abstract organizational intelligence00de51d.netsolhost.com/resource/stalinski-odjournal22.2.pdf ·...

Sherryl Stalinski

Contact InformationSherryl Stalinski, MACo-Founder, PresidentAurora Now Foundationhttp://www.auroranow.org

Special Issue Special Issue Special Issue Special Issue Special Issue ArArArArArticticticticticleslesleslesles

55Volume 22 • Number 2 • Summer 2004

OrganizationalIntelligence:A Systems Perspective

Sherryl Stalinski, MAAurora Now Foundation

Sherryl Stalinski has nearly 20 years ofexecutive leadership experience in develop-ment, management and communications inboth corporate and non-profit environ-ments. Sherryl co-founded the Aurora NowFoundation in 1998, and continues tomanage its research and programs. Sheworks regularly with corporations andconsulting firms nationally as a leadership& OD trainer, strategic consultant, andexecutive coach.

Sherryl’s work has been published byresearch and educationorganizations in the U.S. and internation-ally, including World Futures (Journal ofGeneral Evolution) and the Journal ofCulture and Consciousness.

AbstractThis paper explores the theory of OrganizationalIntelligence (OI) as recently proposed by Albrecht(2003), and expands the concept to a more systemicconcept of cultural intelligence as an emergentproperty, and thus indefinable or measurable asmerely a sum of individual intelligence of a group’smembership. Such an understanding is proposed asuseful and relevant in understanding the evolutionarycapacity of culture, and for helping organizations andOD professionals evaluate the long-term systemicviability of the organization.

Many organizational consultants use the conceptof groupthink to warn work teams and business

leaders about the dangers of collective thinking ormob mentality. However, the potential fororganizational cultures to understand and utilize bothconscious and unconscious aspects of their collectivemind and intelligence for positive benefit seems to bea new theory with much to offer.

“However, the potentialfor organizational culturesto understand and utilize

both conscious andunconscious aspects oftheir collective mind andintelligence for positive

benefit seems to be a newtheory with much to

offer.”

56 Organization Development Journal

Albrecht (2003) proposes, “OrganizationalIntelligence is the capacity of an organizationto mobilize all of its brain power, and focusthat brain power on achieving the mission”(p. 15). Albrecht describes this capacity as“intelligence writ large,” essentially, thecollective sum of individual intelligencewithin an organization. He additionallyproposes that like individual minds, theorganizational mind has both conscious andunconscious aspects (chapter 1) thatinfluence organizational behavior andeffectiveness.

His model of Organizational Intelligence(OI) integrates learning that takes place atboth the conscious and unconscious levels.Citing the work of Howard Gardner, hesuggests that organizations, like individuals,have multiple intelligences or dimensions ofcompetence and that OI can be seen as “auseful envelope for thinking aboutorganizational effectiveness, and inparticular how to help organizations evolvetoward their full potential” (p. 43).

This paper seeks to explore and clarify somefoundational conceptual understandingsimplied in Albrecht’s latest work, plusexpand his propositions to a more systemicunderstanding of learning and intelligence asa potential emergent property of culturalsystems. This capacity can enable humansystems to consciously catalyze and guidetheir own evolution.

Specifically, understanding the nature oforganizational culture and OI can enableleadership and organizational developmentprofessionals to assess the ability of anorganization to maintain itself and evenevolve within its containing environments,and more effectively design and implementorganizational interventions toward thoseobjectives.

“Specifically,understanding the

nature oforganizational culture

and OI can enableleadership andorganizationaldevelopment

professionals toassess the ability ofan organization tomaintain itself and

even evolve within itscontaining

environments, andmore effectively

design and implementorganizational

interventions towardthose objectives.”

Before proposing a more systemic model ofOI as proposed by Albrecht, meaningfulexploration about the nature oforganizational culture, conceptualunderstanding of intelligence as a capacity,and the impact of both on the long-termviability of organizational systems isnecessary.



Defining Intelligence at theIndividual and OrganizationalLevelCyberneticians have closely studiedsuccessful self-regulating organisms assystems capable of learning in order toefficiently remain stable and grow. Morgan(1998) describes that

To self-regulate, learningsystems must be able to

1. Sense, monitor and scansignificant aspects of theirenvironment,

2. Relate this information tothe operating norms thatguide system behavior

3. Detect significantdeviations from thesenorms, and

4. Initiate corrective actionwhen discrepancies aredetected.

If these four conditions aresatisfied, a continuousprocess of informationexchange is created betweena system and itsenvironment, allowing thesystem to monitor changesand initiate appropriateresponses. In this way, thesystem can operate in anintelligent, self-regulatingmanner. (Morgan, 1998, pp.77–78)

“The additionalprocess of

questioning whetheroperating norms are

appropriate is acritical ingredient of

successful,sustainable learning,resulting in continuedgrowth and increased

sustainability.”

The most complex and evolved opensystems (such as humans and their socialsystems) have added to this capacity theability to question the value of their learningitself. Humans uniquely possess the abilityof questioning the value of our values(Banathy, 1996; Laszlo, 1996; Morgan;1998).

Additionally, we have the ability to questionthe operating norms and our ways of doingand being, which are based on those values.The additional process of questioningwhether operating norms are appropriate is acritical ingredient of successful, sustainablelearning, resulting in continued growth andincreased sustainability.

Failure to consciously engage in continualdouble-loop learning not only affects ourorganizations’ and communities’ ability togrow and transform, it could potentially



affect our ability to even maintain theirstability and viability.

Intelligence is any system’s ability to engagein information transfer with its internal andexternal environments in order to maintainstability, adapt, and grow. That informationexchange can happen in many ways,supporting the perspective that a variety ofintelligences—reason, emotion, perceptive(or physical) and intuitive—all hold validity.It is likewise reasonable to propose that, asintegrated, various multiple intelligencescreate a synergetic intelligence that cannotbe measured by combining the sum of any ofthe various intelligences. As complex, opensystems, cultures are cybernetic systems (canbe intelligent as an entity) and do possess aunique mind or collective personality (anemergent property) that is a reflection of—but more than—the individuals who makeup that culture.

Albrecht suggests that at an individual level,one can strive to improve whole braincognitive ability by tapping into strengthsand working on weaknesses. So too, mightorganizations use a comprehensive enoughprofile to integrate knowledge, skills andeven cultural values that complement theirexisting strengths. Osborn (1997) supportsthe integration of various values, skills, andknowledge in the design and development ofhealthy organizational cultures.

It seems worthwhile to point out than whenassessing individual intelligence orpersonality style, most current toolsemphasize that there is no best answer orright way to be. The OI model, however,might suggest such a bias. Up until the mid80s, even into the 1990s, IQ was measuredas a way to predict a student’s success in theeducation system. Certain skills andknowledge were required for students to

succeed in a system that required certainoutcomes. Gardner’s theory of multipleintelligences and Goleman’s concept ofemotional intelligence recently demonstratedthat such a narrow measure of IQ wasinadequate to define intelligence althoughIQ still by and large evaluates the criteria forsuccess deemed most valuable in educationsystems (Gardner, 1999).

Dr. Paul Werbos, a cybernetician currentlyworking with the National ScienceFoundation in an effort to further understandthe nature of learning and intelligence asunderstood from the fields of mathematicsand neuroscience, confirms a more practicaldefinition of intelligence from a broaderperspective of learning capacity, rather thanstrictly capacity for reason. He describes theprocesses of intelligence to includeemotional experience, and notes that reasonand emotion are not separate, but integratedfunctions of intelligence, noting thenecessity of translating certain Freudiantheories into mathematical algorithms inorder to create computational structuresneeded to implement optimization (personalcorrespondence, April 16, 2003.Paraphrasing Werbos, p., 1994, chapter 10).

Werbos’ position is that formal reasoning isa dimension of intelligence, complementedby emotional experience, not opposed to it.If neuroscience and cybernetics continue todemonstrate this proposition, it will enableus to finally free ourselves from the limits ofunderstanding and applying intelligence asstrictly a rational function. Werbos furtherdescribed recent work in neuroscience that ispointing to certain mirror neuron, whichenable empathy or vicarious experience andsuch capacity as a pre-requisite for symbolicreasoning.



Jung presents both thinking and feeling asrational functions of the mind. Traditionalscience seems to be pointing in the samedirection, giving support to the emotionalintelligence and multiple intelligencetheories of Goleman and Gardner, andunderscoring the potential for expandingpractical intelligence as described byAlbrecht, rather than an unchangeablemeasure of logical and linguistic reasoningas defined by traditional IQ measurement.

The problems arise when measurements ofintelligence, such as those traditionally usedin education, are used to make a judgment orplace a label on an individual or a group.Just as a more balanced understanding of astudent’s learning preferences could helpteachers create more flexible pedagogicalapproaches for various learning styles, ratherthan use a measure of certain aspects as ameans of predicting success or failure,understanding OI could clarify strengths andweaknesses and provide to organizationalleadership and the OD practitioner an area offocus for the design of training andintervention programs.

OI as a Dimension of CultureIntelligence is a capacity for a system toengage in information exchange with itsinternal and external environments and usethat information—whether acquired throughphysical experience, emotional experience,reason, observation or intuition—to learn tomaintain itself, adapt, change and growwithin those environments. Unlike othernatural systems, however, human systemsare not driven by innate instinctual drives.We have the inescapable capacity for freechoice—we can be other than what we are(Checkland, 1993; Frankl, 1984; Banathy,1996). Because of this capacity, we do notautomatically make choices that enable us to

remain viable within our environments.Understanding the nature of all systems canhelp us choose behaviors and values thatwill lead us closer to systemic viability.

Ervin Laszlo (1996) explains that all naturalsystems (ecological, biological, etc), becauseof their future-seeking, evolutionary nature,revolve around certain inherent values: toutilize our physical environments for energy,to sustain ourselves by responding andadapting to those environments. “You mustkeep yourself running against the odds of thephysical decay of all things, and to do so youmust perform the necessary repairs,including (if you are a very complex system)the ultimate one of replacing your entiresystem by reproducing it” (p 79). These arevalues common to all natural systems,Laszlo explains, and no system can denythem for too long because a reversal wouldeventually lead to increased entropy—disorganization—and inevitable decay.

Humans learn, create, and adopt additionalvalues. Our social systems also developvalues according to their knowledge,insights, language, technology and so on,which guide their ways of knowing, ways ofbeing, and ways of doing. These valuesevolve into our human cultures. In groups,culture emerges as ways of knowing, beingand doing that (a) reinforces the meaningand understanding of the world and one’splace within it and (b) reinforces and definesthe values that support that understanding.Those values are transmitted efficiently andeffectively in groups of humans throughtheir culture. Culture emerges in humansystems as a value-guided system (Laszlo,1996; Banathy 1996) even if those valuesare not explicitly defined, and most oftenthey are not.



Cultures are, in the final analysis, value-guided systems. Values define cultural man’sneed for rationality, meaningfulness inemotional experience, richness ofimagination and depth of faith. All culturesrespond to such suprabiological values. Butin what form they do so depends on thespecific kind of values people happen tohave (Laszlo, 1996, pp 75–76).

Culture is the product of individual mindsexpressed as shared meaning, values andpurpose within the whole of a group. It isvery often hidden and unpredictable. It canbe nurtured, but not controlled. “Themetaphor helps us to rethink almost everyaspect of corporate functioning,” Morgan(1998) notes, “including strategy, structure,design, and the nature of leadership andmanagement. Once we understand culture’sinfluence on workplace behaviors, werealize organizational change is culturalchange and that all aspects of corporatetransformation can be approached with thisperspective in mind” (p. 111).

“As open systemscapable of evolving,

cultures can beunderstood as alsohaving intelligence.OI, therefore, can be

understood as anintegral dimension of

an organization’sculture.”

Culture, born of humankind’s ingenuity,consciousness, and a symbol-based languagecapable of addressing both the near anddistant future, is uniquely human.Additionally, “culture is more than a tool ofhuman survival—it is a qualitatively higherphenomenon… [humans] alone havedeveloped an autonomous culture” (Laslzo,1996, pp. 73–74).

Evolved language afforded our species theability to create models and symbols tocommunicate current knowledge and passthat knowledge on efficiently for futureapplication. Culture includes such things asknowledge and understanding, ways ofknowing and doing, beliefs and dispositions,customs, rituals and habits shared by acommunity of people and evolved bypassing down these things through socialinteraction.

Culture is “learned and structured and itembraces every realm of human experience.[…] [Cultural] maps are alive; created,confirmed, disconfirmed, elaborated,changed and redrawn” (Banathy, 1996, p33). As open systems capable of evolving,cultures can be understood as also havingintelligence. OI, therefore, can beunderstood as an integral dimension of anorganization’s culture.

The Organizational Mind: TheCollective Conscious,Unconscious and Intelligence ofCultureIn organizations (human systems in general)certain criteria must be met in order for thesystem to remain viable over time in itsenvironment. Knowing what those criteriaare is not enough; most behavior is habitual



and unconscious. Behavior is driven, by thecore values and fundamental beliefs (BasicAssumptions) that are learned throughenculturation. Culture is likewise largely ahidden and invisible process of non-verbal,unconscious transference of tacit knowledgesuch as the values and fundamental beliefsheld by a group. An in-depth observation ofprocesses, behavior and interviews touncover beliefs and values is the only way tounderstand the real nature of a culture.

“An in-depthobservation of

processes, behaviorand interviews to

uncover beliefs andvalues is the only way

to understand thereal nature of a

culture.”

Building on Ornstein’s Multi-Mind theory,integrated with Gardner’s multipleintelligences and Maslow’s pyramid ofneeds plus others, Albrecht (2002) proposesa hierarchy of thinking at the individuallevel. It is suggested here that organizationalculture is essentially the equivalent of theindividual mind: there are visible, tangibleaspects (artifacts such as systems andprocesses), communicated and verbalizedaspects, (espoused values, philosophies,strategies) and hidden, unconscious non-verbal basic assumptions, values and beliefsthat are usually learned through observationand experience of people and groups around

us, and the meaning and value we apply tosuch subconscious learning.

If one could think of the organizational mindas reflecting the same fundamental levels asthe individual mind, there would be severallevels. The collective unconscious would notonly hold what has been identified as theorganizational shadow from a Jungianperspective (Sievers, 1999) but the useful/beneficial unconscious: the things we know,feel and respond from automatically. At acollective level, this is often too narrowlyidentified as the culture of a group: “It’s theway we do things around here.” Forindividuals and groups, this automatic,habitual behavior is what makes us functioneffortlessly. We do not have to consciouslyevaluate every decision every time we needto make it. Of course, the downside of notevaluating every decision is forgetting toevaluate decision-making at all.

It seems reasonable to maintain that if thereis a collective unconscious or automaticmind, then there must also be a collectiveconsciousness—and in highly evolvedcultures, even a collective super-consciousness or transcendent function asidentified by Jung. Researchers at CWA,Ltd., (Christakis, 1996, 2001) demonstrateempirical evidence that a collective,evolutionary learning occurs—new insightand knowledge form out of the collective.This creates what Christakis refers to asdemosophia, a Greek word that translatesliterally to wisdom of the people.

A model for organizational culture isproposed here that mirrors Albrecht’striangular pyramid of individual minds at theorganizational level. This OrganizationalMind model seeks to illustrate organizationalculture and learning as encompassingmultiple dimensions of the organization. The



model integrates Schein’s (1992) three levelsof organizational culture, Jung’s concept ofthe collective unconscious and Christakis’(1996, 2001) concepts of evolutionarylearning and demosophia as an appropriateintegration of the unconscious,subconscious, conscious, and transcendentdimensions of the organizational culture. OIwould manifest itself throughout thesevarious dimensions much the way thatindividual intelligence emerges from andmanifests itself within and among thevarious individual minds.

Leadership’s Role in Culture,Subculture and Supra-culturalSystemsAs value-guided systems, cultures evolvearound explicit or implied values, usuallymodeled by the behavior of individuals orgroups of individuals charged with theleadership of an organization or system. Atthe organizational level, leadership plays amajor influential role. And beyond formalleadership, any individual who demonstratesthat unique ability to influence othersthrough modeled behavior will have adramatic impact on the whole of a culture inwhat can be understood as the trimtab effect.

Albrecht’s Hierarchy of Thinking The Organizational/Cultural Mind

Spiritual Demosophia Creative Cultural artifacts and evolutionary learning Practical Espoused values, philosophies

and strategies Subconscious Basic assumptions

Automatic Collective unconscious

Figure 1

As organizations grow and evolve intoincreased size and complexity, formalleadership may find it has less direct impacton the whole. Smaller subcultures emergearound more visible and modeled values byinformal leaders, and at the societal level,systems such as media, the business andeconomic community, and other, morevisible groups may have more ability toinfluence the foundational values aroundwhich cultures may emerge.

As family, organizational, community, andsocietal cultures evolve, the likelihoodgrows that seeming conflicting values willemerge among these various culturalsystems, and individuals who exist withinmultiple cultural systems will also beconfronted with the consequences of suchconflicting values, behavioral norms, andeven basic assumptions about reality and thenature of truth. This conflict can be thesource of individual and culturalcompetition and dysfunction, or it can be anopportunity for conscious reflection,integration, and the creation of congruenceand alignment toward increased wholeness,soundness, and integrity at the individual,organizational, and societal levels.



“Currently there arefew commercial

assessment toolsavailable to ODpractitioners to

assess and evaluateorganizational

culture.”

Assessing CultureCurrently there are few commercialassessment tools available to ODpractitioners to assess and evaluateorganizational culture. Such tools are usefulin helping practitioners design and developappropriate interventions within anorganization. Likewise, they could provideorganizations and other human systems atool to use in evaluating whether changeinitiatives will be sufficient to achieveorganizational objectives, or whether totalredesign and transformation are required.

The Cultural Due Diligence assessmentdeveloped by Daniel Denison at theUniversity of Michigan is one of fewinstruments that sets criteria for evaluatingthe actual effectiveness of an organization’sculture, and the CDD model evaluatesculture at the performance level usingtraditional criteria for success: Profit, salesgrowth, market share, development andinnovation, quality and employeesatisfaction (Juechter, Fisher & Alford,1998).

Other assessment and profiling methods aremore useful in profiling the type of culturepresent, but offer no bias or judgment as tothe effectiveness of the culture (Schein,1992; Osborn, 1997).

Osborn (1997) and Schein (1992) assessorganizational culture for the purpose ofunderstanding. Both identify a morecomprehensive dimensional structure of thenature of the culture. Schein identifies fivedimensions and 10 phenomena associatedwith culture; Osborn identifies 14dimensions of culture and identifies fivecultural shapes or types. Schein additionallyidentifies three levels of culture and suggestsan exploration of all three levels in order tounderstand both the visible and invisibleaspects of organizational culture:

• Cultural artifacts: visible structures,processes [I would add products.]

• Espoused goals, philosophy and strategy• Basic Assumptions: [invisible]

unconscious beliefs, thoughts andfeelings (source of values and action)(Schein, 1992, p. 17).

Osborn and Schein help organizations andOD practitioners assess and understand thenature of an organization’s culture, but stopshort of assessing whether a certain culturalstyle is better than another. Osborn suggests,however, as these basic assumptions andvalues are understood, organizationaleffectiveness can be improved by integratingthe skills, practices, and values inherentacross the cultural spectrum.

Albrecht (2003) defines OI as the capacityfor an organization to learn, adapt, change,and grow within its environments. He stopsshort of identifying such “intelligence writlarge” as a dimension of organizationalculture, likely because of a lack of consensus



about the nature and definition oforganizational culture. Albrecht identifiesseven dimensions of OI in his work:

• Strategic Vision (the capacity to form andevolve such a vision)

• Appetite for Change• Alignment and Congruence (structure

supports strategy)• Performance Pressure (shared drive to

achieve)• Knowledge Deployment (permeable

information exchange)• “Heart” (shared energy and commitment)• Shared Fate

Support for such integrated models can alsobe found in work proposed earlier byresearchers at the International SystemsInstitute who propose eight criteria forevolutionary capacity of human systems.Laszlo et al. (1996) state that such systemsmust be:

• Operationally viable• Economically sustainable• Technologically feasible• Culturally appropriate• Psychologically nurturing• Socially acceptable• Environmentally friendly• Generationally sensitive

Osborn makes a critical clarification forthose interested in a systems perspective oforganization. Systems thinking should notbe confused with some new “ism” such aspostmodernism. Systems thinking is not anew way of thinking; it is learning to thinkin new ways—to explore the goodness of fitamong a variety of disciplines andperspectives. Likewise, organizations canexplore and integrate a variety ofapproaches, even create new ones byidentifying a goodness of fit among values,

conceptual and process models, and criteriafor success.

“Systems thinkingshould not be

confused with somenew “ism” such aspostmodernism.

Systems thinking isnot a new way of

thinking; it is learningto think in new

ways—to explore thegoodness of fit

among a variety ofdisciplines andperspectives.”

In Albrecht’s OI assessment, questions areasked that evaluate a variety of values, skillsand practices. His foundational assessmentaddresses specific criteria for success from abroader set of criteria than Denison’sCultural Due Diligence. Besides remainingfinancially viable, it is clear in his work(although he does not explicitly list specificsuccess criteria) that organizations must behumane, flexible, and clearly committed toproviding value to their marketenvironments. All of these capacities impactan organization’s bottom line, but Albrecht’smodel provides a broader understanding ofan organization’s viability beyond Denison’ssix criteria for success. Denison’s modelcould be compared to a traditional



assessment of IQ, while Albrecht’s modelprovides a broader understanding of avariety of intelligences and capacitiespresent and available in the developmentand long-term viability of an organizationalsystem. Where the traditional IQ test provedinadequate to predict long-term success ofthe individual, the traditional measures oforganizational success ultimately haveproven inadequate to predict long-termviability. Of the criteria for systemicviability outlined above, integrated with thevalue for human potential, human creativityand innovation, and the inevitableemergence of culture, the only area ofAlbrecht’s assessment only marginallypresent is attention to requisite diversity andcomplexity, which seem implied but are notmade explicit.

Usefulness and ApplicationBanathy (1996, 2000) proposes a model forconsciously guiding the evolution of humanculture, but eventually, new culturalprocesses must become automatic,subconscious, and habitual in order forlearning and transference to take place at theefficient experiential level of the automaticmind. If an organization, like an individual,hopes to become healthier and morefunctioning in their environments, all levelsof the mind (individual and collective) mustbe engaged and addressed. One of the limitsof many approaches in OD is that they seekto only address health and growth throughconscious learning approaches. They fail totranslate and instill new learning at the morepowerful and efficient level of the automaticmind or collective unconscious. Likewise,they fail to consider the invisible,unconscious dimensions of organizationalculture as it impacts organizationaleffectiveness, and ultimately, its viability.

“If an organization,like an individual,hopes to become

healthier and morefunctioning in theirenvironments, alllevels of the mind

(individual andcollective) must be

engaged andaddressed.”

The habitual, unconscious behavior ofindividuals or groups is largely what drivesdecision-making and behavior, but in orderto impact the hidden, it is not enough tosimply shed light on it. It is half theequation: understanding the foundationalbeliefs and values (individual and cultural)that trigger the emotional and habitualbehavior is important so that individuals,and likewise cultures, can consciouslyexamine and evaluate their usefulness.

If new or different beliefs and values seemhealthier, those can be infused into theindividual’s or group’s consciousness invisible, tangible ways. By infusing asystem’s visible and conscious processes(cultural artifacts) and espoused andverbalized values in order to represent andcommunicate the knowledge and values thatenable any system to remain viable overtime, an organization can begin to learn,model, and integrate those values and beliefsuntil they stick as basic assumptions that



drive automatic and habitual behavior. Thiscould happen much the same way thatdriving a car or riding a bike is largely aconscious learning process until thebehaviors become automated and habitual.

“By infusing asystem’s visible andconscious processes

(cultural artifacts)and espoused and

verbalized values inorder to represent

and communicate theknowledge and values

that enable anysystem to remain

viable over time, anorganization can

begin to learn, model,and integrate thosevalues and beliefsuntil they stick asbasic assumptions

that drive automaticand habitualbehavior.”

ReferencesAlbrecht, K. (2002). “Brain power.” Training &

Development [T+D] 56(11). Chicago: ASTDAlbrecht, K. (2003). The power of minds at work:

Organizational intelligence in action. NewYork: American Management Association(AMACOM).

Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in achanging world. New York: Plenum.

Banathy, B. H. (1998). “Evolution guided by design:A systems perspective.” Systems Researchand Behavioral Science, 15(3), 159.

Banathy, B. H. (2000). Guided evolution of society: Asystems view. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. NewYork: George Braziller.

Checkland, P. (1993). Systems thinking, systemspractice. Chichester, England: John Wiley &Sons.

Christakis, A. (1996). “A people science: TheCogniScopeTM System Approach,” Systems,1(1), 16-19.

Christakis, A. (2001). The dialogue game. Paoli, PA:CWA Ltd.

Frankl, V. (1984). Man’s search for meaning (3rd Ed.).New York: Simon and Shuster.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multipleintelligences for the 21st century. NY: BasicBooks.

Juechter, Fisher & Alford (1998). “Five conditions forhigh performance cultures” reprinted fromTraining & Development, May 1998 by ARCWorldwide, Aspen, Hong Kong.

Laszlo, E. (1996). The systems view of the world.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Laszlo et al. (1996). Fruits of our conversation.Proceedings from the 1996 Conference for theComprehensive Design of Social Systems.Carmel, CA: ISI.

Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Osborn, S (1997). The system made me do it! A lifechanging approach to office politics. Newark,CA: LifeThread Publications.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture andleadership (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survivalguide: Sense and nonsense about culturechange. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sievers, B. (1999, October). The Organization Shadow.Workshop Introduction: “Getting from



Psychosis to Mindfulness in Organizations”Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 10 - 15,1999

Stalinski, S. (2001). Creating futures: A systems viewof transformation for our organizations,communities and world. Tucson AZ: AuroraNow Foundation

Werbos, P. (1994). The roots of backpropogation. NY:John Wiley


abstract organizational intelligence00de51d.netsolhost.com/resource/stalinski-odjournal22.2.pdf ·...

Documents