypical

social entrepreneur in Draytons eyes. St. Francisco built multiple organizations that

advanced pattern changes in his field (Catholic charity). At its core, (the) Ashoka

(foundation) advanced a bold but fairly simple idea: social entrepreneurs creative

tenacious individuals with unshakable motivationare needed to propel the innovation

that is necessary for society to tackle its most serious ills (Bornstein, p. 264). Indeed, Bill

Drayton is not only an excellent problem solver, but is also good at using his forsight to

clarify fundamental problems and maximizing opportunities. The Ashoka Foundation takes

the revolutionary approach to helping many communities and organizations transform their

problems. As a global association of the worlds leading social entrepreneurs, the Ashoka

Foundation persistently uncovers hidden social mechanisms and reconstructs them with

systemic solutions to address the worlds most urgent social problems. Draytons strict

scrutinization of candidates for the Ashoka Fellowship reveals his determination to

deconstruct the many unknown injustices in our world. Since 1981, Ashoka Foundation has

elected over 2000 leading social entrepreneurs, who have spread innovative ideas and

created unlimited opportunities for the poor or ill in more than 60 countries. The innu-

merable successes of the Ashoka Foundation demonstrate that social entrepreneurs can findeffective ways to solve problems of such difficulty that they seem beyond the powers even

of most governments.

Another example is Muhammad Yunus Grameen Foundation. As the 2006 Nobel Peace

Prize winner, he uses his innovative ideas to change the future of billions of poor people

within his country and throughout the world. Yunus success does not simply lie in his

professionalism or his skill at integrating human resources and human capital. In service to

the core value of public goodness, he gave up his prestigious job and well-being family in

order to nurture the consciousness-potential of countless poor people in his home country.

He successfully explores new possibilities with great mindfulness in his search for global

partnership. His Grameen Foundation and Grameen Bank fuse their mutual mission,ongoing relationship, and common vision by sharing knowledge and success models to

accelerate the microfinance industrys impact on the worlds poorest. Through such

collaborative partnership he creates countless possibilities for the Grameen Founation, and

then transforms these possibilities into sustainable opportunities for the worlds poor. His

ability to empathize with their suffering has enabled him to reconstruct an innovative,

humanitarian, and socially supportive banking system. The successful experiences of the

two social enterprises reveal the impact organizations might have on the society when

taking the revolutionary approach. As Einstein said, you cant solve a problem with the

same kind of thinking that produced the problem. As long as we could nurture our newthinking and enact it on reframing or representing the existing problems, new possibilities

would emerge, just like Laszlos (2008) contention that new thinking is not utopian or


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

24/27

Facing the challenges of overwhelming disasters surging from every corner of the

world, more and more non-profit organizations try to engage visionary leaders in deep

dialogues on the future of human beings and the whole planet. These leaders call for a

new and unprecedented awakened global consciousness and new mindful institutions

which they think would play a vital role in fostering our highest and best collective selftransformation for mutual flourishing (Gandadean 2003). In the past decade, global

dialogues and cross-national collaboration are initiated by several major global nonprofit

organizations, such as The club of Budapest, World Shift Network, The World Commis-

sion on Global Consciousness and Spirituality, The Eco-Buddhism Society, Global Dia-

logue Institute, and The Source of Synergy Foundation. These cross-national non-profit

organizations play a critical role in unifying the polarized and fragmented political entities

for coping with continuously emerging traumatic disasters. If we take a deeper look into

these diverse organizations, we would find that they all share humanitarian values and

undertake the holo-volutionary approach to shaping global consciousness as new organi-

zational spirit in the twenty-first century. The wholeness spirit embodied in world wisdom

traditions is indeed the foundation of global consciousness, which many non-profit orga-

nizations are advocating for cultivating global citizenship worldwide nowadays.

In this paper, we have proposed that holo-volutionary transformation is the most

encompassing approach to enacting the other three approaches for organizational inno-

vation at various situations. Meanwhile, the ultimate goal of undertaking the holo-volu-

tionary approach is to co-create holistic and synergetic policies at the global scope by

integrating interrelated systems, which will then simultaneously resolve problems and

create opportunities at the practical level. We also found that The World Commission on

Global Consciousness and Spirituality (2010), cochaired by Dr. Ervin Laszlo, Dr. RobertMuller and Dr. Karan Singh, encompasses the spirit of the holo-volutionary transformation

approach. The vision of the commission is to inspire consciousness of the wholeness of the

human family and the sacred tapestry of all lives. Its mission is to cultivate a growing

community of people from diverse cultural, religious, disciplinary and spiritual orienta-

tions to promote global wisdom, vision and values. The commission is basically action

oriented and acknowledges awakening consciousness and spirituality as transformative

powers for the common good for the earth (2010, Retrieved from the World Commission

Site). The co-convenor of the commission, Dr. Gangadean (2003) articulated a Blueprint

for Higher Order Transformational Organizations with great profundity. He argues that the

most powerful and decisive event faced by humanity today is the shift in the technology ofmind, and of cultures from the egosphere to the logosphere. He further acclaims that a

transformational organization grounded in such logosphere is a higher order organization.

Unlike the more conventional organization being situated in space and time, and structured

in dynamics of the egosphere, such an organization-hologistic organization in Gandadeans

term, is situated in the spacetimeconsciousness energy field and taps the energy of the

logosphere (and holosphere). This higher dimensional unified field capacitates it to man-

ifest a more potent reality and higher possibilities.

The commission also frames four principles for creating global possibilities, the

principle of community, the principle of exemplification, the principle of networking andthe principle of synergy. Indeed, the holo-volutionary approach addresses not only the

kind of possibilities to be envisioned from the global lens but also the kind of possi-


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

25/27

Conclusion

In this paper, we have illuminated the oneness of problem and possibility and analyzed the

means by which we can relate deeply to the problems we face by transcending our fear and

anxiety. In order to trace the fundamental sources of organizational problems across public,private, and the third sectors, we have discussed at length the process by which unlimited

possibilities may be envisioned within problems. Further, we have offered detailed

descriptions of the four approaches to organizational transformation. While the first two

approaches, involutionary and evolutionary, are the approaches adopted by most organi-

zations, the last two approaches, revolutionary and holo-volutionary, are currently

emerging as more and more global and ecological crises are threatening continued human

existence. We have clearly articulated the new paradigm of organizational transformation

from the epistemological, ontological, methodological, and practicalogical perspectivisms,

and, in order to further develop our discussion of the four approaches, we took a second

look at the relationship between problem and possibility, this time from the perspectives of

the four approaches.

Finally, we offered the examples of the Ashoka Foundation, the Grameen Foundation,

and the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality to characterize the

revolutionary transformation approach and the emerging holo-volutionary transformation

approach. It is revealing that the revolutionary and the holo-volutionary approaches to

organizational transformation would lead us out of the human-created problem maze and

into a world of greater possibilities. We believe that the three above cases, which are

crossing the boarder of evolutionary transformation to holo-volutionary transformation, as

well as many other emerging organizations and communities, will co-create sustainablesocial and global systems by encompassing all human beings.

Initiating deep transformation and fundamental change in organization is far more

important than simply nurturing team learning, personal mastery, shared vision and sys-

tems thinking within or across organizations. In other words, organizations need to tran-

scend beyond their own cultures to strive toward creating new possibilities through

collaboration with other organizations. It is through collaboratively co-creating a sus-

tainable future that organizations would survive and thrive in emerging challenges, and

become more proficient in transforming existing problems into feasible possibilities.

Therefore, in order to cultivate global leadership for the contemporary age, it is essential to

cultivate peoples new perspectivisms on wholeness-praxis organizations and communi-ties. Based on the discourse on wholeness praxis, we expect to further expend great efforts

on enacting more wholeness-praxis organizations or communities through developing

synergetic thinking tools, designing collective dialogical platforms and building regener-

ative networks in the near future.

References

Ackoff RL (1999) Re-creating the corporation: a design of organizations for the 21st century. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford

Akin O (1994) Creativity in design. Perform Improv Q 7(3):921


7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

26/27

Bohm D (1986) A new theory of the relationship between mind and matter. J Am Soc Psych Res 80:

113136

Bohm D (1996) In: Nichol L (ed) On dialogue. Routledge, London

Bornstein D (2004) How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford

University Press, Oxford

Buber M (2004) I and thou (Smith RG, 1958, Trans.). Charles Scribner Sons, New YorkDixon NM (2000) Common knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard

Business Press, Boston

Ehrenfeld JR (2008) Sustainability by design. Yale University press, New Haven

Fairholm GW (1997) Capturing the heart of leadership: spirituality and community in the new American

workplace. Praeger, Westport, CT

Ferguson M (1987) The aquarian conspiracy. J.P. Tarcher, New York

Gandadean A (2003) Global blueprint for the World Commission. http://globalspirit.org/. Accessed 28 Jun

2010

Goleman D (2006) Social intelligence: the new science of human relationships. Random House, New York

Habermas J (1971) Knowledge and human interests. Beacon Press, Boston

Hubbard BM (1998) Conscious evolution: awakening the power of our social potential. New World Library,

CAJung K (1973) Synchronicity: an acausal connecting principle. Princeton University Press, NJ

Kahane A (2004) Solving tough problems: an open way of talking, listening, and creating new realities.

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francicso

Laszlo E (2008) Quantum shift and the global brain. Inner Tranditions, Rochester, Vt

Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press,

NY

Martin G (2010) Theorizing globalization and pedagogy: the totally unacceptable other. Discourse Stud

Cult Polit Educ 31(1):137148

Nonaka I, Takeuk H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rose N (2002) Bringing the soul into the workplace: a report on the international conference on business and

consciousness. http://www.bizspirit.com/bsj/current/fea4.htmlScharmer CO (2000) Presencing: learning from the future as it emerges. In: Paper presented at the con-

ference on knowledge and innovation, May 2526, 2000, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland.

www.ottoscharmer.com

Scharmer CO (2007) Theory U: leading from the future as it emerges by. Society for Organizational

Learning, Cambridge

Scharmer CO, Kaeufer K (2003) Reinventing the health care system from within: the case of a regional

physician network in German. www.ottoscharemer.com

Schein EH (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Schon DA (1991) The reflective turn: case studies in and on educational practice. Teachers College Press,

New York

Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday,

New YorkSenge P (2003) Creating desired futures in a global economy. Reflections 5(1):112

Senge P et al (1999) The dance of change: the challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations.

Currency Doubleday, New York

Senge P et al (2004) Presence: human purpose and the field of the future. The Society for Organizational

Learning, Cambridge

The World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality. (2010). http://globalspirit.org/. Accessed

28 Jun 2010

Varela F, Thompson E, Rosch E (1993) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. The

MIT Press, Massachusetts

Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, NY

Wilber K (1999) The Marriage of sense and soul: integrating science and religion. Broadway Books, New

YorkWilber K (2000) Sex, ecology, spirituality: the spirit of evolution. Shambhala, Boston

Zohar D (1990) The quantum self: human nature and consciousness defined by the new physics Quill

http://globalspirit.org/http://www.bizspirit.com/bsj/current/fea4.htmlhttp://www.ottoscharmer.com/http://www.ottoscharemer.com/http://globalspirit.org/http://globalspirit.org/http://www.ottoscharemer.com/http://www.ottoscharmer.com/http://www.bizspirit.com/bsj/current/fea4.htmlhttp://globalspirit.org/

7/27/2019 li&lin(2011)

27/27

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

li&lin(2011)

Documents