Being and Becoming 1a by Worden Day

Western ways of making sense of our world are shaped by a pair of polar assumptions about the nature of reality that have their roots in pre-Socratic philosophy. Two thinkers from those times (circa 500-450 BCE) represent the duality well. Parmenides postulated that reality is constant, without change - he advanced the being view. Heraclitus held the becoming view - reality is all flux and change. These competing views have persisted and still underlie the differences in contemporary ways of thinking about nature. 

The being view has come to dominate and is the one most closely aligned with modern thought. The being view leads from the ancient Greeks to Isaac Newton who gave us our clockwork, mechanistic view of nature. It tells us that the universe is orderly, the order is knowable, and by knowing its order, nature can be controlled.

The being view is so dominant that for most Westerners, it has been the only view. We apply that view to not only the conditions where it best applies, but to all conditions and situations. This becomes problematic when applied to living systems, which are constantly adapting and evolving. So we end up treating organizations, groups, communities as machines to be engineered and controlled. And we find that is increasingly ineffective and problematic.

The clockwork metaphor of this paradigm, which has dominated the physical and social sciences for over three centuries, is being questioned. Advances in the new sciences have drawn attention to occurrences that do not fit the being perspective - events that don't have the mechanistic predictability this view attributes to nature and humankind.

The new sciences (in particular quantum physics, chaos theory, and complexity science) suggest that another way of thinking about nature, using another set of metaphors, is needed. In contrast to the being paradigm, the newer paradigm proposes that nothing in nature is fixed, events are not predictable, and control is an illusion. This paradigm aligns with the becoming assumption.

Yet leaders believe they should be in control, and when difficulties arise in their organization or group, they act to hold or gain control: they analyze more data, design new systems, and install added procedures in order to stay in control - but, even with their best efforts, the problems keep arising and they go through the same process over and over again. Leaders typically use linear, mechanistic thinking when they would do better using alternative ways of thinking, especially when trying to deal with complex problems.

The shifts leaders need to make is to relax the assumption that leaders can control change.

Let's consider the vocabulary. Here are lists of words associated with the being and becoming perspectives:

Of course, there are lots more. For any given reference to one or the other, all you need to do is pick one from its column. For clarity's sake, let's use Newtonian and Quantum in this discussion, although in conversation, linear and complex are probably used more.

Differences in the Newtonian and Quantum perspectives

In the Newtonian perspective, it is assumed that the laws of nature are knowable, events are predictable, and control is possible - even in social matters. An effective leader uses organized simplicity to control. In the Quantum paradigm, nature is seen as often being complex, chaotic and unpredictable, and beyond much control through direct human intervention. The job of leaders is to understand complexity and create the conditions for the highest potential to emerge.

These are beliefs inherent in these two paradigms:

Presenting two perspective in side by side lists invites us to question whether they are mutually exclusive (either/or in the Newtonian perspective) or coincident (both/and in the Quantum perspective). My view is that the Newtonian universe is a subset of the Quantum universe, but that's another discussion.

In leading organizations, we need to use both perspectives, because the Newtonian lens is appropriate for understanding some aspects of organizations while the Quantum lens provides insights into other aspects. By using both perspectives, we will develop better understandings of more aspects of leadership.

Parallels in thinking processes

Recent developments in brain science suggest that there are "Newtonian" and "Quantum" modes of thinking, each grounded in distinct brain functions.

Newtonian thinking includes both serial and associative thinking. Serial thinking relies on a sort of neural "wiring" called neural tracts. These tracts consist of chains of neurons in which the head of one neuron connects to the tail of another, in series mode. Neural tracts are strengthened with repeated use and resist change once established. They are like computer programs. Neural tracts are associated with rational, logical thinking. The thinking they support does not tolerate ambiguity or nuance. Serial thinking is what a PC does.

Another sort of neural wiring supports associative thinking. Associative thinking involves neural networks that consist of thousands and thousands of interconnected neurons - each neuron acts on and is acted upon by many others simultaneously. To complicate things, networks themselves are interconnected; and networks in the brain are connected with networks throughout the body. Associative thinking is the kind of thinking that is mimicked by parallel processing computers, which can learn or adapt their programs. Associative thinking is involved in trial-and-error learning. It tolerates ambiguity and nuance - it is what enables us to recognize a pattern even when up to 80 percent of it is missing. However, associative thinking is prone to the limitations of habit and is difficult to change. Because it is often non-verbal, associative thinking is difficult to share with others.

In Quantum thinking, neuroscientists have indications that this thinking is supported by an energy field that is generated by the oscillations of electro-chemical currents in many, many neurons in both tracts and networks. Quantum thinking involves integration of serial and associative thinking; it allows us to "see the whole picture" or gestalt.

Quantum thinking is called into play when the unexpected happens, in situations of crisis or opportunity when our rule-bound serial thinking and habit-bound associative thinking can't cope. In the brain, serial, parallel, and Quantum thinking structures are integrated and work in together to generate our thinking processes

This perspective on thinking processes helps explain research findings that decision making and problem solving do not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. For example, it has been noted that leaders' decision making and problem solving sometimes involve judgment, intuition, and schemata. The integration of serial, parallel, and Quantum brain functions is what supports humane or moral thinking processes.

Newtonian and quantum perspectives on leadership 

It has been said that leadership is not mobilizing others to solve problems we already know how to solve, but helping others confront problems that have never yet been successfully addressed.

In the Newtonian approach to organization, leaders concentrate on objects - humans, materiel, contexts - and control those objects to achieve goals and results. Newtonian leaders value tight objectives and single-minded dedication ("stick to the knitting").

In contrast, in the quantum approach to organization, the leader assumes that in complex systems prediction with certainty is impossible; the leader accepts ambiguity, indeterminacy and paradox. In light of this, the leader relies on intuitive feel for situations, and trusts in the character, creativity, and abilities that both she/he and others bring to the organization. Consequently, quantum leaders strive to help build a culture of cooperation and integration that is very different from a Newtonian culture of control.

Characteristics of Newtonian and Quantum Leadership

Here are take away points about the two paradigms and their usefulness to leaders. 

1. Leaders need to understand that the Quantum paradigm should or will not replace the Newtonian paradigm. Instead we need to appreciate that each lens explains different aspects of life in organizations and we would be wise to become adept at putting them on when appropriate. The Quantum and Newtonian paradigms are complementary.

2. The Newtonian perspective is useful in the analysis of relatively simple organizations that are in equilibrium (or changing only incrementally) and in relatively stable environments. This paradigm lends itself to situations that are predictable and subject to control by leaders. The Quantum paradigm is useful for understanding unfamiliar events in complex living systems that are in turbulent environments. It lends itself to situations where there are strong pressures to change, events are chaotic, objectives have become ambiguous, and order seems to emerge of its own accord.

3. The two paradigms have significant overlap. Both include the belief that all members of an organization, whether it be simple or complex, are truly motivated when they perceive that they are valued fairly in proportion to their contribution. In other words, individuals will be their best when they are protected against personal diminishment and when leaders value "wholeness" and possibility in members, the organization and the world.