Theory U: Seeing
Someday I want to make an RSA Animate-style visualization
The second step in the U process is Seeing. Dr. Scharmer asserts that developing the ability of individuals and teams to see is the primary role of leadership. In learning to see, we move out of the prison cell of downloading, and perceive the world as it is. Well, maybe the situation… I have given up trying to perceive reality, and a clear view of reality might not be particularly useful at that. At any rate, it is denial, or unwillingness to face uncomfortable truths that lead to certain failure: in both cases, the problem is with seeing.
“At the moment you choose to actually look at the situation, to look straight into the the ugly face of the fire, new powers are given to you. And the interesting thing is that these powers always match the challenge you are presented with.”
Dr. Scharmer’s examples involved looking through a window or membrane: in seeing, the observer is still separated from the observed. The three paths to seeing are:
Clarifying the Task: I’ve actually had this problem with the Isang Yun paper: I had a pretty impressive collection of data, but had difficulty getting started because I had no idea what the paper was really about. When I re-read the first draft after it came back from the peer-review, this was still embarrassingly obvious.
Moving into the Context: I was fascinated by the example from design, where an architect (Christopher Alexander) described context as what defines the problem, and form as the solution. In his words, form is “the part of the world we decide to shape,” and context is “the part of the world that puts demands on the form.” I think this is worth memorizing. Another profoundly relevant point here was Dr. Scharmer’s example that we used to talk about customers, then we talked with them, and finally we seek to understand their experience. More on this later…
Connecting to Wonder (and suspending judgment): Wonder is the “seed from which the U process grows.” I think the best example here comes from my experience of looking out at my MUS 1600 students, and feeling a great affection for all of them: they were all such interesting people that I could let go of their more problematic behaviors and thinking. I suspended my judgment of their academic worth and simply took them in—I marvelled at their humanity. Wonder, Dr. Scharmer asserts, is directly proportional to profundity of thought.
Significantly, we’re back with the Asian artist who observes for a long time and then acts very quickly. I was also struck by the Dr. Scharmer’s observation that “people resist change only if they are asked to make difficult changes and sacrifices without being able to see the bigger picture and understanding the context that makes change necessary.” (131) I have seen this in both my colleagues and my students.
My First U
As it happens, I just started a process of redesigning my Musicianship courses. As I sat with my goals for the process (align the course to the revised departmental mission, expand the scope for greater diversity and equity, adapt to the realities of COVID-19), I realized that I had only a dim idea of what “professional and technical skills” in music might be in the 21st century. I plunged right in (typically) and contacted my students, first be email and text messages, and later in a Zoom call, to see what they felt was missing from their experience. Dr. Scharmer ends the chapter with a substantive case study of a Patient-Physician Dialogue Forum, and as I read through his process, I began to wonder what it would have looked like if I had followed a similar road map. In particular, all of his examples followed the “U format,” so I took a few minutes to translate my thoughts into the inset chart.
Looking back, I think I adequately clarified the task. In terms of moving into the context, I certainly talked with the students, but may have taken a little too much control of the conversation—going forward, I will focus more on their experience. Also, there are certainly more stakeholders involved, and in a larger discussion, it would be advantageous to consider music industry professionals, targeted graduate programs (“What about grad. school?” is a real drag on discussions of change—maybe we should consider what specific kinds of grad. programs we are servicing?), community organizations, etc. As far as wonder, I may have just squeaked by: I had never considered using DAWs as a composition tool, and the alternate way of envisioning pitch and rhythm (and even timbre, for that matter, with the wave-forms) are certainly a teachable moment. I initially resisted the request for copyright laws (not suspending judgment!) but later saw an opportunity in exploring the history of copyright as a concept (selling the same work to different publishers, for example, before the concept of royalties was in place).
The most useful result of making the U chart, however, was the clarification of the right-hand side. in particular, steps 5. and 6. If I think of my course(s) as the form, what are the demands imposed by the context? Furthermore, many of my students don’t have a clear idea of what their dreams are—certainly clarifying that task should be a departmental objective, but how can my courses help develop that ability to see? Or, how can I be a more effective leader in the classroom?