NLP

 and  Capitalism  3.0  –  A  synthetic  approach  to  NLP’s  developmental  potential  in  
the  context  of  collective  leadership  from  the  future  
By  Tom  Klein  –  www.tomklein.de  
Introduction  

As  Einstein  once  said,  problems  created  on  one  level  of  complexity  cannot  be  solved  
with  the  tools  and  insights  of  that  same  level,  but  must  be  approached  from  a  higher  
level  of  complexity  to  find  and  implement  the  solutions.    Dilts  operated  according  to  a  
similar  logic  when  he  developed  his  model  of  logical  levels,  establishing  NLP  as  an  
approach  to  looking  for  solutions  from  the  appropriate  vantage  point.  
However,  the  current  landscape  of  problems  confronting  humanity  goes  far  beyond  
those  which  concerned  the  NLP  founders,  and  so  a  question  which  the  NLP  community  
might  ask  itself  is  how  current  change  practitioners  can  apply  the  philosophy,  insights  
and  technologies  of  NLP  to  the  current  crises.    

What  distinguishes  the  current  crises  from  those  we  have  known  in  the  past  is  their  
global  social,  economic  and  environmental  character.    There  is  a  gap  today  between  
what  individuals  know  and  in  part  practice  and  what  we  do  collectively,  and  that  gap  
puts  the  entire  planet  at  risk.    The  relevant  question  for  today  is  less  what  individuals  
can  do  to  understand  the  problem  landscape  than  where  the  infrastructures  are  that  
allow  changes  in  individual  consciousness  to  have  a  global  effect  and  make  collective  
consciousness  change  possible.    What  we  need  are  interventions  that  take  the  
knowledge  about  solutions  that  is  present  on  the  individual  level  and  make  it  relevant  
systemically.    
NLP  is  by  its  very  conception  as  a  set  of  short-­‐term  therapy  technologies  focussed  on  
overcoming  personal  conditioning  to  support  individual  transformation,  and  so  is  
limited  in  what  change  it  can  effect  on  a  systemic  level.    The  question  then  is  where  new  
insights  might  be  added  and  included  so  that  NLP  can  continue  to  make  relevant  
contributions  to  human  development  as  needed  in  the  current  global  context.  

In  this  paper  we  will  use  the  map  of  the  current  situation  developed  by  Otto  Scharmer  to  
analyse  capitalism  and  its  development  from  its  early  laisser-­‐faire  inception  through  its  
social  market  economy  form  towards  what  he  calls  Capitalism  3.0  as  it  is  now  emerging.    
Having  mapped  the  territory,  we  will  then  look  at  where  NLP  can  make  its  contributions.    
With  this  understanding  of  the  current  problem  frame,  it  will  become  clear  that  NLP  can  
have  a  significant  role  to  play,  as  the  existence  of  the  capitalism  3.0  infrastructures  will  
call  forth  the  need  for  massive  change  on  the  level  of  individual  beliefs,  values,  
conditioning  and  behaviour  which  is  the  home  turf  of  NLP  coaches  and  trainers,  if  
people  are  to  be  able  to  live  well  in  the  emerging  social  order.    If  change  impacts  society  
as  quickly  as  Scharmer  indicates,  we  will  need  a  veritable  army  of  coaches  and  
therapists—not  to  mention  business  leaders,  politicians  and  engineers-­‐-­‐to  help  people  
cope  with  the  massive  consequences  for  us  all.  

 
Otto  Scharmer,  the  Leadership  Lab  at  MIT  in  Cambridge,  and  Capitalism  3.0  
In  the  midst  of  the  fallout  from  the  financial  crisis  an  awareness  seems  to  have  
developed  among  mainstream  commentators  that  the  path  we  are  on  in  all  areas  of  

  1  
political,  social  and  environmental  life  is  not  sustainable.    To  name  only  the  most  
obvious  examples,  market  and  stakeholder-­‐oriented  economics  results  in  boom  and  bust  
cycles  which  have  reached  a  global  scale  of  intensity  and  are  threatening  the  stability  of  
the  financial  and  productive  systems.    Powerful  interests  of  financial  oligarchs  at  the  
heart  of  the  system  in  the  USA  have  mobilized  to  stave  off  healthy  regulation,  and  are  
blocking  measures  the  IMF  would  normally  require  of  a  crisis  economy  to  enable  
sustainable  recovery.  1    Economic  growth  objectives  have  led  to  a  140%  utilization  rate  
of  natural  resources,  with  limits  on  energy,  land  and  water  in  sight.  Coupled  with  a  
population  growth  projected  at  9.5  billion  and  a  target  to  double  growth  by  2050,  this  
will  lift  2  billion  people  into  middle  class  consumption  patterns.    Describing  these  
trends,  Martin  Lees,  Secretary  General  of  the  Club  of  Rome  concludes  that  under  any  
conceivable  scenario,  current  conceptions  of  economic  development  are  impossible  to  
realize  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  unsustainable.2    Water  is  in  increasingly  short  supply,  
especially  in  the  most  densely  populated  and  poorest  areas  of  the  world,  and  energy  
supply  based  on  easily  available  carbon  fuels  is  either  at,  or  is  soon  to  reach,  its  peak.    
The  climate  crisis  is  in  full  swing,  with  atmospheric  carbon  levels  approaching  400  ppb,  
temperature  increases  of  at  least  2°C  no  longer  to  be  avoided  and  with  the  policies  
discussed  in  Copenhagen  as  a  basis  going  towards  4°C,  and  politicians  are  hamstrung  by  
interest  groups  and  unable  to  develop  the  global  consensus  needed  to  take  corrective  
action.  
As  founder  of  the  Leadership  Lab  at  MIT  in  Cambridge  and  researcher  on  social  
innovation,  Otto  Scharmer  describes  the  current  crises  as  an  expression  of  an  
evolutionary  change  in  the  dynamics  of  our  existence  in  the  world  heralded  by  three  
recent  events,  i.e.  the  peaceful  fall  of  the  Berlin  wall,  the  peaceful  disintegration  of  
Apartheid  in  South  Africa,  and  the  election  of  Barak  Obama  to  the  Presidency  of  the  USA.    
These  events  amount  to  tectonic  shifts  in  the  political  and  social  foundations  of  
industrial  civilization,  and  they  mark  the  opening  of,  and  the  transition  to  a  new  
understanding  of  order  on  a  global  scale.    What  observers  failed  to  perceive  in  1989-­‐90  
when  communism  and  Apartheid  fell  was  that  the  foundations  of  capitalism  as  we  have  
known  it  until  now  were  also  upset.    Where  the  American  administration  of  the  time  
believed  these  events  heralded  the  victory  of  old-­‐style  capitalism  over  communism  and  
paved  the  road  to  systemic  domination,  it  is  now  clear  that  old-­‐style  capitalism  is  going  
down  with  its  opposite  number,  though  we  have  belatedly  begun  to  experience  the  fact.      
This  shift  is  represented  in  our  media  as  reporting  on  a  series  of  interconnected  crises,  
such  as  health,  environment,  finance  and  poverty  among  others  shown  in  chart  1  below.    
For  Scharmer,  all  seven  major  crises  he  describes  are  expressions  of  a  failure  in  
leadership.    But  it  is  a  failure  not  in  the  common  sense  of  incompetent  or  inefficient  
exercise  of  the  management  craft,  but  much  more  a  “spiritual”  crisis  of  leadership,  
whose  models  of  the  world  and  generations-­‐long  conditioning  in  the  historical  period  of  
industrial  society,  whether  capitalist  or  communist,  have  lost  their  relevance.    What  is  
                                                                                                               
1  The  Quiet  Coup,  Simon  Johnson,  The  Atlantic  Monthly.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-­‐advice  
Martin  Lees,  General  Secretary  of  the  Club  of  Rome,  at  the  Troidos  Bank  Dialog,  Teil  3/9,  
from  03:10  of  the  video  ff:  http://www.youtube.com/user/triodosbankde  
2  Martin  Lees,  General  Secretary  of  the  Club  of  Rome,  at  the  Troidos  Bank  Dialog,  Teil  

5/9,  from  0:30  of  the  video  ff:  http://www.youtube.com/user/triodosbankde  

  2  
spiritual  about  the  leadership  crisis  is  that  it  confronts  us  with  a  need  to  redefine  what  it  
means  to  be  a  person  and  what  kind  of  society  we  want  to  create  in  the  future,  and  so  
demands  from  us  a  collective  act  of  creation  of  new  meaning  to  foster  the  consensus  and  
guide  the  initiatives  which  will  be  positioned  effectively  to  respond  to  the  current  
challenges.  
Scharmer’s  primary  interest  lies  in  discovering  the  systemic  root  causes  of  the  crises.    
For  the  attempts  within  the  current  paradigms  of  order  to  counter  the  symptoms  
typically  “solve”  problems  at  one  point  only  to  have  them  pop  up  more  virulently  at  
another  in  the  system.  The  systemic  question  is,  how  is  it  that  intelligent  and  largely  
decent  leaders,  managers,  politicians,  and  social  organisations  manage  to  reproduce  
consistently  with  their  collective  behaviour  results  so  dysfunctional  that  they  threaten  
the  very  viability  of  our  society  and  our  survival  on  the  planet?  
Chart  1:3  

 
 
A  primary  root  cause  he  makes  out  lies  in  the  way  our  economy  is  changing  and  how  we  
think  about  economic  relationships.4      In  the  evolution  of  economic  thought  and  systems  
in  the  industrial  revolution,  economic  relations  developed  first  in  the  form  of  
                                                                                                               
3  Otto  Scharmer,  “Seven  Acupuncture  Points  for  Shifting  Capitalism  

to  Create  a  Regenerative  Ecosystem  Economy,”  Draft  2.1,  revised  Sept.  2009:  

4  Otto  Scharmer,  Keynote  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  Triodos  Bank  in  Frankfurt,  

December  2nd,  2009:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXUn8EyIILs  

  3  
shareholder  capitalism,  what  Scharmer  calls  Capitalism  1.0,  giving  markets  the  freedom  
to  regulate  production  and  trade  by  themselves,  and  managing  organisations  through  
hierarchical  command  and  control  in  an  awareness  rooted  in  the  individual  ego.    Stage  
two,  or  Capitalism  2.0  seeks  to  ameliorate  the  brutal  consequences  of  version  1.0  for  
society  through  state  regulation  and  redistribution  of  wealth,  implemented  in  flat  
organisations  through  participatory  management  in  an  awareness  rooted  in  stakeholder  
interests.  
Now  emerging  is  what  he  calls  Capitalism  3.0,  with  a  focus  on  “intentional  eco-­‐system  
economy,”  likely  to  be  organised  in  a  myriad  of  coalitions,  networks  and  tribes,  in  which  
leadership  becomes  a  collective  act  in  an  awareness  rooted  in  the  entire  eco-­‐system.      
Where  in  Capitalism  1.0,  markets  strived  to  master  dynamic  or  technical  complexity,  and  
in  Capitalism  2.0  governments  seek  to  master  social  complexity,  in  Capitalism  3.0  the  
challenge  is  to  master  what  Scharmer  calls  “emergent”  complexity,  which  is  the  result  of  
the  interaction  of  the  previous  two  challenges.  
Chart  2:5  

Dynamic  complexity  can  be  mastered  through  systemic  cause  and  effect  analysis,  and  
social  complexity  can  be  mapped  thorough  approaches  like  network  analysis,  or  be  
captured  and  influenced  through  phenomenological  approaches  like  systemic  
constellations.    But  emergent  complexity  can  be  mastered  only  collectively.    Scharmer  
explains  that  in  dialogues  on  the  current  emergent  problems  he  experiences  four  “fields”  
of  communication:  1.  Downloading;  2.  Debate;  3.  Dialogue;  and  4.  “Presencing”.    The  

                                                                                                               
5  Otto  Scharmer,  Theory  U,    

  4  
latter  occurs  when  groups  of  innovators  merge  in  a  creative  process  involving  “letting  
go”  to  the  present  situation,  and  in  the  process  together  confront  their  “blind  spot,”  in  
which  they  have  been  unable  to  perceive  or  sense  the  emergent  reality  they  belong  to  
and  are  part  of  generating.    The  combination  of  “presence”  to  the  current  reality  and  
“sensing”  its  quality  and  requirements  results  in  a  “letting  come”  of  insight,  which  is  the  
basis  of  a  collective  “leading  from  the  future”  out  of  which  genuine  solutions  for  
emergent  problems  can  be  found,  prototyped,  scaled  and  implemented.  
The  Presencing  Institute  provides  the  communications  technology  to  deal  with  
emergent  complexity  through  what  Scharmer  calls  Theory-­‐U.      
Chart  3:6    

 
The  transitions  from  one  conversation  field  to  the  next  each  require  that  particular  
faculties  become  open,  while  the  “enemies”  of  the  new  are  conquered.    Moving  from  
“downloading”  to  “debate”  requires  that  the  mind  become  open  to  differing  
perspectives.    The  enemy  which  prevents  this  opening  is  the  “voice  of  judgment,”  which  
rejects  the  “other”  as  wrong.    Moving  from  “debate”  to  “dialogue”  involves  opening  the  
heart  to  being  touched  and  moved  by  the  deep  encounter  of  “I”  and  “Thou,”  to  use  
Buber’s  image,  or  to  enter  into  the  dialogue  experience  as  it  is  described  by  David  Bohm  
in  the  “Dialogue”  essays.    The  enemy  which  prevents  relationship  at  this  level  is  the  
cynicism  of  the  injured  heart,  which  has  lost  the  ability  to  trust  and  feel.    Moving  from  
“dialogue”  to  “presencing”  occurs  through  the  open  will,  which  lets  go  of  the  ego’s  

                                                                                                               
6  Presencing  Institute  Website,  U  Browser,  for  creative  commons  access  to  Theory  U  and  

Presencing  technology,  http://www.presencing.com/  

  5  
illusion  of  control  and  so  becomes  present  to  what  is.    The  enemy  in  this  step  is  the  voice  
of  fear,  which  arises  as  letting  go  threatens  ego  identity  and  confronts  the  “I”  with  
supposed  annihilation.      To  the  extent  that  ego  determination  in  presencing  is  sacrificed,  
connection  to  “source”  is  strengthened,  which  makes  access  to  answers  to  the  
fundamental  questions  of,  “Who  is  my  Self?”  and  “What  is  my  Work?”  possible.    From  
this  connection  to  source,  sustainable  action  rooted  in  a  strong  perception  of  reality,  and  
a  clarity  about  meaning  and  values  can  emerge.    
What  the  transition  to  a  focus  on  problems  of  emergent  complexity  means  in  daily  
management  practice  is  described  by  Scharmer  in  a  map  of  12  management  functions,  as  
these  transition  from  dynamic  through  social  to  emergent  complexity.  

Chart  4:7  

 
To  pick  up  on  one  of  the  developmental  lines,  in  “Communication”  under  the  conditions  
of  dynamic  complexity  in  Capitalism  1.0  the  focus  is  on  public  relations.    Communication  
is  one-­‐way,  from  the  producer  to  the  customer.    Public  relations  strategy  strives  to  
create  an  asymmetry  of  information  on  the  market,  giving  an  advantage  to  the  seller  
over  the  buyer.    It  is  a  win-­‐lose  game,  predicated  on  influence  techniques,  attempting  to  
create  markets  for  products  the  seller  wants  to  push  regardless  of  the  social  or  human  
need  for  the  products  and  without  regard  for  social,  human  or  environmental  costs.  

As  with  all  developmental  lines,  pressure  for  change  comes  through  the  limits  to  success  
of  the  developmental  stage  and  the  threat  to  survival  it  entails.    When,  for  example,  
                                                                                                               
7  Otto  Scharmer,  Theory  U,  p.  62  ff.  

  6  
social  communication  networks  fragment  the  market  into  stakeholder  groups,  and  
technology  counteracts  information  asymmetry  through  transparency,  the  public  
relations  model  begins  to  destroy  trust  and  damage  market  relationships.    The  response  
under  Capitalism  2.0  by  business  has  been  a  nascent  interest  in  corporate  social  
responsibility,  or  CSR,  in  which  social  and  environmental  targets  complement  financial  
objectives  in  a  balanced  scorecard,  and  accounting  practices  orient  to  a  triple  bottom  
line  measurement  of  results.    Most  industries  in  the  OECD  are  beginning  to  implement  
CSR  at  least  nominally,  forced  to  do  so  by  government  regulation  or  advocacy  interests  
from  civil  society,  if  not  through  insight  and  enlightened  self-­‐interest.  
However,  for  problems  of  emergent  complexity,  the  CSR  strategy  of  communication  falls  
short  of  being  able  to  generate  results  beyond  those  determined  by  stakeholder  or  
national  interests  on  a  truly  global  scale.    Where  problems  are  global,  and  every  cause  is  
holistically  connected  with  every  effect,  every  barrier  between  actors  becomes  a  
liability,  hindering  as  it  does  the  needed  collective  insight  and  agreement  to  collective  
action.    A  promising  solution  under  Capitalism  3.0  will  emerge  through  tri-­‐sector  
innovation  initiatives,  in  which  business,  state  and  civil  society  actors  like  NGO’s  come  
together  to  collectively  reflect  on  and  decide  global  scale  actions  to  take.  
A  second  developmental  line,  e.g.  in  “Leadership”  mirrors  the  same  evolutionary  
process.    Under  the  conditions  of  dynamic  complexity  in  Capitalism  1.0,  managers  steer  
production  through  management  by  objectives,  or  MBO.    Strategic  targets  are  
determined  by  leaders  and  owners  in  a  hierarchical  power  structure  of  command  and  
control.    The  only  interests  of  any  significance  are  those  of  the  shareholders,  whose  
objective  is  to  maximize  the  return  on  their  investment,  and  these  interests  are  mirrored  
in  the  financial  objectives  whose  achievement  is  set  as  performance  goals  to  the  
employees.      Maximization  of  private  profit  is  legally  and  legitimately  pursued  at  the  
expense  of  the  health  of  the  employees,  of  the  integrity  of  the  social  and  cultural  context,  
and  of  the  health  of  the  environment,  with  strategy  focussed  on  the  socialization  of  costs  
for  private  gain  wherever  possible.      

The  limits  to  leadership  strategy  1.0  lie  in  the  social  and  human  costs.    Workers  protect  
themselves  against  the  rapaciousness  of  owners  through  unions,  and  politicians  are  
forced  by  voters  in  democratic  systems  to  regulate  and  support  worker  health,  safety,  
retirement  and  other  social  concerns.    Under  the  conditions  of  social  complexity  in  
Capitalism  2.0,  the  unfettered  profit  motive  is  tempered  by  stakeholder  interests.    
Leadership  as  a  response  becomes  inclusive  and  participatory.    Complex  flat-­‐hierarchy  
matrix  organisations  improve  productivity  while  realizing  customer,  process  and  
learning  and  development  objectives  in  addition  to  financial  key  performance  indicators.    
Results  are  achieved  through  effective  communications  and  consensus  competence,  and  
through  the  mastery  of  customer-­‐oriented  processes,  and  business  begins  to  develop  a  
human  face.      
Here  too,  level-­‐two  leadership  fails  at  dealing  with  problems  of  emergent  complexity  
such  as  global  warming,  exploding  health  care  costs,  and  financial  irresponsibility,  as  it  
is  precisely  the  orientation  to  the  interests  of  individual  stakeholders  which  makes  
global  solutions  impossible.    Capitalism  3.0  will  by  definition  generate  losers  among  
those  who  survive  by  shunting  costs  to  society  and  the  environment,  as  the  relationship  
of  private  and  public  interests  is  reversed  to  allow  private  profit  only  for  contributions  
to  the  health  of  the  public  and  environmental  spheres.    For  now,  the  grip  of  the  lobbies,  
for  example  in  carbon  energy,  private  health  care  and  financial  services  on  political  

  7  
power  is  so  great  that  a  consensus  which  undermines  their  interests  cannot  be  achieved.      
Leadership  solutions  with  a  global  reach  are  nascent  and  can  at  the  moment  only  be  
postulated.    We  have  neither  the  required  political  systems,  a  sufficiently  conscious  and  
engaged  civil  society,  nor  a  financial  regulatory  and  incentives  scheme  in  place  that  
would  provide  the  framework  for  effective  leadership  in  Capitalism  3.0.    Two  pillars  of  
the  3.0  world  which  Scharmer  is  working  to  create  are,  first,  an  attitude  of  co-­‐creation,  in  
which  heroic  leadership  is  replaced  by  the  presencing  process  of  collectively  leading  
from  the  future  that  wants  to  come,  and  second,  infrastructure  measures  at  the  seven  
acupuncture  points  to  close  the  gap  between  what  we  know  and  often  do  at  an  
individual  level  and  what  happens  at  the  global  level.  
NLP  and  Consciousness  Transformation  in  Capitalism  3.0  
In  the  relationship  of  reciprocal  influence  between  economic  processes  and  
consciousness,  the  bottleneck  in  the  current  developmental  line  would  seem  to  lie  at  the  
moment  on  the  side  of  the  infrastructures.    Consciousness  among  individuals  in  running  
into  limits  on  its  influence  on  social  and  political  systems,  as  the  dynamics  of  existing  
infrastructures  more  often  than  not  make  the  effect  of  individual  insight  and  action  
come  out  to  something  less  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.    New  rules,  regulations,  
communication  and  decision  making  systems  would  massively  support  the  
manifestation  of  3.0  insights  collectively.      At  the  same  time,  the  sum  total  of  a  shift  in  
individual  consciousnesses  and  behaviours  in  their  effect,  e.g.  through  consumption  
patterns  on  the  overall  economy  can  focus  the  will  to  create  the  infrastructures  
necessary  for  capitalism  3.0.      What  role,  then,  can  NLP,  as  a  technology  of  consciousness  
and  behavioural  design,  play  in  the  realization  of  global  collective  leadership?  
The  history  of  the  development  of  NLP  would  seem  to  reflect  the  stages  of  development  
of  capitalism  as  Scharmer  describes  it.    At  its  inception,  Bandler  and  Grinder  made  the  
performance  claim  that  NLP  would  be  instrumental  in  “finding  ways  to  help  people  have  
better,  fuller  and  richer  lives.”8    The  founders  infused  NLP  with  a  constructivist  set  of  18  
presuppositions,  giving  it  an  open-­‐ended  DNA  which  would  foster  its  evolutionary  
development  for  many  decades  to  come.  
Early  on  in  practice,  however,  NLP  especially  in  the  USA  and  under  the  auspices  of  
Richard  Bandler  became  associated  with  values  which  could  be  seen  to  be  aligned  with  a  
Capitalist  1.0  developmental  stage.    From  an  initial  inspiration  through  the  healing  work  
of  therapists  like  Virginia  Satir  and  Fritz  Pearls,  Bandler  and  many  of  his  students  moved  
NLP  into  the  role  of  supporting  business  success  for  personal  power  and  profit.    The  
promise  of  “having  better,  fuller  and  richer  lives”  was  taken  literally  to  mean  getting  
rich,  and  was  fulfilled  in  programmes  like  those  of  Tony  Robbins’  for  personal  success  in  
life,  hard-­‐ball  sales  training  courses  focussed  on  influencing  customers  to  buy  what  the  
seller  wanted,  and  hyperbolic  claims  to  short-­‐cuts  to  therapeutic  healing  which  
undermined  the  discipline’s  credibility  with  the  scientific  community.      It  would  seem  
that  the  initial  practical  application  of  NLP  left  behind  scorched  earth  in  the  USA,  so  that  
little  in  the  way  of  new  developments  has  come  from  there  for  some  time.  
In  a  break  with  Bandler,  John  Grinder  created  the  “New  Code”  as  an  attempt  to  rectify  
the  performative  contradiction  he  observed  in  many  of  the  first  generation  of  NLP  
practitioners.      
                                                                                                               
8  Wikipedia,  from the book jacket of Bandler and Grinder (1975b)  
  8  
 In  the  late  70s  I  noticed  (JG)  a  significant  number  of  NLP  trained  practitioners  who  
were  stunningly  effective  in  doing  change  work  with  clients  yet  these  same  
practitioners  had  chosen  not  to,  or  lacked  the  choice  to,  apply  the  patterns  of  NLP  
successfully  to  themselves.  I  therefore  set  out  with  the  intention  of  designing  a  set  of  
patterns  that  would  both  correct  the  coding  flaws  of  the  Classic  code  (roughly  my  
collaborative  work  with  Bandler  from  1974  through  1978)  that  could  not  be  
effectively  presented  unless  the  presenter  was  congruent  with  self  application.9  
 
Interpreted  through  the  framework  of  Scharmer’s  capitalist  developmental  line,  one  
could  say  that  Bandler’s  NLP,  though  constructivist  in  its  conception,  developed  an  
outward  results-­‐orientation  in  practice  that  sought  to  master  dynamic  complexity  in  the  
material  world  and  regarded  personal  growth  as  something  of  instrumental  interest  in  
the  service  of  outward  goals.    In  contrast,  Grinder’s  attempt  to  refocus  NLP  on  subjective  
congruity  would  fit  with  the  understanding  of  capitalism  2.0,  with  its  focus  on  social  
complexity.    It  is  not  surprising  that  Grinder,  together  with  Robert  Dilts,  became  a  
driving  force  in  the  development  of  European  NLP.    The  result,  as  the  example  of  a  
review  of  a  course  at  a  European  NLP  school  by  the  Guardian  in  the  UK  explains,  is  a  set  
of  values  through  which  trainers  are  “anxious  to  prove  you  can  be  decent  and  non-­‐
overbearing  -­‐  British,  you  might  call  it  -­‐  and  still  learn  the  arts  of  human  interaction.  ‘You  
cannot  not  communicate,’  as  a  poster  on  the  wall  declared.  And  so,  our  personable  hosts  
explained,  you  might  as  well  learn  to  do  it  well."10    NLP  in  its  “green”  incarnation  under  
capitalism  2.0  is  primarily  concerned  not  with  influence  for  personal  gain,  but  with  
rapport  for  social  belonging,  and  with  developing  professional  dialogue  competence  to  
foster  the  stakeholder  consensus  required  for  action  in  a  2.0  environment.  
 
Neither  Bandler’s  American  NLP  nor  Grinder’s  and  Dilt’s  European  advance  have  led  the  
development  of  consciousness  in  their  respective  economic  and  cultural  contexts,  
however.    Rather  they  have  been  lagging  enablers  of  existing  stages  in  the  
developmental  line.    Bandler  did  not  invent  the  neo-­‐liberal  ideology,  but  served  to  make  
people  more  effective  in  living  out  its  values  in  their  personal  consciousness  and  
behaviour.      Likewise,  Grinder  and  Dilts  may  have  an  affinity  to  the  problems  of  social  
complexity,  but  their  reformulation  of  NLP  formats  and  their  application  of  the  methods  
to  resolving  problems  of  social  complexity  serve  to  confirm  the  2.0  developmental  stage  
and  help  people  become  more  competent  at  living  it,  rather  than  to  advance  its  
evolution.  
 
If  NLP  is  to  play  a  supportive  role  in  the  capitalism  3.0  world—not  to  mention  in  the  
transition  from  2.0  to  3.0—it  would  first  have  to  understand  what  the  next  
developmental  stage  is  going  to  be,  and  then  develop  both  the  consciousness  and  the  
formats  to  enable  the  transformation.      

Wilber,  Graves,  Developmental  Lines  and  the  Next  Level  

Many  of  the  models  which  could  map  the  path  are  already  part  of  current  research  and  
dialogue  in  NLP  circles.    As  part  of  the  general  movement  to  understand  and  foster  
change,  explanatory  models  are  appearing  which  take  a  developmental  or  evolutionary  
approach.    As  probably  the  strongest  example,  Ken  Wilber’s  AQAL-­‐Model  attempts  to  
                                                                                                               
9  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Code_of_NLP  -­‐  cite_note-­‐0  
10  http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/jul/21/weekend.oliverburkeman  

  9  
bring  together  “all  quadrants,  all  (developmental)  lines,  all  levels,  stages  and  states”  in  a  
theory  of  everything  pertaining  to  human  evolution.11    Summarizing  the  analysis  of  
human  development  of  about  100  researchers  and  including  their  extrapolations  of  
where  we  might  go  from  here,  Wilber  has  created  a  map  of  development  coded  to  the  
natural  colour  spectrum  of  light,  where  the  red  end  of  the  spectrum  represents  lower  
frequency,  less  complex  stages  and  the  violet  end  the  higher  frequency,  more  complex  
stages  of  development.  
Chart  5:12  

 
 
 
 
Accordingly,  Capitalism  1.0  could  be  understood  in  terms  of  the  Amber  to  Orange  level  
of  development,  rooted  in  a  mixture  of  absolutistic  concepts  of  truth  and  order  and  
animated  by  a  striving  for  personal  fulfilment  in  the  material  world.    The  values-­‐
orientation  tends  towards  a  willingness  to  satisfy  ego  needs  today,  even  at  the  expense  
of  others.    Thinking  is  at  a  concrete  or  formal  operational  level,  self-­‐identity  is  
conformist  to  conscientious,  while  the  cultural  worldview  exists  in  a  tension  between  a  
                                                                                                               
11  see,  e.g.  Ken  Wilber,  Integral  Spirituality  
12  Ken  Wilber,  Integral  Spirituality,  p.    

  10  
projection  of  power  and  meaning  onto  a  mythical  God  and  the  Enlightenment  
rationalism  of  logical  positivism  and  scientific  method  and  experimentation.  
 
Capitalism  2.0  is  at  home  in  the  more  complex  Green  bandwidth.    Here  thinking  has  
developed  the  ability  to  take  multiple  perspectives  and  see  the  truth  expressed  in  each,  
without  feeling  the  need  to  collapse  the  differences  into  one  point  of  view.    Difference  is  
experienced  as  enriching  and  constructive,  where  many  minds  are  more  intelligent  than  
one,  and  teams  of  different  people  more  effective  and  robust  than  isolated  individuals.    
Individuals  experience  themselves  first  as  members  of  a  society,  for  which  they  are  
willing  to  sacrifice  immediate  gratification  for  greater  benefits  for  both  themselves  and  
others  later.    Paradoxically,  the  worldview  is  individualistic  rather  than  conformist,  
since  consciousness  at  this  level  is  able  to  sustain  individuality  in  the  plurality  of  
different  perspectives,  and  finds  itself  enriched  in  its  identity  through  its  awareness  of  
other  views  by  seeing  itself  through  the  perspective  of  the  other.  
 
Both  Amber-­‐Orange  and  Green  share  what  Wilber  calls  a  first-­‐tier  quality  of  
consciousness  based  on  the  striving  to  satisfy  deficiency  needs.    The  existential  quality  
of  perceived  deficiency  colours  these  levels  with  the  fear  of  loss,  in  the  case  of  1.0  of  not  
having  enough,  power,  status  and  material  things,  and  in  2.0  of  not  having  enough  social  
fulfilment  and  belonging.    The  NLP  which  emerged  from  Bandler’s  business  and  
personal  development  programmes  could  be  said  to  have  burned  out  through  the  ego-­‐
realization  needs  of  its  teachers,  striving  for  success  even  at  the  expense  of  others,  
tipping  into  power  games  and  attempts  at  control  through  the  manipulative  application  
of  the  formats,  and  ultimately  playing  win-­‐lose  games  with  people  who  were  perceived  
as  competitors,  as  shown  in  the  legal  battles  Bandler  fought  to  win  control  over  the  
name  as  a  trademark  and  secure  the  business  opportunities  for  himself  at  the  expense  of  
his  colleagues  and  the  movement  in  the  USA.    3.0  issues  were  far  removed,  the  needs  of  
the  ego  taking  precedence  over  all  other  concerns.  
 
The  consequences  of  the  striving  to  satisfy  deficiency  needs  in  2.0  at  the  level  of  Green  
are  socially  more  sophisticated,  but  no  less  devastating  in  their  effect  on  the  ability  to  
solve  3.0  problems.    Where  Amber-­‐Orange  overvalues  the  ego,  Green  becomes  bogged  
down  in  a  complex  quagmire  of  feelings,  interests,  interdependencies  and  group-­‐think  
through  a  devaluation  of  the  ego.      Since,  for  example,  every  interest  is  deemed  to  be  
valid  in  itself,  the  legitimacy  of  interests  is  not  weighed  against  criteria  of  a  larger  
viability,  but  is  determined  through  consensus  that  tends  towards  the  lowest  common  
denominator.    Advocacy  of  a  point  of  view  as  better  than  another  contravenes  the  
principle  of  equality  and  its  sensitivity  to  the  marginalization  of  others  as  the  most  
sacred  of  green  values,  and  triggers  sanctions  for  anti-­‐social  behaviour.    Since  Green  has  
overcome  and  left  behind  the  notion  of  one  truth,  no  test  of  the  legitimacy  of  truth  
claims  of  varying  perspectives  is  undertaken  at  all,  often  regardless  of  their  illusionary,  
neurotic  or  hidden  egotistical  qualities,  or  simply  of  their  impracticality.    Green  NLP  
thrives  in  an  environment  of  infinite  space  for  every  feeling  and  point  of  view.    While  it  
develops  the  ability  to  listen  and  understand  differing  points  of  view  and  so  helps  to  lift  
consciousness  and  behaviour  out  of  the  conditioning  to  dominance  of  Amber-­‐Orange,  
what  is  often  lost  is  the  ability  to  perform  reality  tests  which  might  exclude  some  points  
of  view  or  some  feelings  from  equal  consideration  for  the  benefit  of  the  larger  whole.  
 
Wilber  describes  the  shift  from  first-­‐tier  to  second-­‐tier  consciousness  a  qualitatively  
new  kind  of  challenge  in  our  development,  as  it  marks  the  transition  out  of  deficiency  

  11  
consciousness  and  into  self-­‐actualization  needs.    Second  tier  informs  and  empowers  our  
capacity  to  consciously  evolve,  both  individually  and  as  a  species.  Commenting  on  the  
Graves  values  developmental  line,  he  says  that,      
 
With  the  completion  of  the  green  meme,  human  consciousness  is  poised  for  a  
quantum  jump  into  "second-­tier  thinking."  Clare  Graves  referred  to  this  as  a  
"momentous  leap,"  where  "a  chasm  of  unbelievable  depth  of  meaning  is  crossed."  In  
essence,  with  second-­tier  consciousness,  one  can  think  both  vertically  and  
horizontally,  using  both  hierarchies  and  heterarchies  (both  ranking  and  linking).  
One  can  therefore,  for  the  first  time,  vividly  grasp  the  entire  spectrum  of  interior  
development,  and  thus  see  that  each  level,  each  meme,  each  wave  is  crucially  
important  for  the  health  of  the  overall  Spiral.  …  Because  second-­tier  consciousness  
is  fully  aware  of  the  interior  stages  of  development—even  if  it  cannot  articulate  
them  in  a  technical  fashion—it  steps  back  and  grasps  the  big  picture,  and  thus  
second-­tier  thinking  appreciates  the  necessary  role  that  all  of  the  various  memes  
play.  Second-­tier  awareness  thinks  in  terms  of  the  overall  spiral  of  existence,  and  
not  merely  in  the  terms  of  any  one  level.13  
 
Capitalism  3.0  can  undoubtedly  function  only  on  a  second-­‐tier  level  of  consciousness.    If  
it  is  to  play  a  productive  role,  how  can  NLP  itself  make  the  “momentous  leap”  to  Wilber’s  
colour  code  level  of  Teal,  and  what  would  a  second-­‐tier  NLP  be  able  to  contribute  to  the  
solutions  to  emerging  complexity  problems?  
 
Second-­tier  NLP—a  Vision  
 
An  example  of  where  the  journey  for  second  tier  NLP  might  go  can  be  taken  from  Joseph  
Jaworski,  who  is  a  leading  figure  in  what  Scharmer  describes  as  the  emerging  fourth  
field  of  presencing  and  which  likely  occurs  out  of  a  second-­‐tier  consciousness  in  Wilber’s  
model.    In  his  run-­‐up  to  founding  the  American  Leadership  Forum,  Jaworski  met  with  
David  Bohm,  the  physicist  and  “Diaolgue”  author,  to  find  orientation  for  his  quest  to  lift  
leadership  in  America  to  a  new  level  of  competence  for  the  coming  challenges.  In  an  
interview  with  Otto  Scharmer  in  1999,  Jaworski  describes  how  Bohm  indicated  that  
what  he  needed  to  do  to  solve  many  of  the  problems  of  leadership  was  to  “remove  the  
blocks  that  separate  these  people.  Then  you  can  operate  as  a  single  intelligence  for  the  
good  of  the  community  or  the  region.”14    The  ALF  which  he  went  on  to  found  did  much  
ground  breaking  work  in  trying  to  understand  “how  to  bring  these  kinds  of  collapsing  
boundary  experiences  about,  how  to  produce  that  experience.  And  not  just  individually,  
but  on  a  group  or  collective  level.”    One  approach  Jaworski  chose  was  to  bring  together  
25  community  leaders  from  all  areas  of  community  life  who  were  at  the  top  of  their  
game,  introduce  them  in  an  orientation  workshop  to  the  principles  of  collective  
leadership,  and  then  go  for  seven  days  with  them  into  the  wilderness  under  the  
guidance  of  the  Outward  Bound  organization  to  produce  the  experience  of  what  it  could  
mean  to  collapse  barriers  between  them  and  allow  them  to  work  as  one  collective  unit  in  
the  wilderness  setting.        The  hope  was  that  this  experience  would  function  as  fourth  
field  conditioning  and  a  guiding  light  to  their  leadership  in  the  community  when  they  
returned.  
                                                                                                               
13  http://rationalspirituality.com/articles/Ken_Wilber_Spiral_Dynamics.htm  
14  http://www.dialogonleadership.org/interviews/Jaworski-­‐1999.shtml  -­‐  five,  and  

subsequent  quotes  
  12  
  
Feeling  at  the  end  of  the  80’s  that  it  was  time  to  move  on,  Jaworski  was  asked  to  head  up  
the  current  iteration  of  the  scenario  group  at  Royal  Dutch  Shell.    Under  Arie  de  Geus  the  
company  had  established  an  advanced  planning  process  based  on  the  development  of  
alternative  scenarios  of  worldwide  trends  into  the  future.    Jaworski  took  the  opportunity  
to  apply  his  insights  from  the  AFL  period  to  the  corporate  planning  setting.    What  he  
found  was  that,  “Everything  was  very  rational.  Their  whole  scenario  planning  process  
was  very  rational.  I  ultimately  wanted  to  go  deeper  and  go  beneath  the  surface,  to  sense  
the  future  that  wanted  to  emerge,  which  people  at  Shell  didn’t  understand.  And  this  was  
like  being…  from  another  planet.”    Rather  than  simply  download  and  update  the  visions  
of  the  future  in  rational  and  analytic  interviews  on  business  issues  with  the  various  
managers  at  the  company,  Jaworski  overstepped  rational  boundaries  in  deep  listening  
interviews  on  a  one-­‐on-­‐one  basis  to  “put  together  an  unbelievable  picture  of  the  internal  
world  of  Shell.  I  had  these  boundary  blurring  experiences  with  many  of  them.”    The  
result  was  a  pair  of  profound  scenarios,  called  “Barricades”  and  “New  Frontiers,”  of  
which  the  second  which  was  adopted  overstepped  the  boundaries  of  conventional  
thinking  at  the  time,  helped  to  move  Shell  into  a  forward-­‐looking  culture  change  process,  
and  prepared  the  company  better  than  its  competitors  for  the  shift  into  alternative  
energy  sources  and  a  multi-­‐polar  political  landscape.15  
 
After  the  Shell  period  and  during  his  next  phase  in  Boston  with  Peter  Senge  at  the  MIT  
Organizational  Learning  Center,  Jaworski  wrote  his  book  Synchronicity  together  with  
Betty  Sue  Flowers  to  formulate  the  essence  of  his  leadership  development  quest.    The  
question  underlying  the  book  was,    
 
How  to  access  our  highest  source  of  creativity  so  that  we  can  give  birth  to  
something  entirely  new.  To  know  what  it  is  that  wants  to  happen  in  the  world  and  
bring  it  forth  into  reality.  I  had  had  all  these  experiences  I’ve  been  describing  to  you,  
but  if  you  separate  these  into  different  things,  into  different  realms,  how  would  I  
bring  it  all  together?  I  wanted  to  bring  these  experiences  and  what  I  had  learned  
from  David  Bohm,  Francisco  Varela,  Rupert  Sheldrake  and  others  together  in  a  
coherent  set  of  principles.  I  believe  that  the  most  important  realm  of  leadership  is  
the  one  that  we’ve  been  discussing.  It’s  this  capacity  to  collectively  sense  what  it  is  
that  is  wanting  to  be  brought  forth  in  the  world,  and  to  bring  it  forth  as  it  desires.  
Jaworski’s  path  was  one  of  action,  confronting  old  systems  with  fourth  field,  second-­‐tier  
principles  and  opportunities.    When  asked  what  made  the  difference  in  his  work  and  
what  made  it  successful  in  overcoming  outdated  patterns  of  leadership,  he  said  that  in  
his  experience  it  was  not  so  important  what  a  leader  did,  whereby  it  was  clear  that  he  
needed  to  be  competent  in  his  managerial  craft.    Nor  was  it  so  important  how  he  did  
what  he  did,  though  an  orientation  to  social  complexity  is  a  second  prerequisite  for  
success.    Essential  was  from  where  the  leader  acted.    Fourth  field  collective  action  is  
generated  by  leadership  which  starts  from  and  acts  out  of  the  fourth  field  from  the  
beginning.    It  is  the  leading  from  the  future,  being  in  the  service  of  “what  is  wanting  to  be  
brought  forth,”  and  finding  others  who  share  the  space  of  the  fourth  field  together  with  
you  which  ultimately  makes  the  difference  in  results  achieved  in  dealing  with  current  
problems.  
                                                                                                               
15  Joseph  Jaworski,  Synchoronicity:  The  Inner  Path  of  Leadership,  Part  4.22,  “New  

Frontiers,”  Berrett-­‐Koehler  Publishers,  1998.    pp.  160ff  

  13  
  
This  insight  implies  for  NLP  that  neither  the  level  of  technology  embodied  in  the  
formats,  nor  the  social  competence  developed  by  applying  the  formats  congruently  will  
result  in  any  contribution  to  the  fourth  field,  second-­‐tier  consciousness  from  where  
collective  leadership  from  the  future  becomes  possible.    On  the  contrary,  a  focus  on  
more  effective  Orange  or  more  authentic  Green  ensures  that  the  leap  to  Teal  will  remain  
forever  beyond  NLP’s  reach.  
 
To  take  its  next  evolutionary  step,  NLP  will  have  to  relaunch  its  self-­‐identity  from  a  
second-­‐tier  platform.    The  question  of  “from  where”  action  is  taken  also  involves  the  
question  of  “what  for”  action  is  taken.    Using  Scharmer’s  Theory  U  as  orientation,  this  
would  mean  that  NLP  would  need  to  act  from  an  awareness  of  “what  is  wanting  to  come  
forth  collectively.”    What  this  means  in  detail  can  be  explained  in  terms  of  the  values  
developmental  line  in  Graves,  where  second-­‐tier  is  color-­‐coded  to  yellow/turquois  
(Wilber’s  Teal)  below.  
 
Chart  6:16  
 

 
 
 
Second-­‐tier  origination  requires  that  three  movements  be  completed.    First,  all  levels  up  
to  Green  have  been  lived  through,  understood  and  integrated.    Second,  the  limits  of  first-­‐

                                                                                                               
16  Steve  Self,  AQAL  Collage,  second-­‐tier  levels  in  Wilber’s  four  quadrants.    For  the  full  

collage  see  http://in.integralinstitute.org/avantgarde/self/1_06.shtml  

  14  
tier  values  have  become  so  clear  in  experience  and  understanding  that  no  alternative  
remains  but  to  go  beyond  them.    And  third,  the  need  and  willingness  to  go  beyond  first-­‐
tier  modes  is  made  manifest  in  the  leap  to  second-­‐tier  action.      While  the  first  two  
movements  are  preconditions,  the  third  demonstrates  that  one  has  arrived.    For  the  
transformation  of  consciousness  to  second-­‐tier  cannot  be  realized  through  thought  or  
feeling,  but  only  phenomenologically  though  the  experience  of  initiation  of,  or  
participation  in  collective  leadership  processes  that  have  an  actual  effect  on  the  world.  
At  the  same  time,  second  tier  is  a  state  of  being  that  is  beyond  action.    It  is  
transformational  by  example.    Its  leaders  achieve  results  not  by  what  they  do,  but  by  the  
way  they  are,  such  that  others  learn  to  follow  by  experiencing  in  the  leader  someone  
who  in  the  quality  of  his  person  demonstrates  what  it  means  to  live  as  an  integral  or  
holistic  self.17    In  Scharmer’s  U-­‐Process,  these  are  the  answers  to  the  questions,  “Who  is  
my  self?”  and  “What  is  my  work?”  answered  not  intellectually,  emotionally  or  socially,  
but  in  the  transformational  effect  of  our  being,  and  of  the  results  of  actions  initiated  
from  that  (collective)  being  state.    
Examples  of  the  effectiveness  of  action  emanating  from  a  second-­‐tier  state  of  being  are  
myriad  in  human  history.    We  have  recorded  cases  over  thousands  of  years  of  individual  
expressions  of  post-­‐rational,  transpersonal  or  illuminates  states.18    What  is  new  is  the  
dire  need  for  these  states  to  become  levels  of  maturity  that  are  collectively  achieved  on  a  
large  scale,  and  are  stable  enough  to  become  the  platform  for  sustainable  global  
economic,  social  and  consciousness  change.  
For  NLP  to  make  the  transition,  then,  it  would  need  to  initiate  and  bring  to  successful  
completion  projects  in  collective  leadership  from  the  future,  and  it  would  need  to  lead  
by  example  through  the  character  and  quality  of  its  service  to  global  survival  and  quality  

                                                                                                               
17  "Character  teaches  above  our  wills.  Men  imagine  that  they  communicate  their  virtue  

or  vice  only  by  overt  actions,  and  do  not  see  that  virtue  or  vice  emit  a  breath  every  
moment."  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  
18  E.g.  Lao-­‐tse,  Tao  te  king  

 
On  Leadership  
 
A  wise  leader,  
Is  hardly  noticed.  
The  less  wise  are  honoured  and  celebrated.  
Inferior  leaders  are  feared  and  hated.  
Incompetent  leaders  are  ridiculed  and  scorned.  
 
He  who  in  complete  trust  believes  in  the  good,  
Leads  people  to  fulfilment.  
 
A  wise  leaders  weighs  his  words  and  deeds  
With  care.  
Almost  imperceptibly  he  leads  to  self-­‐discovery.  
Are  his  works  completed  and  the  goal  achieved,    
All  feel:    We  did  it  ourselves.  
  15  
of  life.    To  date,  NLP  has  not  been  known  for  its  transformational  work  on  a  collective  
level.    What  would  such  a  concept  then  look  like?  
 
 

Innovation  Frames,  Concepts,  Goals  and  Methods  for  Implementing  Second-­Tier  

NLP  

To  effect  global  change  is  to  introduce  innovation  into  the  infrastructures  and  
consciousness  of  systems  at  every  level.    Innovation  processes  describe  the  practical  
steps  to  implement  change  we  know  we  need  to  make.    Were  it  simple  to  innovate,  then  
we  would  already  have  answers  to  many  of  our  problems.    The  challenge  lies  not  in  the  
processes  themselves,  which  are  mature  and  supported  by  excellent  software  solutions.    
Rather  it  is  a  “front-­‐loading”  issue  which  needs  to  be  mastered,  and  which  operates  
according  to  the  principle  of  “garbage  in,  garbage  out”  to  which  most  attempts  at  
innovation  succumb.      
For  example,  the  financial  orientation  towards  shareholder  value  and  short-­‐term  profit  
maximization  at  an  awareness  level  of  capitalism  1.0,  controlled  by  means  of  financial  
key  performance  indicators,  has  an  inherent  tendency  to  focus  on  profit  based  on  
productivity  through  cost  reduction,  and  in  its  risk  management  to  focus  on  limiting  risk  
to  increase  control  and  predictability.    As  a  result,  innovation  tends  go  away  from  
inventing  truly  new  products  and  services  towards  line  extensions  in  an  existing  
portfolio,  which  is  one  of  the  lowest  value  innovation  levels  and  no  way  to  master  
difficult  problems.    For  innovation  on  higher  levels,  short-­‐term  financial  orientation  and  
a  need  for  mechanical  control  are  toxic  in  their  effects  on  results.19      
The  innovation  process  takes  the  subjective  qualities  it  is  given  as  input,  such  as  
presuppositions,  styles,  tendencies,  philosophies,  and  values,  and  efficiently  produces  
products  and  services  which  mirror  this  input:    In  the  case  of  innovation-­‐averse  
approaches  to  business,  the  garbage  that  comes  out  simply  mirrors  the  subjective  
garbage  that  went  in.    Innovation,  therefore,  confronts  us  less  with  objective  challenges  
of  limits  to  technology  than  with  subjective  challenges  to  the  way  we  think  and  live,  to  
our  perception,  beliefs  and  values.    The  German  trend  researcher  Matthias  Horx  writes  
in  “Wie  wir  leben  werden,  unsere  Zukunft  beginnt  jetzt”  (tr.  How  We  are  Going  to  Live,  
Our  Future  Begins  Now),  a  book  on  trends  and  future  scenarios,  that  what  would  shock  a  
time  traveller  from  a  hundred  years  ago  most  about  the  way  we  live  today  is  not  our  
technology,  such  as  housing,  personal  and  mass  transportation,  energy  generation  or  

                                                                                                               
19  Properly  understood,  the  shareholder  value  concept  does  not  exclude  stakeholder  

interests  on  a  Capitalism  2.0  level,  nor  does  it  reduce  strategy  to  short-­‐term  profit  goals.    
Introduced  as  a  metric  to  constrain  a  self-­‐service  attitude  among  professional  managers  
in  the  1980’s,  it  has  in  the  mean  time  become  divorced  from  its  original  intention,  so  that  
earlier  proponents  like  Jack  Welch  now  say  that,  "On  the  face  of  it,  shareholder  value  is  
the  dumbest  idea  in  the  world...  Any  fool  can  just  deliver  in  the  short  term  by  squeezing,  
squeezing,  squeezing...  Shareholder  value  is  an  outcome,  not  a  strategy.“    Business  Week  
interview,  March  16th,  2009:  
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090316_630
496.htm  
  16  
communication,  which  for  the  most  part  existed  in  principle  and  in  simpler  forms  
already  in  his  time,  but  the  change  in  our  beliefs,  values  and  behaviours.    Our  morality,  
our  approach  to  sexuality,  authority,  race,  nationality,  communication,  relationships,  
politics  and  environment  would  pose  a  far  greater  challenge  to  his  ability  to  understand  
and  live  in  our  world  than  anything  physical  he  might  have  to  deal  with.  
Projected  into  our  future,  it  is  our  subjectivity  and  inter-­‐subjectivity  which  also  sets  the  
greatest  limits  to  our  potential  for  development,  and  it  is  at  this  point  that  NLP,  with  its  
technology  and  experience  in  effecting  change  in  people,  has  a  contribution  to  make.    To  
do  so  practically,  however,  a  second-­‐tier  frame  of  meaning  and  an  infrastructure  
framework  is  needed  to  give  the  Amber-­‐Orange  success  formats  and  the  Green  
emotional  and  social  formats  a  Teal  meaning  and  effect  on  the  collective  level.      
Two  interlinked  processes  could  be  helpful  in  achieving  these  change  goals,  one  process  
to  show  where  exactly  subjective  transformation  work  is  needed  on  a  collective  level,  
and  the  other  a  process  to  implement  the  changes.      The  first  could  be  provided  by  a  
three-­‐dimensional  innovation  matrix,  in  which  areas  and  levels  of  innovation  are  linked  
to  levels  of  subjective  and  inter-­‐subjective  evolution,  to  map  out  where  exactly  
transformation  work  needed.    An  innovation  matrix  of  this  kind  maps  ten  innovation  
types  against  seven  innovation  levels.    The  Graves  colour-­‐coding  shows  the  overall  
developmental  level  of  the  culture  of  the  organization  in  the  way  it  understands  and  
deals  with  change  at  the  intersection  of  innovation  types  and  levels  

Below  is  an  example  of  such  a  three-­‐dimensional  innovation  matrix.  

Charts  7  and  8:      

  17  
To realize the strategy for 2015, what innovation results have to be How to do the analysis: Mark the
achieved? change level. Only one point per
line. Add Graves levels with
1. When you look back on the results of the last years, where do you believe background colours.
that you stand today?

2. When you look at the requirements of the How to do the analysis: Mark the change
market, where do you believe
Innovation New you needNew
to the to to the
level.New
Only
to one
the point per line. Incremental
Renovation Add Graves Just Cost
go? (below)
levels / world industry levelscompany
with background colours. improve-
of existing repositioning reduction
Innovation categories ments
types

Innovation Explanation New to the

An idea New to the
An idea New to the
An idea Renovation
The next Incremental
Small Just
Reposition- Cost
Cost
levels / world
which is industry
which is company
which is new of existing
version of an improvemen
improvemen repositioning
ing an reduction
reduction
Innovation completely completely to your categories
existing ts
ts, new existing without
types new to the new to your existing product line features, product significant
world company product line correcting changes to
Business How you mistakes the product
model design your
Business business
How you Graves
model model
design your colours for
business levels of
Networks How
model development
and alliances stakeholders ->
support each
Networks other
How
Texts
and alliances stakeholders
Enabling How youeach describing
support
process support the facts ->
other
value
Enabling creation
How you
process processes
support
and people
value
creation
Core process processes
How you
design your
and people
core
Core process processes
How you
design your
Product How
core you
performance design your
processes
products
Product How you
Product
performance How your
design your
system create
productsand
develop
Product platforms
How your for
system your product
create and
portfolio
develop
platforms for
Value added How
your you add
product
concepts value
portfolio
dimensions
Value added to
Howphysical
you add
concepts products
value
dimensions
Channel What sales
to physical
channels
products you
use, offer or
Channel invent
What sales
channels you
Brand What
use, offer or
communicati
invent
ons channels
Brand you
Whatuse,
offer or
communicati
invent
ons channels
you use,
Customer What
offer or
Experience emotional
invent
relationship
Customer your
What
Experience customers
emotional
experience
relationship
your
customers
experience

  18  
  
The  Innovation  Matrix  Facilitation  Process:    Groups  responsible  for  innovation,  
including  leaders,  technical  experts,  project  managers  and  sales  and  marketing  
managers  meet  to  gauge  the  innovation  level  of  the  organisation  in  the  ten  types  of  
innovation,  and  then  reflect  on  the  level  at  which  the  organisational  culture  understands  
and  deals  with  the  need  for  innovation  in  those  areas  of  action.    Once  the  groups  have  
filled  out  the  “actual”  matrix,  the  intersection  points  are  discussed,  causes  are  analysed,  
and  consequences  looked  at.    For  example,  a  large  family  company  whose  business  
model  has  gone  through  no  more  change  than  the  occasional  repositioning  for  40  years,  
and  whose  culture  is  hierarchical,  managed  by  command  and  control  in  an  authoritarian  
self-­‐understanding,  which  is  bureaucratic  in  its  operations  and  risk-­‐averse  in  its  
controlling  (Graves  blue  /  Wilber  Amber),  will  find  it  difficult  to  see  and  accept  the  
coming  end  of  the  product  lifecycle  which  made  it  a  market  leader  40  years  previously.    
In  the  reflection  on  company  culture  and  the  lack  of  strong  innovation  in  recent  years,  
the  stakeholders  may  come  to  understand  how  particular  assumptions  about  
management,  beliefs  developed  through  past  success,  and  values  that  have  emerged  as  
company  culture  may  pose  a  threat  to  the  company’s  further  existence  if  the  market  
moves  and  the  managers’  perception  ignores  the  facts  in  favour  of  convention  and  habit.    

The  groups  are  then  asked  to  look  at  the  market,  the  competition,  technological  
developments,  and  future  trends  and  then  assess  where  they  need  to  be  on  the  
innovation  scale  to  survive  and  prosper,  and  what  kind  of  culture  would  be  needed  to  
support  the  change  and  the  new  level  of  complexity  it  involves.    In  the  process  the  group  
might  become  aware  that  the  company  needs,  for  example,  to  transform  itself  from  
being  a  product  producer  to  becoming  a  solutions  and  services  organization,  focussed  
not  on  engineering-­‐driven  improvements  to  existing  products,  but  driven  rather  by  the  
market  and  focussed  on  systems  integration  and  interface  technologies.    The  culture  
needed  to  make  these  innovations  successful  might  be  project  and  process-­‐oriented,  
flexible  and  agile  and  so  non-­‐hierarchical  both  in  its  organisational  structure  and  in  its  
management  style  (Graves  green  to  yellow/Wilber  Green  to  Teal).    A  “to  be”  vision  of  the  
innovation  in  the  business  model  is  mapped  in  the  “to  be”  innovation  matrix  and  then  
formulated  as  a  mission,  values,  vision  and  strategy.  
The  groups  then  confront  the  delta  between  the  “to  be”  and  “actual”  organisation.    
Innovation  goals  are  set,  and  innovation  initiatives  are  formulated  which  take  into  
account  the  critical  success  factors  which  the  transformation  must  master.    A  change  
vision  is  formulated  and  a  change  process  designed.  

 
Soft  Facts  Interventions  on  a  Path  not  only  to  Culture  Change,  but  to  a  Leap  in  
Levels  to  Second  Tier  

The  operational  challenge  of  implementing  what  has  been  envisioned  lies  in  confronting  
the  subjective  conditioning  of  both  the  people  and  their  organisational  culture.    70%  of  
all  mergers  fail  either  completely  or  in  large  part  because  culture  incompatibility.    70%  
of  all  IT-­‐integration  projects  fail  to  realize  the  objectives  and  synergies  for  which  they  
were  intended  because  of  challenges  to  habitual  ways  of  doing  things.    Most  
organizational  transformation  projects,  such  as  lean  management,  process  re-­‐
engineering,  or  restructuring  achieve  short-­‐term  results,  only  to  see  the  culture  fall  back  
into  previous  habits  when  the  initiatives  end.    Change  management  helps  dramatically  

  19  
to  enable  buy-­‐in  and  sustainability  for  change.    However,  to  the  extent  that  change  
management  itself  operates  within  the  presuppositions  of  a  particular  cultural  level  of  
development,  it  can  only  help  to  reproduce  existing  habits  dressed  up  in  other  clothes.  

Where  NLP  can  make  a  profound  contribution  to  second-­‐tier  action  is  in  doing  the  
transformational  work  to  help  people  take  a  constructivist  approach  to  action  and  
effectively  learn  new  attitudes,  behaviours  and  habits.    The  vision  for  products,  services,  
organization  and  culture  can  be  arrived  at  through  a  3D  innovation  matrix.    Operational  
success  will  depend  on  opening  the  mind,  the  heart  and  the  will  to  get  beyond  subjective  
limitations  and  engaging  them  as  success  factors.  
Key  elements  on  the  path  to  presencing  in  second-­‐tier  consciousness  are:  
1. Learning  to  see  –  understanding  and  interpreting  artefacts  
2. Understanding  belief  drivers  –  discovering  and  changing  axioms,  
presuppositions,  beliefs  
3. Connecting  to  the  power  of  values  –  recognizing,  challenging  and  developing  
values-­‐based  structures  in  order  to  overcome  barriers  to  innovation  
4. Developing  shared  pictures  of  the  future  –  developing  scenarios  through  
collective  dialogue  processes  and  their  integral  application  
5. Using  the  power  of  devolved  organizations  –  understanding  how  social  
innovation  works,  and  building  infrastructures  which  enable  tribes  to  change  the  
world  
6. Developing  innovation  strategies  –  finding  one’s  innovation  DNA  
7. Leading  strategic  conversations  –  building  tri-­‐sector  collective  leadership  
processes  to  implement  innovation  on  a  global-­‐local  scale  
Action  area  1:  Learning  to  see  –  understanding  and  interpreting  artefacts  
Another  saying  ascribed  to  Einstein  is  that  fish  are  the  last  creatures  to  notice  water.    It  
is  natural  for  the  brain  to  take  its  habitual  environment  for  granted.    However,  the  world  
we  live  in  is  no  longer  primarily  natural,  but  was  made  by  people  in  the  process  of  our  
cultural  development.    One  of  the  principle  effects  of  moving  from  level  3  to  level  4  in  the  
U-­‐process  is  to  recognize  that  the  policies,  structures,  processes,  economics,  and  culture  
we  feel  subject  to  and  often  victimized  by  are  nothing  but  the  result  of  our  own  
collective  doing.    The  market,  for  example,  is  not  like  a  plant  or  a  mountain,  which  are  
facts  of  nature  that  form  the  context  in  which  humanity  evolved,  but  rather  like  a  car  or  
building,  which  are  things  that  someone  has  invented.    Yet  we  experience  the  market  
under  Capitalism  1.0  and  2.0  as  an  external  force,  as  a  fact  of  life,  as  if  our  actions  had  
nothing  to  do  with  its  existence.    It  has  become  so  deeply  embedded  in  our  perceptual  
presuppositions  and  habits  that  we  encounter  it  as  a  thing  we  experience,  not  an  act  that  
we  perform.    It  has  become  an  artefact—as  opposed  to  a  biofact—whose  
anthropological  analysis  can  give  us  information  about  the  culture  of  its  creators  and  
users.    The  interpretation  of  the  market  as  a  social  artefact  lays  bare  the  historical  
reasons  for  its  creation,  the  beliefs  and  values  upon  which  its  existence  is  based,  and  the  
interests  and  aims  it  serves  to  satisfy.    Learning  to  see  the  facts  around  us  as  artefacts  
moves  them  from  the  realm  of  things  to  which  we  are  subject  into  that  of  actions  upon  
which  we  have  influence  and  so  empowers  us  in  effecting  change.    We  thus  bring  
ourselves  in  to  a  position  in  which  we  dare  to  ask  ourselves,  e.g.  whether  the  market  we  
now  have  is  the  one  we  need  or  want  to  have  in  future,  so  that  we  can  get  down  to  the  
business  of  creating  an  alternative  vision  and  planning  its  implementation.  

  20  
In  a  thread  on  Scharmer’s  “7  Acupuncture  Points  to  transform  Capitalism”  paper  on  the  
need  for  transformation  infrastructures,  David  Hodgson,  a  Community  member,  
comments  that    

Instead  of  capitalism  3.0  I  have  been  moving  towards  a  variant  of  the  phrase  ‘the  
sacred  |  spiritual  |  enlightened  |  living  economy’.  

I  believe  we  have  to  move  entirely  past  the  paradigm  of  capitalism,  and  shift  our  
conceptual  center  of  gravity  from  capital,  an  abstraction,  mind,  to  something  alive,  
whole,  and  integrated,  so  that  we  can  come  back  to  life  as  Joanna  Macy  might  say.  
And  to  define  the  living  economy  as  a  platform  to  support  global  collective  well  
being.    Gross  international  happiness  as  the  measure  of  success.20  
A  vision  like  this  would  be  an  innovation  wholly  new  to  the  world.    It  also  upends  the  
most  dearly  held  presuppositions,  beliefs  and  values  of  most  of  the  business  community,  
and  is  a  mortal  challenge  to  the  ideologies  of  amber-­‐orange  and  green.  

I  write  in  response,    

We  seem  to  lack  the  maturity  for  a  true  collective.    For  example,  in  the  political  
debate  over  health  care  reform  in  the  US  at  the  moment,  the  term  "socialism"  serves  
to  trigger  fear  to  discredit  government  action  focused  on  collective  well-­being-­-­
which  to  my  shock  a  lot  of  people  seem  passionately  (hysterically?)  to  be  buying  
into!    What  is  the  trauma  being  activated  here?    Images  of  the  collective  in  popular  
media  are  mostly  pathologically  negative,  as  with  the  "Borg"  in  science  fiction  TV,  
or  in  business  as  with  the  battle  against  open  source  (by  Sun  at  one  point  if  I  
remember  correctly),  as  hostile  to  inventiveness  and  vitality  seen  to  be  based  on  
motivation  through  intellectual  property  rights.    
We  have  (hopefully)  moved  beyond  the  painfully  forced  collectives  of  the  past  
(empire,  feudalism,  communism,  fascism)  that  I  could  imagine  being  sources  of  the  
negative  collective  in  social  memory.    But  we  seem  to  lack  visions  of  self-­fulfilling  
collectives  of  the  future.  Nevertheless,  we  do  not  have  a  choice  between  individual  
freedom  and  collective  action.    By  choosing  individual  freedom  from  the  collective  
context,  we  generate  a  dysfunctional  collective,  which  undermines  individual  
freedom.    The  choice  is  not  between  government  or  no  government,  but  between  
good  and  bad  government  (good  government  by  definition  being  limited  to  what  it  
can  do  well-­-­but  doing  what  it  can  do  well  with  full  intelligence  and  commitment).      
One  of  the  things  good  government  could  do  would  be  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  
for  the  mechanism  of  the  market  through  intelligent  regulation  focused  perhaps  on  
an  understanding  of  “holistic  collective  well-­being”  contributed  by  civil  society.  The  
market  is  just  a  mechanism.    But  we  do  not  have  a  properly  functioning  mechanism  
in  the  market  at  the  moment,  because  special  interests  have  tilted  the  playing  field  
massively  in  their  favour  with  their  strategy  of  privatizing  profits  while  socializing  
costs.  Could  we  not  reconceive  of  the  market  as  a  social  technology?    Markets  
mediate  between  both  individual  and  social  interests  (as  Otto  describes  briefly  in  his  
mention  of  Prosper.com  as  an  alternative  to  the  intermediary  role  of  classical  banks  
in  facilitating  credit).    At  the  moment  they  are  in  the  thrall  of  the  oligarchs,  but  they  
                                                                                                               
20  http://www.blog.ottoscharmer.com/?p=123#comments,  comment  2  

  21  
 could  just  as  well  be  liberated  to  perform  their  social  function  constructively.    Social  
infrastructures  could  cut  out  the  middle-­men,  so  that  the  market—and  so  
capitalism?—could  do  its  job  for  everyone.  

A  step  on  the  way  may  lie  in  healing  the  unconsciously  pathological  relationship  
many  have  to  the  collective  (away  from  the  past  of  enforced  social  cohesion  towards  
experiences  of  a  democratic  generative  community).    Maybe  we  need  to  focus  more  
on  creating  images  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  self  in  collective  action  (I’m  thinking  of  
presencing  theatre  in  the  media  here).      Could  capitalism  perhaps  be  liberated  by  
art…?21  
To  the  comment  on  the  amber-­‐orange  conservative  American  response  to  the  need  for  
collective  action,  one  could  add  that  the  liberal  left  American  response  and  the  European  
reflex  to  do  the  opposite  and  massively  expand  the  role  of  the  state  in  economic  life  is,  
because  of  its  cost  and  ineffectiveness,  just  as  unsustainable.    Where  Amber-­‐Orange  
tends  towards  religious  and  market  fundamentalism,  Green  tends  towards  state  
fundamentalism.    
What  contribution  can  NLP  make  to  help  heal  the  pathological  relationship  to  the  
collective—both  its  absolute  rejection  and  its  absolute  embrace?    With  a  second-­‐tier  
awareness  as  its  platform,  a  full  spectrum  of  formats  which  can  have  the  required  effect  
are  immediately  available.  To  name  just  a  few:  

-­‐ metamodel  explorations  of  the  presuppositions,  beliefs,  values  and  conditioning  
behind  hysterical  fear  of  collectives  and  infantile  trust  in  collectives  
-­‐ submodality  interventions  to  question  and  change  representations  of  collectives  
-­‐ re-­‐imprints  to  heal  traumatic  actual  experiences  with  destructive  collectives  
-­‐ reframing  interventions  to  make  constructive  meanings  for  collectives  accessible  
and  available  
-­‐ systemic  interventions  to  make  conscious  and  resolve  entanglements  with  the  
experience  of  destructive  collectives  from  the  family  or  system  background  
-­‐ fast  phobias  to  disempower  the  visual  anchors  for  imagined  fears  
For  Scharmer,  “The  shift  from  downloading  to  seeing  is  simple—although  not  always  
painless.    Three  distinct  principles  can  help  us  to  move  from  downloading  to  actually  
seeing.    They  are:  (1)  clarify  question  and  intent,  (2)  move  into  the  contexts  that  matter,  
and  (3)  suspend  judgment  and  connect  to  wonder.”22    NLP  can  provide  the  
craftsmanship  in  the  background  to  implement  the  principles.  

 
Action  area  2:    Understanding  belief  drivers  –  discovering  and  changing  axioms,  
presuppositions,  beliefs  
Having  surfaced  axioms,  presuppositions  and  belief  behind  the  artefacts  of  existence,  the  
challenge  is  then  to  change  those  which  are  unproductive,  create  the  conditions  under  
which  viable  alternatives  can  grow  and  develop,  and  help  in  the  collective  leadership  
processes  to  undo  blocks  on  this  level  on  an  ongoing  basis.  
                                                                                                               
21  same  as  above,  comment  13  
22  Otto  Scharmer,  Theory  U,  Society  for  Organisational  Learning,  Cambridge,  

Massachusetts,  2007,  p.  131  

  22  
From  a  constructivist  understanding,  beliefs  are  generalizations  from  experience  about  
oneself  or  the  world.    With  longer  habituation,  the  beliefs  make  claims  to  validity  a  
priori,  independently  of  experience  and  will  often  maintain  themselves  in  the  face  of  
conscious  awareness  of  contravening  facts  (“I  know  its  not  true,  but  I  still  believe  it.”)    
Undesirable  beliefs  can  be  changed  with  classical  formats  like  the  Walking  Belief  Change  
of  McDonald  and  Dilts23  or  with  submodalities  formats,  and  for  competent  NLP  
practitioners  and  self-­‐coaches  these  are  simple  exercises.  
The  challenge  for  second-­‐tier  initiatives  is  to  enable  change  on  the  level  of  groups  or  
systems  in  their  culture.    For  Scharmer,  an  effective  approach  in  groups  to  changing  
beliefs  is  to  engage  in  “dialogue,”  with  the  intention  of  opening  the  heart  and  breaking  
down  boundaries.    David  Bohm  describes  the  challenge  as  follows:  
Now  why  do  we  need  dialogue?    People  have  difficulty  communicating  even  in  small  
groups.    But  in  a  group  of  thirty  or  forty  or  more,  many  may  find  it  very  hard  to  
communicate  unless  there  is  a  set  purpose,  or  unless  somebody  is  leading  it.    Why  is  
that?    For  one  thing,  everybody  has  different  assumptions  and  opinions.    They  are  
basic  assumptions—not  merely  superficial  assumptions—such  as  assumptions  
about  the  meaning  of  life;  about  your  own  self-­interest,  your  country’s  interest,  or  
your  religious  interest;  about  what  you  really  think  is  important.  
And  these  assumptions  are  defended  when  they  are  challenged.    People  frequently  
can’t  resist  defending  them,  and  they  tend  to  defend  them  with  an  emotional  
charge.  …  The  point  is  that  dialogue  has  to  go  into  all  the  pressures  that  are  behind  
our  assumptions.    It  goes  into  the  process  of  thought  behind  the  assumptions,  not  
just  the  assumptions  themselves.24  
NLP  has  vast  experience  in  going  into  the  process  of  thought  behind  assumptions.    For  
example,  a  business  man  who  comes  to  coaching  for  self-­‐sabotaging  failures  he  has  
caused  in  an  otherwise  flourishing  business  might  discover  that  the  belief  that  “a  camel  
would  sooner  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  a  rich  man  into  heaven,”  is  behind  the  
failures.    Unconsciously,  the  belief  determines  his  behaviour  to  such  an  extent  that  he  
does  something  to  create  problems  in  his  business  whenever  he  is  at  risk  of  achieving  
great  successes.    Asked  whether  he  consciously  subscribes  to  fundamentalist  religious  
beliefs,  he  says  “clearly  not,”  and  the  reason  he  has  come  into  coaching  is  to  resolve  the  
conflict  he  is  experiencing  with  himself.    Upon  examination,  the  belief  is  found  to  reside  
in  a  younger  part  of  his  psyche.    Analysis  of  its  origins  helps  him  to  understand  the  
thinking  process  of  the  child  he  once  was,  which  led  to  the  formulation  of  the  belief.    
Through  the  intervention  “Growing  a  Part”  the  child’s  thinking  process  us  updated  to  
adult  consciousness  and  the  dysfunctional  belief  is  replaced  by  conscious  adult  thinking.    
The  conflict  is  resolved  in  that  the  intention  of  the  child  is  separated  from  childish  
conclusions  and  is  connected  to  the  resources  of  the  adult  person,  who  fulfils  the  
intention  though  viable  behaviours  in  his  current  reality.  

Goethe  captures  the  fundamental  experience  of  our  identity  when  his  Faust  exclaims:  
“Zwei  Seelen,  ach,  wohnen  in  meiner  Brust!”  (Alas,  two  soul  beat  within  my  breast).    
Human  beings  are  in  their  individuality  constitutionally  not  one  with  themselves  or  their  
environment,  in  this  case  as  a  consequence  of  parts  psychology  and  the  autonomy  of  
                                                                                                               
23  http://www.nlpu.com/Patterns/pattern3.htm  
24  David  Bohm,  Dialogue,  Routledge  Classics,  2004,  pp.  8-­‐9  

  23  
psychological  parts  and  their  experiences,  beliefs  and  conclusions.    Under  these  
conditions,  a  person  is  unable  to  evolve  with  his  environment  and  respond  realistically  
to  its  challenges.    

For  Bohm,  the  root  cause  of  conflicts  between  beliefs  and  reality  lies  in  the  
fragmentation  of  thought.    He  describes  how  on  the  first  level,    

Fragmentation  is  one  of  the  difficulties  of  thought,  but  there  is  a  deeper  root,  which  
is  that  thought  is  very  active,  but  the  process  of  thought  thinks  that  it  is  doing  
nothing—that  it  is  just  telling  you  the  way  things  are.    Almost  everything  around  us  
has  been  determined  by  thought….  The  whole  ecological  problem  is  due  to  thought,  
because  we  have  thought  that  the  world  is  there  for  us  to  exploit,  that  it  is  infinite,  
and  so  no  matter  what  we  did,  the  pollution  would  all  get  dissolved  away.  …    The  
point  is:    thought  produces  results,  but  thought  says  it  didn’t  do  it.  …    Usually,  when  
you  have  a  problem,  you  say,  ‘I  must  think  about  it  to  solve  it.’    But  what  I’m  trying  
to  say  is  that  thought  is  the  problem.25  
NLP  has  the  technology  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  thought  in  many  ways.    But  Bohm  
goes  on  to  say  that,  “In  fact,  most  of  it  comes  from  a  collective  background.”    While  NLP  
has  ways  of  perceiving  and  dealing  with  collective  sources  of  individual  belief,  it  lacks  
the  technology  for  understanding  and  changing  belief  on  a  collective  level.    No  NLP  
format  would  lift  a  nation  collectively  out  of  fundamentalist  axioms  of  its  collective  
thinking.    Yet  we  are  faced  with  nothing  less  than  a  challenge  on  a  world  scale  if  we  want  
to  effect  change  in  any  of  the  seven  acupuncture  points  in  Scharmer’s  map.  
Scharmer  makes  some  “diagnostic  observations  about  the  current  state  of  the  collective  
body  of  conversation  that  happens  in  organizations  and  institutions  day  to  day,  moment  
to  moment,”  which  mirrors  the  dynamics  of  individual  identity  and  thought:  
1. The  individual  intention  of  most  participants  in  most  organizations  is  to  operate  
from  the  space  of  creative  emergence,  not  from  the  dark  space  of  pathology.  
2. Yet  the  collectively  enacted  outcome  is  that  many  conversations  in  many  or  most  
organizations  take  place  in  the  pathological  space  of  anti-­emergence,  not  the  space  
of  creative  emergence  
3. Hence,  we  collectively  do  what  nobody  wants:    we  operate  in  the  toxic  atmosphere  
of  pathological  patterns  of  conversation.  
4. Such  a  conversational  space  is  toxic  or  limiting  in  two  respects:    it  prevents  
individual  participants  from  accessing  their  deeper  levels  of  being  and  
consciousness,  and  it  prevents  collective  institutions  from  co-­evolving  with  their  
environments  by  accessing  the  deeper  streams  of  collective  emergence.26  
A  colleague  of  Scharmer’s,  Ursula  Versteegen  has  developed  the  technology  of  the  
“dialogue  interview”  to  enable  groups  to  move  from  the  destructive  anti-­‐space  of  
pathological  belief  and  conversation  to  the  creative  U  space  of  conversational  reality  
creation.27    She  uses  a  dialogue  process  to  identify  emerging  themes  in  large-­‐scale  
change  processes:  

                                                                                                               
25  David  Bohm,  pp.  10-­‐12  
26  Otto  Scharmer,  Theory  U,  pp.  287-­‐88  
27  The  format  is  available  under  the  collective  commons  agreement  through  the  U-­‐

Browser  at:  http://www.presencing.com/tools/index.shtml  

  24  
 PRINCIPLES  
Create  transparency  and  trust  about  the  purpose  and  the  process  of  the  interview.  

Practice  deep  listening  (figure).  

Suspend  your  “Voice  of  Judgment”:  look  at  the  situation  through  the  eyes  of  the  
interviewee,  don’t  judge.  
Access  you  ignorance:  As  the  conversation  unfolds,  pay  attention  to  and  trust  the  
questions  that  occur  to  you.    
Access  your  appreciative  listening:  Thoroughly  appreciate  and  enjoy  the  story  
that  you  hear  unfolding.  Put  yourself  in  your  interviewee’s  shoes.  

Access  your  generative  listening:  Try  to  focus  on  the  best  future  possibility  for  
your  interviewee  and  the  situation  at  hand.    

Go  with  the  flow:  Don’t  interrupt.  Ask  questions  spontaneously.  Always  feel  free  to  
deviate  from  your  questionnaire  if  important  questions  occur  to  you.  

Leverage  the  power  of  presence  and  silence:  One  of  the  most  effective  
“interventions”  as  an  interviewer  is  to  be  fully  present  with  the  interviewee—and  
not  to  interrupt  a  brief  moment  of  silence.  
 

 
 
Interviewers  come  for  the  largest  part  from  within  the  system  which  is  to  be  collectively  
seen  and  understood.    The  fourth  field  merging  in  the  group  which  can  take  place  in  the  
process  comes  from  a  second-­‐tier  ability  and  attention  to  sense  the  collective  patterns  
behind  the  statements  in  the  interviews.    In  what  Versteegen  compares  to  a  “jam  
session,”  the  interviewers  meet  with  the  transcripts  of  their  interviews  and  begin  
reading  individual  sentences  out  loud.    “The  instruments  are  the  people  you  
encountered—your  interviewees;  the  sheets  of  music  are  the  transcripts  in  front  of  you;  
and  the  piece  of  music  that  your  are  creating  is  the  social  art  of  seeing  and  sensing  the  
emerging  system,  the  one  that  you  tried  to  elicit  in  the  thought  and  words  of  your  
interviewees.”    As  each  interviewer  reads  out  loud,  he  speaks  as  if  striking  a  note  in  a  
collective  jazz  improvisation.    Into  the  pause,  another  reads  a  sentence  in  response.    As  
  25  
the  piece  develops,  a  picture  begins  to  emerge.    “They  get  into  a  rhythm,  and  learn  to  
listen  to  the  music  that  speaks  from  what  remains  unsaid  between  the  quotes—the  
empty  space  in  between  (deep  dive).  …  they  begin  to  tune  in  to  some  of  the  emerging  
patterns,  pictures  and  polarities…  they  begin  to  shift  the  place  of  listening  toward  
listening  from  the  whole,  the  common  ground  from  which  all  of  the  instances,  stories  
and  quotes  arose.”28  

NLP  is  not  needed  for  such  collective  processes—at  least  in  the  part  of  collective  
dialogue.    It’s  contribution  will  likely  lie  in  working  with  what  the  collective  leadership  
process  triggers  in  the  individual  participants.    If,  for  example,  the  experience  a  member  
of  the  group  has  had  with  a  pathological  collective  is  triggered  by  the  deep  dive  of  the  
group,  the  ensuing  personal  psychological  drama  will  block  his  ability  to  evolve  with  and  
contribute  to  the  group  process.    In  some  cases  the  deep  dialogue  state  will  suffice  not  
only  to  surface,  but  also  to  clear  the  block,  as  deep  listening  has  a  healing  quality  all  its  
own.      At  the  same  time,  presencing  groups  are  from  their  intention  not  therapy  groups,  
and  the  members  generally  not  trained  therapists.    What  is  triggered  by  a  second-­‐tier  
experience  may  be  healed  with  NLP’s  first-­‐tier  technologies  applied  in  a  second-­‐tier  
state  of  awareness.29  
 
Action  Area  3:    Connecting  to  the  power  of  values  –  recognizing,  challenging  and  
developing  values-­based  structures  in  order  to  overcome  barriers  to  innovation  
The  focus  of  thinking  and  action  in  the  world  could  be  said  to  be  moving  from  a  left-­‐
brained  to  a  right-­‐brained  functional  emphasis.30    The  last  century  saw  an  unparalleled  
string  of  successes  in  technology  and  culture  through  scientific  and  analytic  methods.    
With  the  good  results  from  the  focus  on  facts  and  figures  has  come  a  belief  that  left-­‐
brained  approaches  to  the  challenges  of  the  world  are  not  only  adequate,  but  are  the  
only  possible  option.    As  our  experience  confronts  us  massively  with  the  facts  to  the  
contrary,  and  our  analyses  increasingly  show  that  it  is  our  naïve  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  
enlightenment  thinking  which  has  gotten  us  into  the  current  mess  in  the  first  place,  
leaders  are  searching  increasingly  for  alternatives  that  will  help  us  to  describe,  
                                                                                                               
28    Otto  Scharmer,  Theory  U,  p.  292  
29  In  my  own  short  experience  with  a  presencing  group,  I  sense  a  tendency  among  deep  

listeners  to  confuse  Teal  collective  processes  with  the  Green  process  of  social  and  
emotional  understanding  through  sharing  in  groups.    As  George  Pór,  a  social  
entrepreneur  emerging  from  a  long  history  of  spiritual  practice  who  took  part  confesses,  
“In  the  spirit  of  full  disclosure,  I  also  admit  that  I  am  a  recovering  ‘being  in  the  here  and  
now’  addict.  Of  course,  there's  nothing  wrong  with  staying  in  the  bottom  of  the  U  for  as  
long  as  needed.  My  concern  is  about  when  it  becomes  an  addiction  and  prevents  us  from  
moving  up  on  the  right  leg  of  the  U.  That  prevention  starts  frequently,  by  excluding  the  
prototyping  dimension  of  the  U  from  the  design  of  the  event  and  replacing  it  with  
"something  will  emerge"  that  a  friend  of  my  termed  as  ‘the  opium  of  the  cultural  
creatives.’”  
30  Daniel  Pink,  A  Whole  New  Mind,  for  an  entertaining  and  insightful  description  of  the  

shift  in  the  production  of  added  value  from  logical,  sequential,  specifiable  “left-­‐brained”  
activities  through  outsourcing  and  automation  to  creative  activities  based  on  pattern  
recognition,  subjective  evaluation,  relationships  and  creativity  generally  associated  with  
the  operation  of  the  “right  brain.”  
  26  
understand  and  influence  the  success  factors  for  change  with  which  the  right  brain  is  at  
home.  
From  the  value-­‐based  management  associated  with  the  shareholder  value  ideology,  
there  is  an  increasing  interest  being  shown  in  management  thorough  values  in  the  
broader  sense  of  things  which  are  important  to  us  beyond  the  financial  bottom  line.  

The  Graves  model  is  useful  in  this  regard  in  helping  various  stakeholders  to  describe  
what  is  important  to  them  across  the  entire  pycho-­‐social-­‐political-­‐economic  landscape  
of  their  organizations  and  their  fields  of  engagement.    With  the  appropriate  
infrastructure,  Graves’  developmental  line  can  be  used  to  visualize  the  deltas  between  
what  is  important  to  employees,  managers  and  customers,  among  others.    In  addition,  it  
can  be  used  to  analyse  the  developmental  trends  and  show  what  the  environment  in  
which  an  organisation  works  demands.    Across  all  the  differences,  areas  of  action  can  be  
identified  to  close  the  gaps  and  create  alignment,  so  that  values  conflicts  no  longer  
paralyse  essential  initiatives,  but  instead  support  and  drive  them  as  effectively  as  
possible  towards  the  achievement  of  results.  
Various  tools  provide  questionnaires  and  the  visualization  of  analyses  to  simplify  the  
process  of  identifying  problems  and  areas  of  action.    Christopher  Cowan,  with  Don  Beck  
one  of  Graves’  former  assistants  and  the  founders  of  Spiral  Dynamics,  has  together  with  
Natasha  Todorovic  created  several  analysis  tools  in  this  direction.31    

At  OrgProf3.0  a  questionnaire  has  been  programmed  to  enable  system  analysis  through  
the  prism  of  Graves’  values  model.    The  values  of  stakeholders  are  elicited  through  an  
online  questionnaire,  their  experience  of  the  current  situation  or  organisation  is  
captured,  and  their  recommendations  for  how  the  values  approach  should  be  different  is  
described.    Visualized  in  various  graphs,  deltas  can  be  made  out  and  questions  asked  in  
interviews  or  open-­‐space,  world  café  or  appreciative  inquiry  workshops  with  a  
collective  presencing  intention  as  to  what  values  would  be  useful,  are  wanted  and  would  
lead  to  success.      Change  initiatives  are  described  to  realize  the  values  vision  and  actions  
agreed  upon  for  implementation.32  
Chart  9:  

                                                                                                               
31  Assessment  of  World  Views,  Change  State  Indicator,  and  Assessment  of  Thinking  and  

Coping:    http://www.spiraldynamics.org/resources_assessments.htm  
32  Contact:  mail@tomklein.de  for  more  information  and  access  to  the  tool  

  27  
  
 
For  leaders  who  are  accustomed  to  managing  with  the  key  performance  indicators  in  a  
balanced  scorecard,  or  even  more  simply  with  financial  goals  and  objectives,  a  values-­‐
based  management  approach  can  seem  “unreal.”    Yet  from  a  second-­‐tier  perspective,  
what  is  real  and  unreal  is  often  turned  on  its  head.    As  Jack  Welch  put  it  in  the  recent  
Business  Week  interview,  “...you  would  never  tell  your  employees,  ‘Shareholder  value  is  
our  strategy.’  That's  not  a  strategy  you  can  touch.  That's  not  a  strategy  that  helps  you  
know  what  to  do  when  you  come  to  work  every  day.  It  doesn't  energize  or  motivate  
anyone.  So  basically  my  point  is,  increasing  the  value  of  your  company  in  both  the  short  
and  long  term  is  an  outcome  of  the  implementation  of  successful  strategies.  I've  always  
felt  that  way,  and  I've  always  said  I  felt  that  way.”    Put  in  more  second-­‐tier  terms,  what  
counts  is  what  is  subjectively  and  inter-­‐subjectively  important  to  people.    That  we  still  
for  the  most  part  act  as  if  the  economic  system  were  a  fact  of  nature  and  not  an  artefact  
of  humanity  is  a  reflection  of  Bohm’s  problem  of  thinking,  not  of  the  facts.    A  values  
approach  to  management  can  help  us  to  become  aware  of  what  is  important  to  us,  and  of  
what  also  needs  to  become  important  to  us,  and  can  provide  us  with  a  much  more  
realistic  understanding  of  the  next  steps  in  our  development.  

In  the  change  process  stemming  from  the  analysis  of  the  deltas  in  the  collective  
leadership  process,  it  is  managing  to  make  the  transition  from  one  level  to  the  next  
which  is  the  primary  challenge.    NLP  can  support  the  process  through  classical  
interventions  like  reframing,  or  formats  to  resolve  values  conflicts,  and  so  enable  
individuals  to  master  the  personal  aspects  of  the  collective  transformation.  
 

Action  Areas  4-­7:  Realizing  Second-­Tier  Organisations,  Processes  and  Cultures  

The  bottom  of  the  U  is  for  Scharmer  the  goal  of  subjective  side  of  the  process,  and  the  
beginning  of  the  innovations  we  strive  to  find  and  implement.    Having  confronted  our  
  28  
“blind  spot,”  and  found  answers  to  the  questions  of  who  we  are  and  what  our  work  is,  
the  job  of  crystallizing,  prototyping  and  scaling  initiatives  falls  into  the  tool  sets  of  tried  
and  tested  innovation  processes.    Success  in  the  front-­‐loading  part  of  the  innovation  
process,  the  left  side  of  the  U,  is  not  finished  in  one  go.    Rather  it  is  like  all  organic  
learning  an  iterative  affair,  to  which  we  return  again  and  again,  inspired  or  driven  by  the  
experiences  we  have  in  our  implementation  efforts.  

To  briefly  summarize  the  innovation  tools  for  the  right-­‐hand  side  of  the  U:  
4.    Developing  shared  pictures  of  the  future  –  developing  scenarios  through  
collective  dialogue  processes  and  their  integral  application  

Many  tried  and  tested  methods  help  organizations  to  formulate  their  shared  
understanding  into  a  coherent  vision  as  an  expression  of  their  shared  pictures  of  the  
future.    One  of  the  most  advanced  examples  is  given  by  the  Shell  scenario  process.    Some  
belong  to  the  tool  sets  of  strategy  consultants  and  are  supported  by  powerful  IT  
architectures.    On  a  simpler  level,  leaders  can  employ  facilitation  formats  supported  by  
facilitation  charts  for  straightforward  collective  dialogues  on  vision.    Grove  Consulting,  
for  example,  provides  5  different  vision  formats,  from  the  Movies  Vision  though  Cover  
Story  Vision,  Mandala  Vision,  Journey  Vision  to  Big  Waves  Vision.    All  the  formats  
provide  a  visual  constellation  point  based  on  a  right-­‐brained  metaphor  to  enable  the  
collective  visioning  process  in  the  crystallization  phase.        

 
 

  29  
5.    Using  the  power  of  devolved  organizations  –  understanding  how  social  
innovation  works,  and  building  infrastructures  which  enable  tribes  to  change  the  
world  

The  issue  of  infrastructures  is  probably  the  most  critical  and  difficult  of  the  steps  of  the  
right-­‐hand  U,  and  Scharmer’s  paper  is  an  excellent  reference  for  understanding  what  is  
involved.  
At  the  same  time,  it  is  part  of  the  second-­‐tier  task  in  this  step  to  understand  how  
radically  new  the  reality  of  organization  has  become  in  the  context  of  computers,  
telecommunication  and  the  internet,  and  to  learn  how  to  operate  with  the  social  
networks,  tribes  and  devolved  organizations  that  have  come  with  it.      Google  Search,  
MySpace,  FaceBook,  LinkedIn,  Xing,  Obama.com,  Wikipedia,  Open  Source  software  
development,  Twitter,  and  so  on,  provide  examples  of  how  innovation  emerges  
chaotically  from  unguided  social  interaction.    From  the  “green”  rebellion  in  Iran  to  
spontaneous  parties  organized  by  a  “tribal”  leader  enabled  through  Twitter  as  described  
by  Seth  Godin,  organization  has  slipped  from  the  control  of  strategists  who  would  seek  
to  use  it  to  their  own  ends.    Every  successful  moment  of  control  is  undermined  by  the  
reaction  of  devolved  networks  to  the  next  attempt.    Which  messages  will  go  viral  and  
capture  the  imaginations  of  millions  across  all  borders  and  cultures  cannot  be  predicted,  
despite  ever  increasing  attempts  to  exercise  influence.    The  basic  message,  however,  is  
that  control  in  the  first-­‐tier  sense  has  been  ultimately  lost.    And  the  question  for  second-­‐
tier  initiatives  is  to  discover  what  is  timely,  what  is  relevant,  what  inspires  and  is  
attractive  to  draw  the  talent  and  engagement  and  the  masses  on  a  level  beyond  control  
to  make  a  change  happen.  
6.    Developing  innovation  strategies  –  finding  one’s  innovation  DNA  

Once  common  understanding  has  been  achieved,  and  a  common  vision  has  been  
described,  the  tools  of  innovation  management  come  to  bear  on  product  development.    
IT  companies  provide  innovation  processes,  from  business  intelligence  to  product  
lifecycle  management.    Organizational  strategies  are  derived  from  market  or  process  
requirements.  
7.    Leading  strategic  conversations  –  building  tri-­sector  collective  leadership  
processes  to  implement  innovation  on  a  global-­local  scale  
This  is  the  step  in  which  competence  and  commitment  show  over  the  long-­‐term.    Having  
used  the  network  and  having  been  found  by  the  tribe,  the  question  is  what  can  one  
achieve  and  on  what  scale?    This  is  the  unexplored  land,  though  some  role  models  like  
Gore,  Obama  or  Avery  Lovins  do  exist.  

 
Conclusion  
On  the  right  side  of  the  U,  NLP  has  no  particular  philosophical  or  technological  
leadership  qualities.    As  one  of  the  first  constructivist  approaches  to  personal  
development,  however,  it  can  be  considered  to  be  a  philosophical  grandfather  to  the  
movements  which  have  emerged  on  a  social  scale.    Whether  it  will  ever  reinvent  itself  to  
the  point  of  becoming  a  constellation  point  for  second-­‐tier  political,  business,  social  and  
environmental  activism  remains  to  be  seen.    In  any  case,  it  can  play  an  important  
supporting  role  in  the  changes  taking  place.  

  30