Toward Transpersonal Learning Communities in Business
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, Vol. 43 No. 8, May 2000 1262-1285 © 2000 Sage Publications KAZIMIERZ GOZDZ Transformation in Business Now, as throughout human history, the world is undergoing transformation, and business organizations are caught in the turbulence of a change they are not able to control. The fundamental assumptions of our Western orthodox worldview, on which our business institutions were founded, has proved inadequate to regulate either our society or our business institutions. New business structures—communities—are emerging based on a transpersonal worldview, one that embraces spirituality, psychology, and science in an integrated perspective on human experience. Transpersonal learning communities combine an emphasis on the development of human consciousness and business performance by adopting triple-loop learning practices. While they do business, transpersonal learning communities will simultaneously transform themselves and society as a competitive advantage. From the perspective of a transpersonal worldview (Harman, 1988;Teilhard de Chardin, 1959; Wilber, 1995), one which holds that humanity is evolving in consciousness as part of a “great chain of being” on a teleological trajectory toward personal and cultural wholeness, it appears that in the West, our fundamental assumptions related to the nature of reality and the nature of humanity are undergoing a transformation. The assumption is that humanity undergoing a development in consciousness and a movement toward wholeness is emerging. This evolutionary process is affecting our institutions, including business organizations. The role and shifts of paradigms in business are changing society both inside and outside the workplace. According to Sorokin (1941), all aspects of life in Western society are undergoing an extraordinary crisis. From his perspective, we are between two epochs: one dying and the other waiting to greet us. The new epoch that we are entering is a more inclusive paradigm, one that considers consciousness as intrinsic to disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, science, and education. An examination of three worldviews or paradigms—Western orthodox science, postmodern, and transpersonal—with an emphasis on the evolution of transpersonal psychology sets the framework to suggest that society and its institutions are learning to learn in community. There appears to be a hierarchy of learning pointed toward emancipatory education and consequent self-reflection on society and self. Transpersonal psychology, education, and a new physics appear to be converging in the view that people have spiritual lives, that the self extends beyond the physical body, and that consciousness is causal. Learning communities are business organizations that integrate consciousness and business performance. Through a praxis of personal and organizational self-awareness, these institutions learn to reflect on and change the consciousness of the prevailing business paradigm while simultaneously learning to change the fundamental assumptions driving society and their business. They consciously foster a spirit of community and outstanding financial results. Transpersonal psychology suggests that the fundamental assumptions embedded within a transpersonal worldview will provide a foundation around which transpersonal learning communities will form business institutions. The precursors to transpersonal learning communities are found in those institutions that practice organizational learning, foster building communities-of-practice, and/ or are deliberately working to transform themselves into learning organizations. The operative concern is to understand what is driving the emergence of these learning communities and on what basis the transformation is occurring. EVOLVING HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY LEARNING PATH: CHANGING LEGITIMACY AND FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS Perhaps what is driving the road toward learning communities is the chaos resultant from the insufficiency of the material world to assuage the growing discontent of many individuals in the workplace. Lovejoy (1936) suggests that the emergence and disappearance of fundamental assumptions about the world shape our lives and that implicit or incompletely explicit assumptions are often operative. Generally accepted beliefs are tacitly presupposed, leaving the usual ways of thinking to appear natural and inevitable. It is these beliefs that are most decisive of doctrine and the dominant intellectual tendencies of an era. But, when there is a change in fundamental assumptions, the impact is far-reaching. One of the reasons that business structures are undergoing change now and approaching fundamental transformation in the near future is metaphysical. Scientists are continually discovering data that overturn or at least challenge old beliefs, and as our assumptions about nature, ourselves, and our world crumble, we are left to question the nature and meaning of our existence. The machinelikeconceptsoftheuniverse—logical-positivist, rational, objective, and empirical assumptions that were products of the Enlightenment Era and legitimized a Western orthodox science—are losing hold on society. As Harman (1988) suggests, “It is impossible to create a well-working society on a knowledge base which is fundamentally inadequate, seriously incomplete, and mistaken in basic assumptions” (p. 101). As a result, Harman (1988, 1993, 1996) claims that we are undergoing a “global mind change,” a fundamental shift in how we see and understand reality. The shift he proposes deals with the nature of causality, moving from the current assumption that matter gives rise to mind. He suggests that mind giving rise to matter is becoming a prevailing assumption about the nature of the universe. This shift is not entirely new. At one time, the fundamental assumption that the universe existed as “the great chain of being” shaped people’s relationships to the world and to God (Lovejoy, 1936). Mumford’s (1956) theory of human origins casts humanity as symbol makers developing a sense of wholeness. Reporting on this worldview, Miller (1989) recognizes that Mumford’s theory of human origins raises the importance of dream, language, and religion. From this vantage, humans are not primarily tool-making creatures but are rather dreamers and artists reshaping themselves from their biological origins. In other words, mind creates matter. Wilber (1983, 1985, 1995) proposes that people and societies are moving across a spectrum of consciousness toward transpersonal dimensions. Building on Lovejoy’s (1936) assumption, Huxley (1944) and Wilber (1981) suggest a transpersonal view of human evolution whereby all of humanity is propelled toward the development of soul and spirit. More recently, Wilber (1995) suggests that this worldview holds that the most subtle realms of experience, the realms of ideas and spirit, unfold or express themselves as physical reality. In perennial philosophy, transcendence follows the great chain of being or a universal sequence of increasing consciousness. In the great chain of being, matter moves from body to mind to soul to spirit. From this viewpoint, history is unfolding to successively higher-order structures, from the matter and body to spirit and ultimate wholeness (Wilber, 1981). These changes create a dramatic impact on our day-to-day lives. Cahoone (1996) has noted the dramatic impact that previous historical changes in assumptions and worldview have had on our institutions and world. Particularly in regard to science, Polkinghorne (1983) notes how such changes in basic assumptions significantly affect a Weltanschauungen (i.e., worldview) and radically change our day-to-day lives. Drucker (1989, 1992) and Sakaiya (1991) have examined changes in worldview regarding the world of work. They propose that we are becoming knowledge workers and undergoing a knowledge-value revolution. Sakaiya (1991) suggests that the next few hundred years will shift us from having materially based cultures to ones that produce and value knowledge and wisdom. However, the shift that Drucker and Sakaiya predict differs from the shift that Wilber projects in that their models do not extend into transpersonal dimensions of human experience. Much like Sakaiya and Drucker, Nisbet (1973) interprets human history as a continual struggle between community and conflict as societies redefine and reshape how they manifest their need for human community. How people see themselves translates into the kinds of human communities they legitimize, and he suggests that our age, as each age before it, is preoccupied with community. But, Nisbet also suggests that the way we build our communities reflects our progress through history. This raises the question of what types of communities a knowledge society will create. What new types of community will emerge on the planet and will correspond directly with our changing fundamental beliefs? Although these changes can occur through revolutions and social disruption, they can also occur as people grant and withdraw legitimacy from institutions and use it as a leverage point for changing society (Harman, 1988). THE ROLE OF BUSINESS AS AN INSTITUTION The main force shaping the organizations of the future will be the worldview, which will grant legitimacy to the institutional form that business takes. Following Harman’s view that the granting and withdrawal of legitimacy is the highest leverage available in transformation, it is obvious that leadership that shapes the legitimacy of an institution’s metaphysical commitments takes the most direct path to transforming a business institution. Because business is one of the primary institutions in our society and has discrete parameters, examining business affords us the opportunity to mark a shift in consciousness and beliefs globally. Furthermore, the business arena provides an opportunity to examine the attitudinal changes and shifts within a community. The mechanism by which such a transformation can occur helps us to understand the nature of other organizations and/or institutions. Although Scott (1995) differentiates business organizations from business institutions, the terms are used interchangeably herein. Scott defines institutions as multifaceted systems that are embedded within “cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior” (p. 33). Berger and Luckmann (1966) alternatively suggest that institutions are social constructions and that institutionalization is a product of habitualized actions by types of actors (p. 54). Similarly, Weick (1995) developed the idea that organizations are socially constructed through a “sense-making” process. Sense-making entails “a developing set of ideas with explanatory possibilities, rather than as a body of knowledge. This means the topic exists in the form of an ongoing conversation” (p. xi). Therefore, the structures of business organizations are products of societal beliefs, embedded in and shaped by the development of human consciousness and worldviews. Business institutions exist within a set of structures for which society grants legitimacy, but what we appear to be seeing is a delegitimization of our longstanding worldview. THE ROLE OF PARADIGMS IN BUSINESS’PARADIGM SHIFT When a worldview is no longer valid, the assumptions based on it also lose their veracity. At that point, new assumptions emerge and may gain validity. The effects of granting and withdrawing legitimacy to a scientific worldview has been described as a paradigm shift by Kuhn (1962/1970). He suggests that “a paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who share a paradigm” (p. 176). However, the word paradigm has proved inadequate and embedded within its own biases (Gergen, 1985; Polkinghorne, 1983; Suppe, 1977b). Nonetheless, when the term “paradigm” is used with clarity and exactness, it stimulates useful debate, just as it has around Kuhn’s scientific usage. As understood in this article, the notion that business is undergoing a paradigm shift is an approximation. It is a sense-making process that points beyond and through the particular terms such as “paradigm shift,” “shifting fundamental assumptions,” Scheler’s (see Berger & Luckmann, 1966, for a review) “sociology of knowledge,” and Weltanschauung (relative-natural world). The notion that business is undergoing a fundamental shift points toward the conviction that humanity and business institutions are emerging toward a yet undiscovered wholeness, one that is arguably related to perennial philosophy. The social constructivist, relativist (Feyerabend, 1987), and postmodernist (Derrida, 1979; Foucault, 1984) views of reality point us toward the notion that our view of reality is shifting fundamentally. THREE WORLDVIEWS UNDERLYING OUR VIEW OF ORGANIZING FOR BUSINESS What we can say with some assurance is that our current business institutions do not reflect our most fully evolved human consciousness at work. Although we cannot predict the future or with certainty lay down the normative practices related to the next generation of business institutions, clues from other disciplines that shift assumptions more rapidly than business abound. For instance, physics, philosophy, education, and psychology are fields from which management and business derive new praxis (Harman, 1988; Harman & Horman, 1990; Maslow, 1965, 1969; Wheatley, 1992). By reflecting on the interplay of these disciplines as they have emerged through increasingly comprehensive views of nature and humanity, one can ascertain some foundational assumptions that have yet to be applied to business institutions. Psychology is one discipline that encompasses discrete worldviews and reflects an increasingly comprehensive view of humankind. Sutich (1980) and Valle (1989) suggest that psychology has emerged through four forces. The four forces have been variously described and named; for our purposes, they are psychoanalytic, behavioral, humanistic, and transpersonal. These four forces are in turn embedded in three worldviews that legitimate them. The first and second forces share assumptions with the Western orthodox science worldview, the third force with a postmodern worldview, and the fourth force with a transpersonal worldview. This fourth force represents the leading edge of psychological theory and derives from both the oldest of wisdom traditions and the newest of science. The ground has been well prepared for this approach by Frager and Fadiman (1998),who outline aspects of personality and growth in the first through fourth forces in psychology. Maslow (1969) has proposed a psychology of science from a third force perspective, whereas Braud and Anderson (1998) point out the link between a scientific worldview and transpersonal research methods. Harman (1996) and Wilber’s (1995) consideration of epistemology from a transpersonal worldview proposes the correspondence of worldviews, fundamental assumptions, and forces in psychology in far more depth than is treated here. WESTERN-ORTHODOX SCIENCE WORLDVIEW (PSYCHOANALYTIC AND BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGIES) Psychology, science, philosophy, and education are partners in seeking to explain the world and to collectively support the assumptions on which institutions are built. Western orthodox science (WOS) is a worldview based on logical positivism, empiricism, reductionism, rationalism, objectivity, the Newtonian-Cartesian mechanical lawful universe, and the quantification of reality. Ray and Rinzler (1993), in describing the shift into the paradigm of WOS, noted that this change into this worldview has had enormous effects on all institutions of the day. As a result of these changes, the church has relinquished its leading role in society to science. They point toward a shift in business of equal magnitude occurring today. Harman and Horman (1990) write that there are four pathogenic economic assumptions that underlie WOS relating to business: (a) economic rationality and values sufficiently inform social decision-making; (b) it is unlikely to expect a change in the trend toward human activity being monetized and included in the mainstream economy; (c) our economic problem is scarcity caused by our infinite wants contrasted to limited resources of labor, land, natural resources, and machines; and (d) people inherently will avoid work because they experience it only as a means to achieve more leisure time and to fulfill their consumption needs. Given these pathogenic assumptions, WOS proved adequate to build the industrial era—it was simultaneously inadequate to build a fully actualized society. Taylor’s (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management exemplifies the paradigm’s assumptions, describing management with the formality of scientific laws. Griffin (1988) sees that such applications of science serve to drive spirit out of the world. But with the underpinnings of modern management thought resting so strongly in psychological approaches, the historical acceptance of this paradigm in psychology is a pivotal cornerstone of business thought. Freud (1900/1965), who founded this first force of psychology–psychoanalytic psychology, discovered and mapped the unconscious realms of human experience. This view of human nature proposed internally deterministic behavior that is a product of irrational, unconscious motivations and biological, instinctual, and psychosexual drives. In contrast to Freud, the second force in psychology-behaviorism proposed the view that human nature is the product of external deterministic forces. Reflecting the scientific paradigm of its day, behaviorism set the psychological cornerstones for the view of human nature in modern Western industrial society. Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner (as cited in Hunt, 1993) limited what was human to codified deterministic behavior that was empirically observable. Skinner’s (1974) radical behaviorism, or neo-behaviorism, a mechanical and deterministic view of humankind, included thoughts and feelings only by translating them into observable data. POSTMODERN WORLDVIEW (HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY) Third force, humanistic (including existential) schools of psychology began to reach beyond the human and social psychopathologies that were the central focus of first and second force psychologies. This force emerged with a focus on what it means to be fully human, to be healthy, motivated, and fulfilled. Third force psychology, along with a post-modern paradigm, provided a foundation for humanistic business practices. Moustakas’s (1956) anthology, The Self, characterizes the humanistic and existential schools of psychology. In an attempt to distill a synthesis of existentialist and humanistic views of the self, he wrote, Man has an intrinsic nature which must be recognized and treasured. Man’s inner nature is key to human joy, happiness, and fulfillment. In interpersonal experience it is expressed in warmth, empathy, cognition, acceptance, tenderness, and love. Respect for man’s essential creativity is the declaration of each man’s true worth, of his uniqueness as a human being, unmatched, unparalleled, and unmeasured; the proclamation of the dignity of the individual and the incommensurable nature of his existence. (p. 283) Giorgi (1970) sought to extend the phenomenological-existential school of psychology into new epistemological territory by developing a descriptive science to support a phenomenological worldview. Similarly, Geertz’s (1983/ 1994) “thick description” has popularized the interpretive hermeneutic science, expanding the horizons of normative social science. Kuhn’s (1962/1970) work paved the way for a relativist (Bunge, 1996) and social constructivist (Gergen, 1985) paradigm. Suppe (1977a), arguing for the Weltanschauungen perspective, provides a strong bridge to a postmodern deconstructivist stance such as Rosenau’s (1992), which challenges the modern priorities of career, office, individual responsibility, bureaucracy, liberal democracy, tolerance, humanism, egalitarianism, detached experiment, evaluative criteria, neutral procedures, impersonal rules, and rationality. Theorists (e.g., Giorgi, 1986) who reject the logical positivist view that context of discovery is not a valid domain of inquiry have critiqued Reichenbach’s (1938) concepts of “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” thereby providing further legitimacy for an epistemological foundation for a sociology of knowledge. Consistent with this, Berger and Luckmann (1966) believe that “the sociology of knowledge must concern itself with everything that passes for ‘knowledge’ in society” (pp. 14-15). Their practice of science centers around the construction of reality in everyday life, a perspective that distinguished it from its predecessors. They assert that because reality is socially constructed, a sociology of knowledge must examine the processes by which this occurs. As a result, Reason (1988) and others put inquiry into action in organizations by using participatory methods that appreciate co-researchers, endorse qualitative methods, and recognize the subjectivity of research perspectives in organizations. Boje, Gephart, and Thatchenkery (1996) have provided a description of the direction of the postmodern organization. TRANSPERSONAL WORLDVIEW (TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY) Whereas the postmodern worldview surpasses the constriction of the WOS worldview, the postmodern worldview does not address humankind’s spiritual needs or move beyond the relativist, constructivist, postmodernist, deconstructivist skepticism. William James (see Peirce, 1998; Roth, 1969) has provided a foundation for a transpersonal philosophy that he expresses as “pragmatism.” Putnam (1995) expresses this most clearly when he highlights that the pragmatist view does not rely on metaphysical certainty. It is fallible. Yet, it is not necessarily relativist, constructivist, or deconstructivist. The pragmatist, as James and Peirce would have it, is anti-skeptical. From a transpersonal perspective, truth claims can be held without certainty and without relativism as an integrated position. The moral philosophy of James (1890) became the first American psychology and, along with C. G. Jung’s psychology (see Frager, 1975), one of the first transpersonal psychologies. According to Moustakas (1985), the dividing line between humanistic and transpersonal forces in psychology resides in the former’s de-emphasis or rejection of the spiritual aspects of existence. The transpersonal is the fourth force in psychology and fully embraces the spiritual side of humanity and considers aspects of the person to extend beyond the body and the ego (Wilber, 1985). Anderson (1998) explains that the transpersonal dimensions of the self are found beyond or through the personally identified aspects of self. This beyond personal ego stance provides a stance where we can delve into expansive human experience via the investigation of mystical and unitive experiences, personal transformation, meditative awareness, experiences of awe, and expansive states of consciousness. Transpersonal psychology incorporates and builds on the concept of a perennial philosophy (Huxley, 1944). This psychology considers spirituality as distinct from religion, although it seeks to incorporate religious and wisdom traditions within its worldview. Peck (1997) clarifies the distinction between religion, which involves an organized body of beliefs with a specific creed and membership, and spirituality, which is much broader and focuses on an attempt at harmony with an unseen order. Transpersonal psychology incorporates quantum physics and its relationship to consciousness. For example, Wade’s (1996) holonomic theory of the evolution of consciousness and Schroll’s (1997) eco-psychology fall under the rubric of transpersonal psychology; these two theorists draw from the work of physicist David Bohm (1980). Ray and Rinzler (1993), and others, have debated the timing, extent, and nature of a changing business paradigm and have suggested its scope and dimensions. Jaworski, Gozdz, and Senge (in press) have explored how fields, “forces of unseen connection that directly influence our experience and behavior,” can be used in the transformation of traditional corporations into learning organizations. By relying on the concept that as a field, nonmaterial realities create action-at-a-distance effects, trained leaders can lead the development of learning organizations by being as well as doing. By using a more transpersonal view of organizations, the incorporation of quantum physics allows for a re-perception of how organizations operate. Jaworski et al. (in press) write, We believe organizational fields are created on several levels. They arise from underlying “systemic structures,” feedback processes created by operating policies and their interaction with larger organizational systems. They also arise from the assumptions, norms, habits, goals, and perceptions that determine those operating policies; and, still deeper, from the underlying beliefs, and emotional and “behavioral structures” which control how people are with one another. The way that people interact within an organization creates one of the organization’s fields, and that interactional field can be targeted as a locus for development of learning. Senge (1990) quotes Bill O’Brien, claiming that a small number of people focused on “learningful” relationships can create micro-learning organizations that can be models for others. Senge’s (1990) concept of the “learning” as applied to “learning organizations” is based on transpersonal experiences related to undergoing a shift of mind: a metanoia. For the Greeks, it meant literally transcendence (meta means above or beyond; noia comes from the root nöus, of mind). To Senge, metanoia grasps the deeper meaning of learning as a fundamental shift or movement of mind. Wheatley (1992) begins to push on the transpersonal dimensions of leading organizations by including the creation and amplification of organizational fields as a leadership responsibility: In a field view of organizations . . . the field must reach all corners of the organization, involve everyone, and be available everywhere. . . . In the past, we may have thought of ourselves as skilled crafters of organizations, assembling the pieces of an organization, exerting our energy on the painstaking creation of links between those parts. Now we need to imagine ourselves as broadcasters, tall radio beacons of information, pulsing out messages everywhere.... If we do that, fields develop, and with them, their wonderful capacity to bring energy to form. (pp. 55-56) The thrust of the fourth force has clearly been that of inclusion and expansion. For Wilber (1985, 1986, 1995, 1998), a transpersonal psychology, science, and worldview is more expansive than its predecessors because it incorporates rather than rejects dimensions of the prior worldviews as aspects of a spectrum of consciousness. A transpersonal worldview is often implicit in literature on organizations. For example, the transpersonal concept of unity of self and society is expressed by Nonaka and Konno (1998), who rely on the concept of ba to describe knowledge management and knowledge creation in organizations. In their view, knowledge creation is more dispersed and inclusive of realms of experience and knowing than comfortably fits within a Western worldview. Knowledge creation extends into transpersonal realms: Ba can be thought of as a shared space for emerging relationships: physical (e.g., office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail, teleconference), mental (e.g., shared experiences, ideas, ideals), or any combination of them. What differentiates ba from ordinary human interaction is the concept of knowledge creation. Ba provides a platform for advancing individual and/or collective knowledge. It is from such a platform that a transcendental perspective integrates all information needed. Ba may also be thought of as the recognition of the self in all. According to the theory of existentialism, ba is a context which harbors meaning. Thus, we consider ba to be a shared space that serves as a fountain for knowledge creation. (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40) Increasingly, transpersonal topics about organizations are appearing in business literature. Fox (1994), from the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality, has addressed spiritual aspects of work, as have Autry (1991, 1994), Renesch (1991), Roskind (1992), and Schechter (1995). Leider (1997) covers thetopicofpurposeinlifeandinwork.AuthorssuchasBriskin(1998),Coxand Liesse (1996), DeFoore and Renesch (1995), and Pollard (1996) have addressed the topic of soul in business, and Mirvis (1997) has written of “soulwork.” Also, Simpson (1997) has addressed the “role of faith” in management learning. TRANSPERSONAL ASSUMPTIONS We assume that, to some degree, the task of institutions of the future will be to structure themselves around an emerging transpersonal and knowledge-emphasizing society and paradigm. Six assumptions underlie the transpersonal worldview drawn from Bohm (1980), Braud and Anderson (1998), Harman (1988), Huxley (1944), James (1890), Maslow (1971), Peck (1987), Peirce (1998), and Wilber (1995), among others, for our purposes. First, people are innately spiritual. This aspect of life cannot be separated from the psychological, social, and business aspects of the self without reducing human capacity. Second, self-realization, a quest for wholeness, and individuation are lifelong learning processes innate to human experience. Third, the universe is purposeful, and individual and collective consciousness is evolving on a trajectory toward wholeness; people innately are called to wholeness, purposefulness, and learning, and are inherently motivated; the process of becoming self-aware idiosyncratically is simultaneously the cause of the universe becoming self-aware (Atman equals Brahman). Fourth, people exist within a developmental spectrum of consciousness or human development ranging from pathological to enlightened. Fifth, the self extends beyond ego and physical body dimensions. As part of an interconnected universe, the self is simultaneously personal and transpersonal. Finally, mind is causal. The concept of matter causing mind is reversed whereby matter is formed from the subtler realms on a spectrum of consciousness. HIERARCHY OF LEARNING Individual, institutional, and societal learning will need to occur if we are to incorporate the assumptions of a transpersonal worldview at multiple ontological levels. Learning which touches on the transpersonal aspects of the self inherently involves transpersonal dimensions. Mumford (1956) suggests that society is undergoing a major transformation and the result will be that “education will constitute the principle business of life” (p. 241). His prediction is becoming evident by emerging concepts that suggest that workplaces are becoming places of lifelong learning. Adult learning perspectives that revolve around questioning fundamental assumptions and personal identity begin to push toward the transpersonal dimensions of the self. The evolution of transpersonal perspectives provides a foundation for building institutions that learn. Roberts and Clark (1976) describe the emerging field of transpersonal education. This field incorporates dreams, meditation, relaxation training, guided fantasy, working in altered states of consciousness, centering, and spirituality into learning. They describe this philosophy of education as a combination of rational-analyticandintuitive-syntheticmodesofknowing.Rationalthinkingis verbal, logical, analytic, and linear, whereas intuitive thinking is creative, holistic, visual, and pattern-oriented. Intuitive thinking sees similarities, patterns, and agreements among ideas rather than analyzes differences and conflicts. Frager (1975) reports that a transpersonal graduate education is founded on the balanced development of the physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of the personality both at the individual and communal ontological levels of the self. Boucouvalas (1980) has drawn out the complementary nature of education and transpersonal psychology. She suggests that the tasks of lifelong learning and transpersonal growth are interdependent. For Brookfield (1987), two activities are central for adult learners to develop critical thinking: identifying and challenging assumptions (probe habitual ways of thinking and acting) and exploring and imagining alternatives. Concerning the latter, Brookfield (1987) suggests that we need to practice “reflective skepticism,” despite the fact that such learning can feel threatening. Bateson (1972) suggests a hierarchy of four logical types of learning. These types are beyond zero-learning, a zone characterized by a specificity of responses that, right or wrong, is not subject to correction. In Learning I, there is a change in the specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives. Learning II is a change in the process of Learning I – for example, a corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made or a change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated. Learning III is a change in the process of Learning II, for example, an examination of the system of sets of alternatives from which choices in Learning II are made. Learning IV would involve change in Learning III (p. 293). Drawing on the work of Bateson (1972), Argyris and Schon (1974), by translating Bateson’s learning model and exposition of “double bind” into a way to diagnose and treat organizational learning (Easterby-Smith, 1997), have developed a learning-in-action perspective that they call single-loop (Model I) and double-loop (Model II) learning. A two-level hierarchy depicting behavioral learning forms a core of Argyris and Schon’s (1974) theory of organizational learning; they see behavioral learning as a hypothetical-deductive process in which behavioral hypotheses are formed, tested, and modified. Furthermore, they distinguish two kinds of behavioral learning: (a) the adoption of new action strategies to achieve our governing variables and (b) the changing of our governing variables, which resembles Ashby’s (1952) single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop, or Model I, learning is defined by four governing variables with corresponding action strategies: (a)define goals, try to achieve them, and design and manage the environment unilaterally; (b) maximize winning, minimize losing, and own and control the task; (c) minimize generating or expressing negative feelings and unilaterally protect yourself; and (d) be rational and unilaterally protect others. Single-loop learning prevents public reflection on persons’ explicitly espoused theories, which can differ from their tacit theories in use. By virtue of its governing variables and action strategies, single-loop learning creates a self-sealing system that leads to a closed and defensive orientation. Double-loop, Model II, learning, on the other hand, operates on three governing variables and four action strategies: (a) valid information: make designing and managing environment a bilateral task; (b) free and informed choice: make protection of self or other a joint operation; and (c) internal commitment to decisions made: protection of self is a joint enterprise and oriented toward growth with bilateral protection of others. This creates behavioral action-based strategies whereby valid and sensitive information can be publicly shared and the public testing of espoused theories can occur, uncovering “undiscussibles.” Moving beyond Argyris and Schon (1974), who attribute human action entirely to the hypothetico-deductive logic of the individual, Nielsen (1993) includes embedded assumptions of shared tradition systems into his learning hierarchy. Drawing on and extending the work of Woolman (1774/1818) and Greenleaf (1977), Nielson (1993) suggests a triple-loop action-learning in which “the embedded social tradition system is both criticized and treated as a partner in mutual action-learning.... The agent considers changes in actions, governing values, and the embedded social tradition system within which governing values are nested” (p. 121). An openness for learning (e.g., talking about controversial issues and identifying positive and/or negative biases in the embedded social tradition) facilitates this triple-loop action-learning. Triple-loop learning calls for social undiscussibles to surface in non-confrontive ways within social systems. Furthermore, it calls for critical reflection from a culturally embedded rather than culturally critical position. It requires a researcher to put himself or herself in an equal position with those persons being researched. It then calls for action to adjust socially normative beliefs. In effect, it calls for a shift in consciousness at the individual level in order to change socially normative behavior of collectives. Torbert (1999) holds that developmental action inquiry can provide a forum within which triple-loop feedback can occur in real-time communities of inquiry. Such communities, hold Fisher and Torbert (1995), are a developmental stage in organizations from which a learning organization emerges. Integrating a transpersonal perspective to triple-loop learning and learning organizations, Hawkins (1991) refers to Level III learning as “the spiritual dimension of the learning organization”(p.172). For Hawkins, triple-loop learning involves transcendence of the ego-world, whereby the concept of self no longer succeeds in punctuating experience. EMANCIPATORY EDUCATION Triple-loop learning is political. It requires a reflection on the self and our society simultaneously. Once we begin to advocate for transpersonal assumptions, we begin a process that some have called emancipatory education. Freire (1983) has proposed a “praxis of liberation” whereby reflection and action reshape individual, society, and reality. Mezirow (1990) suggests that becoming reflective in the face of social change efforts is an “emancipatory education” process. Habermas (1979) dealt with the concept of emancipatory learning, as did Apps (1985), who claimed it “is that which frees people from personal, institutional, or environmental forces that prevent them from seeing new directions, from gaining control of their lives, their society and their world” (p.151). Emancipatory education, claims Mezirow (1990), is a political process involving an inter-play between critical reflection and transformative political action. An ethical imperative that drives reform or revolution and is measured in terms of its successfulness in social transformation sustains emancipatory education, which provides a dialogical process for discerning ambiguity and cultural dissonance in day-to-day struggles in which learner-activists engage in critical self-reflection. Its successfulness in social transformation sustains emancipatory education, which provides a dialogical process for discerning ambiguity and cultural dissonance in day-to-day struggles in which learner-activists engage in critical self-reflection. Such self-reflection often raises fundamental questions about the meaning of a person’s life and provokes spiritual examination. Thus, adult learning processes that emphasize learning to examine and change fundamental assumptions on the individual and collective level are transpersonal in nature. Furthermore, this context for learning provides a platform for collective learning in institutions. ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE Institutions in all aspects of society are being forced to learn. How this learning occurs and is optimized is at the center of a growing debate in the management and organizational literatures. According to Drucker (1989), a post-business society is spawning knowledge workers that collectively are coping with a change in the way societies are governed and in what people believe. There is little doubt that the business organizations have needed to transform their assumptions and their structures to keep pace with the evolution of history. They are simply no exception to the passage of time and draw their legitimacy to conduct business from the societies within which they are embedded. There is a growing literature on organizational learning (Argyris, 1992; Cohen & Sproull, 1996; Dodgson, 1993), building smarter (McGill & Slocum, 1994), more intelligent organizations (Quinn, 1992), building learning capability (DiBella & Nevis, 1998), and management learning (Burgoyne & Reynolds, 1997). Mirvis (1996) provides a sense of the historical roots of this movement by categorizing organizational learning as occurring through systems theory, organizations as social systems, information processing systems, interpretive systems, inquiry, and learning systems. DeGeus (1988) suggested the concept of “planning as learning,” which Bierly and Hamalainen (1995) take further in elaborating various theories related to the intersection of organizational learning and strategy. Vaill (1996) has suggested that learning can be a way of being and leading in organizations. The concept of organizational learning (Levitt & March, 1988; Shaw & Perkins, 1992; Shrivastva, 1983) attempts to deal with the issue of how individuals and organizations learn. For a number of theorists (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Levitt & March, 1988; Simon, 1991), organizational learning is reduced to individual learning. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) note that “knowledge can be amplified or crystallized at the group level through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing, and observation” (p. 13). But their epistemology of “knowledge creation” shares the view that an individual’s personal knowledge is the epistemological foundation of organizational knowledge creation. LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS Chawla and Renesch (1995) provide multiple perspectives on the learning organization. In reviewing the literature on organizational learning and learning organizations, Argyris and Schon (1996) suggest that what distinguishes these two streams of thought is a practitioner’s versus an academician’s approach to how organizations learn. Senge’s (1990) view is that learning organizations need to master five disciplines: (a) systems thinking, (b) personal mastery, (c) shared vision, (d) team learning, and (e) mental models. For Senge (1990), learning organizations create their future in a proactive, generative learning posture—in continually expanding the capacity to create its future. To them, survival learning or adaptive learning is important but not sufficient: Generative learning that enhances the capacity to create is essential. He believes that learning organizations see in terms of wholes rather than fragmented parts and that they recognize the inherent interconnectedness of the world. Furthermore, he believes that only when individuals destroy the illusion that the world is created of separate, unrelated forces do learning organizations become possible. Senge’s view is not seen as comprehensive by Watkins and Marsick (1993), whose concept of the learning organization encourages supporting the continuously learning individual in an organization that is transforming itself strategically. They see learning as a continuous, strategic process that is integrated with and parallel to work that brings changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors and enhances the capacity for innovation and growth. COMMUNITIES-OF-PRACTICE Whether an institution is a learning organization or undergoes organizational learning remains a matter of interesting scholarly debate. There is an emerging literature that focuses on communities as institutional forms that learn. There is a difficulty in describing learning organizations or organizational learning because when observed in practice (embedded in praxis), the institutional form within which the learning occurs behaves more like a community than a traditional business organization (Argyris, 1980; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Fisher & Torbert, 1995; Gozdz, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Peck, 1993; Senge & Kofman, 1993). Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest that in communities-of-practice, people learn by taking a position in a social system wherein skilled practitioners legitimize their learning process by welcoming the learning process. Lave and Wenger (1991) have developed the concept of legitimate peripheral participation, whereby learning and the mentoring process are mutually reinforcing in a community. Gozdz (1995) and his coauthors have suggested that community building is a path to renewing spirit and learning in business. Senge and Kofman (1993) find that communities of commitment are at the heart of learning organizations. Brown and Duguid (1991) report on Orr’s (1990) ethnographic studies of service technicians who learned informally while working together through sharing war stories and personal encounters and from knowledge that was not formally codified in manuals or training programs. Brown and Duguid suggest that these “noncanonical practices” demonstrate the power of learning in communities-of-practice, whereby people working together create social constructions to help in solving workplace problems. Brown and Duguid (1998) note that communities-of-practice are those in which know-how and sense-making are shared. In the course of practice, members develop into a de facto community that is often implicit. A community of practice develops a shared understanding of what it does, how it does this, and how it relates to other communities and practices. An evolving understanding comprises the collective knowledge base and processes knowledge development. Furthermore, the interdependent community develops understanding through its practice, which in turn reciprocally changes practice and extends community. TRANSPERSONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY What new business institutions will emerge in response to a global shift in consciousness? How can a more psychologically and spiritually developed workforce reshape the institutions that now constrain them? From a transpersonal context, a new set of solutions becomes available to both the organization and the individual. From this worldview, what constitutes the individual and the organization is much more fluid and less defined by physical or ego boundaries. Jung (1958/1978), a pioneer in transpersonal psychology, took the position that when institutions began to be ends unto themselves, the individual would need to be revalued. Perhaps his forecast underlies the current impetus for organizational transformation in the institution of business. With many businesses acquiring monolithic proportions, employees have needed to reexamine both their positions within those businesses and their level of life quality. Out of such examination has come a cry for learning and change. Business organizations can revalue a full spectrum of human consciousness by legitimating transpersonal metaphysical foundations of reality and human experience and by developing a praxis consistent with acting as transpersonal learning communities. Paradigms, worldviews, shared mental models and social knowledge, social constructions of institutions, and fundamental societal assumptions are learned and developed in community. As Kuhn (1962/1970) has noted, a community is required to facilitate a paradigm shift; it cannot be done by an individual. Within a transpersonal learning context, triple-loop learning focuses on the development of individual and collective consciousness and can complement social learning. If the new institutional structure is a community that acknowledges and values the idiosyncratic individual, then the individual’s value can increase. However, although communities-of-practice create spaces for learning through shared work activities, this does not ensure the quality or effectiveness of their learning or communal experience. Peck (1987) suggests that communities that are not deliberate in learning how to “empty” themselves of their barriers and differences more often than not are “pseudocommunities.” These groups and organizations use culturally appropriate manners and politically correct communication patterns to avoid offending one another. In Peck’s (1987) opinion, however, true community differs from pseudocommunity (pretend communities) in terms of high-quality communication. Typical business and social organizations only pretend to communicate. To have genuine community, group members must commit to communicate with one another on a deep and authentic level. Peck developed a triple-loop transpersonal educational experiential learning model for moving groups and organizations through a series of stages (pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, and authentic community) whereby individuals and groups learn to identify and transcend their personal and cultural assumptions in service of the collective transformation. Grounded in transpersonal psychology, psychiatry, and group dynamics, learning to maintain a transpersonal communal context is a core practice that empowers this triple-loop learning method. Moving beyond personal ego boundaries and humanistic group dynamics, this model relies on inviting a spirit of community to provide a context of emptiness as a basis for the personal disarmament necessary for triple-loop learning. Fisher and Torbert’s (1995) praxis of real-time community of inquiry moves in this direction. A triple-loop learning community model that operates from a transpersonal worldview can learn differently than an organization or individual that sees as legitimate Argyris and Schon’s (1974) Model I and Model II humanistic assumptions and action strategies. A transpersonal learning community has a more expansive view of human nature and does not separate individual and collective learning by virtue of where the physical body or personal ego ends. The individual and the collective interpenetrate as suggested in Jung’s (1966/1977) view of the collective unconscious. In this view, communities have psychological and spiritual lives as entities apart from individual institutional members. Communities-of-practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991) are inherently humanistic and constructivist in their approach to learning. A transpersonal learning community assumes that social knowledge and legitimate peripheral participation occurs in work practice, whereas social learning as understood from the postmodern worldview more effectively covers the domain of single- and double-loop learning. Although such learning is acknowledged to occur spontaneously and naturally, sustained triple-loop learning requires a discipline and praxis to sustainably occur. A transpersonal learning community requires training to do the unnatural, which may entail suffering during the process of establishing that community. Becoming deliberately more conscious while simultaneously learning new ways of working requires discipline to attend the process. Institutions that operate as transpersonal learning communities embrace the reality that when fundamental assumptions related to business become part of the community’s learning task at the level of triple-loop learning, psychological, spiritual, and social issues co-arise with business problems. By embracing a transpersonal worldview that incorporates this domain of human experience, leaders can effectively cope with changing society, their institution, and fostering personal transformation simultaneously. Peck (1993) defines civility as “consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical in submission to a Higher Power” (p. 54). A transpersonal learning community is a civil organization engaging in triple-loop learning and as such will rest on civil behavior that has two components: capacity(individual and corporate) to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering and willingness to bear that suffering (p. 13). Argyris (1992) reports that the field of organization development (OD), which began with a focus on participation, ownership, and involvement, began over time to try to resolve all organizational issues based on these same mental models. This eventually led the OD field to be less effective in organizations because more complex organizational problems could not be solved at the level of interpersonal dynamics. Similarly, building a sense of community by application of mental models drawn exclusively from increasing the quality of communication in collectives, developing communal learning capability, or embracing transpersonal assumptions will not ensure that a transpersonal learning community will remain sustainable as a spirit filled community. For transpersonal learning communities to mature, they also need to address issues of leadership, philosophy, governance, structure, business modeling, and profitability. Peck (1993) claims that “the only obstacle to introducing community into business is politics” (p. 328). Suggesting that dealing with organizations overwhelmed by internal politics is an important area of emphasis for learning organizations, O’Brien (as cited in Senge, 1990) also underscores the importance of organizational politics. Nirenberg (1993) elaborates how corporate governance issues relate to workplace communities. His emphasis on rights and responsibilities suggests that communities that institutionalize governance practices that undermine community will not be sustainable. Fisher and Torbert (1995) have suggested that there is a link between leadership, governance, the use of power, and community. Nisbet (1990) expresses concern that the natural human quest for community that has existed throughout history was at peril within our current political power structures. His concern for society sheds some light on the concern to govern transpersonal communities effectively because in the modern corporation both the quest for community and quest for political power are present: All too often, power comes to resemble community, especially in times of convulsive social change and of widespread preoccupation with personal identity, moral certainty, and social meaning. Too often the quest has been through channels of power and revolution which have proven destructive of the prime sources of human community. The structure of political power which came into being three centuries ago on the basis of its eradication of medieval forms of community has remained, has indeed become even more, destructive of the contexts of new forms of community. (Nisbet, 1990, pp. xxi-xxii) How we govern our societies, communities, and business organizations are related. Federalism, derived from societal governance, has been applied to business organizations by Handy (1996). As Handy describes its application to the organization, federal governance is compatible with transpersonal learning communities. Federalism promotes the practice of multiple citizenship, subsidiarity, and the breaking down into smaller units while remaining a unified community. For Handy, pluralism is a central attribute of federalism, making it compatible with the dominant principle of inclusivity, which is a cornerstone to authentic community. As a complement to federalism, a system of justice will be needed to govern learning communities (Argyris, 1980). Transpersonal learning communities will preserve their sense of community by embedding transpersonal assumptions within institutional infrastructures that actualize the practice providing for distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) within the learning community. Such infrastructure-building conserves the intention of sustaining a spirit of community through organizational architecture. Provided they are governed as communities, traditional hierarchical business structures are well-suited to becoming transpersonal learning communities. When utilized as learning structures operating from a transpersonal worldview, hierarchies become empowering. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) reach similar conclusions and suggest that knowledge-creating organizations will be hypertext organizations that operate simultaneously in two modes: “As business organizations grow both in scale and complexity, they should simultaneously maximize both corporate-level efficiency and local flexibility” (p. 166). Senge and Kofman (1993) have suggested that, in practice, learning organizations behave as communities. Senge (1994) suggests that organizational architecture is one of the central domains in building learning organizations. Innovations in infrastructure, guiding ideas and theory, and method and tools complement the organization’s deep learning cycle, which entails attitudes and beliefs, awareness and sensibilities, and skills and capabilities. Senge claims that the deep learning cycle, which is nontangible, is the most enduring domain of the learning organization. “Organization design is widely misconstrued as moving around boxes and lines,” Bill O’Brien said. “The first task of organizational design concerns designing governing ideas, the purpose, vision, and core values by which people will live”(as cited in Senge, 1990, pp. 343-344). Peck (1993), relying on contingency theory, agrees that operating consciously as communities does not necessarily require a special organizational structure because community itself is a structure. In a way, the typical transpersonal learning community may have the same outward structure; its context and triple-loop collective learning make it more clearly distinguishable. The difference will be the implementation of new transpersonal fundamental assumptions that include but transcend WOS and postmodernist worldviews. The concept that external structures and processes produce new outcomes when they are embedded within a transpersonal context is a cornerstone of transpersonal psychotherapy (Vaughan, 1979). In the end, the structure of a transpersonal learning community will organize around the consciousness of the community. There are two dimensions that bound business conducted through such communities. The consciousness of a learning community is on one axis and the business model that drives economic viability is on the other. The inward dimension of the development of transpersonal collective consciousness held in tension will create entirely new outcomes within business activity, both in new and existing structures, when embedded within a transpersonal context and a triple-loop learning process. Transpersonal learning communities are business organizations that integrate consciousness and business performance within a transpersonal worldview and through business leadership and practices developed from a transpersonal psychology perspective. Through a praxis of personal and organizational self-awareness, these institutions learn to reflect on and change the consciousness of the prevailing business paradigm while simultaneously learning to change the fundamental assumptions driving their business. They will take to their advantage the turbulence inherent in worldview transformations to reconceptualize the placement of their core competencies and business models in transpersonally oriented business communities. They will consciously foster a spirit of community and outstanding financial results. REFERENCES Anderson, R. (1998). Introduction. In W. Braud & R. Anderson (Eds.), Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences (pp. xix-xxxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Apps, J. W. (1985). Improving practice in continuing education: Modern approaches for understanding the field determining priorities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research. New York: Academic Press. Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain. New York: John Wiley. Autry, J. A. (1991). Love and profit. New York: William Morrow. Autry,J.A.(1994).Lifeandwork:Amanager’ssearchformeaning.NewYork:WilliamMorrow. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday. Bierly, P., & Hamalainen, T. (1995). Organizational learning and strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(3), 209-224. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Cambridge, MA: Ark Paperbacks. Boje, D. M., Gephart, R.P.J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (Eds.). (1996). Postmodern management and organizational theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boucouvalas,(1980). An analysis of lifelong learning and transpersonal psychology as two complementary movements reflecting and contributing to social transformation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Braud, W., & Anderson, R. (Eds.). (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Briskin, A. (1998). The stirring of soul in the workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizational knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111. Bunge, M. (1996). Finding philosophy in social science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Burgoyne, J., & Reynolds, M. (Eds.). (1997). Management learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cahoone, L. (Ed.). (1996). From modernism to postmodernism. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. Chawla,S.,&Renesch,J.(Eds.).(1995). Learning organizations. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Cohen,M.D.,&Sproull,L.S.(Eds.).(1996). Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cox, A., & Liesse, J. (1996). Redefining corporate soul: Linking purpose and people. Chicago: Irwin. DeFoore, B., & Renesch, J. (Eds.). (1995). Rediscovering the soul of business. San Francisco: New Leaders Press. DeGeus, A.P. (1988, March/April). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, pp.100-104. Derrida, J. (1979). Spurs: Nitche’s styles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiBella, A. J., & Nevis, E. C. (1998). How organizations learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dodgson,M.(1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational Studies, 14(3), 375-391. Drucker, P. (1989). The new realities. New York: Harper & Row. Drucker, P. F. (1992). The age of discontinuity (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113. Feyerabend, P. (1987). Farewell to reason. New York: Verso. Fisher, D., & Torbert, W. R. (1995). Personal and organizational transformations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon. Fox, M. (1994). The reinvention of work. San Francisco: Harper. Frager, R. (1975). Transpersonal graduate education. In G. Hendrix & J. Fadiman (Eds.), Transpersonal education (pp. 95-97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Frager, R., & Fadiman, J. (1998). Personality and personal growth. New York: Longman. Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. Freud, S. (1965). The interpretation of dreams. New York: Avon Books. (Original work published 1900) Geertz, C. (1994). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social sciences (pp. 213-231). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1983) Gergen,K.J.(1985, March). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275. Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science. New York: Harper & Row. Giorgi, A. (1986). The “context of discovery/context of verification” distinction and descriptive human science. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 17(2), 151-166. Gozdz, K. (Ed.). (1995). Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco: Sterling and Stone. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist. Griffin,R.(Ed.).(1988).Thereenchantmentofscience.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon. Handy, C. (1996). Beyond certainty: The changing worlds of organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Harman, W. (1988). Global mind change. New York: Warner Books. Harman, W. (1993). What is this “new paradigm”? Meeting Ground, 2(6), 2-3. Harman, W. W. (1996). Toward a science of consciousness: Addressing two central questions. In S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak, & A. C. Scott (Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness (pp. 743-751). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harman, W., & Horman, J. (1990). Creative work. Indianapolis, IN: Knowledge Systems. Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organization. Management Education and Development, 22(3), 172-187. Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday. Huxley, A. (1944). The perennial philosophy. New York: Harper & Row. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (2 vols.). New York: Holt. Jaworski, J., Gozdz, K., & Senge, P. (in press). Setting the field: Creating conditions for profound institutional change. Boston: Society for Organizational Learning. Jung, C. G. (1977). Archetypes of the unconscious (R.F.C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1966) Jung, C. G.(1978). Flying saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the skies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1958) Kuhn,T.S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962) Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leider, R. J. (1997). The power of purpose. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Levitt,B.,&March,J.(1988).Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology,14,319-340. Lovejoy, A. O. (1936). The great chain of being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Maslow, A. H. (1969). The psychology of science. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human experience. New York: Penguin. McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1994). The smarter organization. New York: John Wiley. Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, D. L. (1989). Lewis Mumford: A life. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Mirvis, P. H. (1996). Historical foundations of organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change, 9(1), 13-31. Mirvis, P. (1997). “Soul work” in organizations. Organization Science, 8(2), 193-206. Moustakas, C. E. (Ed.). (1956). The self. New York: Harper & Row. Moustakas,C.(1985).Humanisticorhumanism?JournalofHumanisticPsychology,25(3),5-11. Mumford, L. (1956). The transformations of man. New York: Harper & Row. Nielsen, R. P. (1993). Woolman’s “I am we” triple-loop action-learning: Origin and application in organization ethics. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(1), 117-138. Nirenberg, J. (1993). The living organization. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Nisbet, R. (1973). The social philosophers. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Nisbet, R. (1990). The quest for community. San Francisco: ICS Press. Nonaka,I.,&Konno,N.(1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. Nonaka,I.,&Takeuchi,H.(1995).Theknowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press. Orr,J.(1990). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cornell University. Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum. New York: Simon & Schuster. Peck,M.S.(1993).A world waiting to be born: Rediscovering civility. NewYork: BantamBooks. Peck, M. S. (1997). The road less traveled & beyond. New York: Simon & Schuster. Peirce,E.P.(Ed.).(1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol.2). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pollard, C. W. (1996). The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent enterprise. New York: Macmillan. Ray, M., & Rinzler, A. (Eds.). (1993). The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organizational change. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee Books. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human inquiry in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Renesch, J. (Ed.). (1991). New traditions in business: Spirit and leadership in the 21st century. San Francisco: Sterling & Stone. Roberts, T. B., & Clark, F. (1976). Transpersonal psychology in education. In G. Hendricks & J. Fadiman (Eds.), Transpersonal education (pp. 3-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rosenau,P.M.(1992).Post-modernism and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Roskind, R. (1992). In the spirit of business. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts. Roth,J.K.(Ed.).(1969).The moral philosophy of William James. NewYork: ThomasY. Crowell. Sakaiya,T.(1991).The knowledge-value revolution (G.Fields & W.Marsh, Trans.). Tokyo: Kodansha International. Schechter, H. (1995). Rekindling the spirit in work. New York: Barrytown. Schroll, M. A. (1997). The philosophical legacy of David Bohm, its relationship to transpersonal psychology and the emergence of ecopsychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of the Union Institute, Beatrice, NE. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1994). Moving forward: Thinking strategically about building learning organizations. In P. M. Senge, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, B. J. Smith, & A. Kleiner (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook (pp. 15-47). New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., & Kofman, F. (1993, autumn). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 5-23. Shaw, R., & Perkins, D. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn. In D. Nadler, M. Gerstein, & R. Shaw (Eds.), Organizational architecture (pp. 175-191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shrivastva, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 2, 7-28. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125-134. Simpson, P. (1997). The place of faith in management learning. Management Learning, 28(4), 409-422. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Random House. Sorokin, P. A. (1941). The crisis of our age. Chatam, NY: Oneworld Publications Ltd. Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977a). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories. In The structure of scientific theories (pp. 3-232). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977b). The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Sutich, A. J. (1980). Transpersonal psychotherapy history and definition. In S. Boorstein (Ed.), Transpersonal psychotherapy (pp. 8-11). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton. Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1959). The phenomenon of man. New York: Harper & Row. Torbert, W. R. (1999). The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management Learning, 30(2), 189-206. Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Valle, R. S. (1989). The emergence of transpersonal psychology. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 257-268). New York: Plenum. Vaughan, F. (1979). Transpersonal psychotherapy: Context, content and process. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 11(2), 101-110. Wade, J. (1996). Changes of mind. Albany: State University of New York Press. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Wilber, K. (1981). Up from Eden: A transpersonal view of human evolution. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1983). A sociable God: A brief introduction to a transcendental sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wilber, K. (1985). The spectrum of consciousness (4th ed.). Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House. Wilber,K.(1986). Transformations of consciousness: Conventional and contemplative perspectives on development. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York: Random House. Woolman, J. (1818). The works of John Woolman in two parts. Philadelphia: Benjamin & Thomas Kite. (Original work published 1774) |
Download this pdf by clicking on the file below:
|