Appendix 2: An Introduction To Theory U

Like most effective design methods, Theory U starts with a key question:  Why do we consistently create outcomes that (almost) no one wants?  The outcomes in question are a world with declining environmental and societal health, indicative of a pattern of designing systems that create negative unintended consequences.  The answer to the question may be found in two premises:

1. We design the world and in turn the world designs us.  That is to say that as adaptive creatures we tend to fashion our behavior to suit our environment; since we also actively shape our environment, our patterns of behavior often result from past solutions in environmental design.  Hence, most of our modern negative behaviors (e.g. patterns of polluting) are the result of systems that we’ve created.
2. Good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good outcomes.  This key premise speaks to our tendency to create unintended consequences by rushing to solutions without fully understanding the impact that our designs will have on the world.

 In fact, good intentions can often lead to disruption and many of our current disruptions are the result of good intentions.

We live in a time of disruptions and extreme contrasts: epic droughts and hundred-year floods, sulfurous smokestacks alongside dying seas and windmills, women’s marches and neo-nazis, homelessness and McMansions.

We cannot discount the value of the progress of the last two centuries, but we’re also living the evidence that we did not design many of the systems that brought that  progress in a way that is sustainable as we deal with environmental, economic, and social disruptions. We now must rise to the challenge of redesigning the way we live upon this earth while maintaining and improving the standards of living to which we’ve become accustomed.  Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”  If so, then how should we be thinking? Theory U emerges from the Whole Systems Thinking movement that states that the key is to learn to think in systems.  While this is something we’ve been demonstrably bad at, it is something that we can learn.

We begin by looking at how we are typically taught to think. Theory U suggests that there are two sources of learning:  Learning from the past and learning from the possible future. Most of us are quite good at the first. After all, it is the basis of our educational system.  While admittedly an efficient way to learn, leaning as it does on the accumulated knowledge of generations of humanity and on our personal experiences, as a means of innovation it is limited to reiterating past ideas.  Learning from the emerging future, on the other hand, opens us up to radical innovation. This skill, however, is so rare that the individuals who are good at it are often heralded as geniuses – Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein come to mind – but as Tim Urban explains in this installment of his “Wait but Why?” blog post, the difference is largely a question of learning to operate from what you know from observation about a situation versus what you are told about it.  He quotes Steve Jobs:

“When you grow up, you tend to get told the world is the way it is and your life is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact. And that is: Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.”

Learning to think differently therefore starts with learning to see around what we’ve been programmed to believe about the world and observing it for ourselves. So, how do we go around our programming and learn to see what’s really going on?  Theory U has some suggestions.

A useful first step in understanding what’s really going on is to learn to map systems.   The Iceberg Model of Current Reality is a map that illustrates the relationship between visible and invisible parts of a system. The iceberg model can also be represented as a pyramid. In either case we see that what is visible to most is a small proportion of the whole system, and that mental models or paradigms of thought underpin the system. Mental models filter all our thinking and therefore are the largest factor in both our designs and their outcomes.  

When Theory U looks at the world it maps three icebergs that it calls The Three Divides. These are Ecological, Social, and Spiritual. The Ecological Divide represents the separation between the self and nature; the Social Divide represents the separation between the self and others; the Spiritual Divide represents the separation between the self and the Self. In the last, the upper case Self could be described as an individual’s true nature or purpose.

Looking below the surface, we see the mental models that created and sustain The Three Divides.  Each of these Eight Structural Disconnects represents one aspect of how we fail to see ourselves as part of the whole system in which we exist. (See Table 1)

Since it is these mental models that form the foundation of the systems we create, it follows that this is the thinking that needs to change if we are to solve our problems. So, where did we learn to think like this? Much of the thinking that defines the listed disconnects originates in the evolution of economic thought. For the last century and a half we have built our world on an economic model that can be described as Ego-Centric, founded on the central character of homo economicus, the rational economic man.  As economist Kate Raworth puts it "he has told us that we are self-interested, isolated, calculating, fixed in taste and dominant over nature –– and his portrait has shaped who we have become.  But human nature is far richer than this, as early sketches of our new self-portrait reveal: we are social, interdependent, approximating, fluid in values and dependent upon the living world."  Nurturing these qualities, she goes on to suggest, is key to a thriving future.

The type of thinking revealed in the Three Divides map has spurred unprecedented progress, but with a disregard for the big picture that is now resulting in levels disruption of that suggest we are reaching the limits of its potential.  Can this disruption serve as a force for transition to a new level of thought? If so, what would that new thinking look like? One part of the answer is a shift from the ego-centric way of seeing the world to an eco-centric one. In other words, learning to see the interconnectedness of all things and in so doing learning to see ourselves as part of the system.   

This opens us up to another premise.  We’ve already explored the idea that we design the world and in turn the world designs us, and we have ample evidence that good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good outcomes.  If we look at the world from an eco-centric viewpoint in which all things are interconnected and affect one another, then we must consider the following:  

If design creates the world, then good design means creating a world that works for all.  

This idea holds for the possibility that a designed system can work for all and that we are up to the challenge of designing at such an advanced level.  To be sure, such a notion is apt to meet significant resistance. Imagine the pressure on designers who may have hitherto only been concerned with whether a thing works well to achieve a specific and narrow end.  Now they have to consider all of the inflows and outflows throughout the life of a designed object or system, and have the understanding to grasp the needs of everyone and everything in the matrix of connection leading back to that design.  It is admittedly a tall order, but eco-centric thinking demands it.

In this image, shared by Otto Scharmer himself, we see the intention and process of Theory U. The figure on the top left is seeking to bridge the chasm that separates them from the future, but by leaping across they are rushing to solutions. Even with good intentions we know that often gets us in trouble. Instead, the U provides a method for connecting with all the stakeholders and factors in a system on the path to truly discovering emerging future possibilities as we strive to solve complex problems. And it begins with some inner development work.

 At the opening of this paper I presented the following quote:  “The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervener.”  As we take a deeper look at this quote from Bill O’Brian, a successful and innovative corporate executive, we see that it suggests that it is not only what I am doing or how I am doing it, but also the source.  I.e. the quality of attention, intention, and presence that I bring to the process.  Theory U considers that this is the most common blind spot in leadership and begins the design process by asking the designer, us, to turn the lens back on ourselves; to shift from seeing the system as “out there” to seeing ourselves as part of the web of relationships that make up the system.  In other words, shifting from ego to eco. Knowing how to create this shift in multi-stakeholder groups is the key leadership challenge today.

The shift from ego to eco requires cultivating three properties: Open mind, open heart, and open will.

• Open mind is the capacity to suspend old habits of judgment and see with fresh eyes - It requires curiosity
• Open heart is the capacity to empathize and redirect our perspective to that of other stakeholders - it requires compassion
• Open will is the capacity to let go of the old and let come new possibilities, and the openness to do so without forcing the outcome - it requires courage  

Now that we are acquainted with the personal development aspects of Theory U, we can look at how these work within the design process.  It can be helpful for understanding to separate Theory U into two parallel processes. The first is the U itself, which takes us through a five-step design process.  The other is the personal journey that enables us to access the open mind, open heart, and open will that are necessary for the deep listening that the U asks of us. The following section is descriptive of the stages of the U, information about the tools and techniques used in each stage can be found in a separate block below.

The Five Stages of the U

As can be seen in this image, the U has five stages.  Following these stages in order is critical, although it is also true that the journey is not always linear;  practitioners routinely find themselves oscillating between various stages at any time. Below I describe each section of the U separately, starting with one which is not a part of the process, but defines the starting point of many problem-solving journeys.  

Before we enter the U itself, it is important to become aware of a reflex that can derail us even as we begin.  It is called Downloading and is an initial level of listening that can occur when presented with new information.  While t is not actually listening, it is called habitual listening - listening from habit. This is where most of us operate most of the time, and it basically consists of reconfirming our old opinions and judgments.  It is efficient for routine decisions, and it does keep us safe from change, but there is little possibility of innovation from this state because there is little possibility of learning – we already have all the answers!  Our first action must then be to recognize when we are downloading and shift towards deeper listening.

Co-initiating happens when we feel the call to take action.  To successfully transcend Downloading, working from a place of curiosity and practice listening with an open mind. Typically, we will encounter a reflex towards judgement of challenging thoughts and ideas.  We must remain alert to this, and when we recognize and suspend it, a spirit of exploration, inquiry, and wonder takes its place. We can now actively deepen our listening from downloading to factual, paying special attention to the information that contradicts our beliefs.  We adopt a perspective of traveling to the edge of our world and looking out. At the same time, we seek out and connect with others who are hearing the same call so that we may initiate a change process together. (In Theory U parlance, the “Co” in Co-Initiating infers a collaborative process which happens at several levels.  First, between your actual self and your future Self, and second, within a group, be it an organization, team, community, or nation.  But also, you are in collaboration with the Universe itself, listening and responding to what you sense from all this surrounds you. )

Having identified the field in which we are called to work and begun a process of investigation, we deepen our process by finding the places of most promise and observing deeply.  To fully understand why things are the way they are we must engage with deep compassion, moving beyond thinking into feeling. This requires an Open Heart and an empathic level of listening.  At this stage we are likely to encounter a reflex of cynicism; we hear ourselves thinking “not our problem,” or “it can’t be done.” Recognizing and stopping this reflex is paramount. We now shift our perspective from outside observers of the system to being within the system.  As observers we recognize ourselves as integral to the system so in essence the system begins to see itself.

When we have gathered sufficient information, often an intuitive decision, we will retreat and reflect upon what we have seen, heard, felt, and learned, seeking to make sense of it all.  As we do this we seek to connecting with a vision of the future, stepping into the unknown. An open will is central to this stage as we put aside our personal desires for outcome and ask ourselves these questions: What is my (our) Self? What is my (our) Work?

Self with a capital S represents alignment with our true purpose, and Work with a capital W represents what we are here to do.  Since any idea or outcome is possible in this stage, a reflex of fear tends to blocks our progress: fear of the unknown is common, but so is fear of change, , of letting go of what we have or what we are, of failure, and sometimes even of success.  Theory U sees this as a test of our leadership: can we let go of the old self and surrender to the new Self? Can we bring others on this journey with us? Letting go and surrendering is a key principle, as letting go allows us to open to new possibilities and surrendering allows us to move into the resulting opening.

In this stage our perspective changes radically:  we are no longer observing the field or even ourselves as part of it.  Instead we are connecting to the deepest source, from which the “field of the future” begins to arise. We engage a generative level of listening, the chief characteristic of which is the emergence of new thoughts and ideas.  The following quote from Arundhati Roy summarizes the feeling of this stage:

“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

                                                                                                                   -Arundhati Roy

Crystallizing is the transition between reflection and action.  Here the reflection we have done during Presencing gives way to a process of discerning our vision and intention.  As we do so we stay alert to three principles:

1. Actively maintain connection to source.
2. Stay in dialogue with Self, our circle of collaborators, and the universe.
3. Notice your level of listening:  are we reverting to downloading, judgement, cynicism, or fear?

From a successful crystallization process we will discern long and short-term visions and intentions.  It is from these that our initial ideas for prototyping will emerge.

With our vision clear we can begin prototyping our ideas, which is nothing less than the integration of our head, heart, and hand.  The point of prototyping is to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible, so we start small and simple without over-committing to any one idea which allows us to re-iterate often and thus generate more cycles of feedback.   Theory U suggests a 0.8 principal of iteration; not even waiting for version 1.0 before we test it. Others go so far as to suggest that version 0.25 is a good starting point. In either case, the more versions the more feedback and the more we learn, so the higher the chance of success.  This is the act of exploring by doing, enacting the new through “being in dialogue with the universe.”

Once a prototype has been sufficiently refined we can share it with the greater world.  As we reach outside of the microcosm in which we’ve been working and link with the larger ecosystem around us we create the opportunity for growth, replication, and greater impact.  By co-evolving we begin to see, strategize, and act “from Presencing the emerging whole.” We have, in essence, created the future we envisioned.

While the U process can seem dauntingly complex for daily use it can be helpful to think of it as a practice as well as a process.  As we internalize the levels of listening and identify favorite tools and practices, we begin to subtly shift how we engage in the world.  It can also be helpful to recognize that the process can be summarized in three parts:

1. Observe, observe, observe
2. Retreat and reflect
3. Act in an instant: create, create, create.

With this simplified version in mind and our listening skills and open mind, heart, and will engaged, it becomes increasingly easy to operate towards the future that wants to emerge through us rather than from re-versioning ideas from the past.   

In order to place the Presencing model in context, it can be instructive to inquire what would be its opposite.  Theory U models this as Absencing. Whereas Presencing takes us on a journey to a new reality, Absencing strives to shut down that new reality and revert to the past.  We find the Absencing reflex doubling down on Downloading, moving through Denying and De-sensing into a state of Absencing, a journey characterized by a closed mind, closed heart, and closed will.  Whereas we emerge from the Presencing U with the intention of creating something better, the impetus of Absencing is to stay with the old.

We might recognize characteristics of Absencing in the political arena or other leadership situations when see the proliferation of misleading news or disinformation, rampant lying, surrounding oneself with advisors who are archetypal “yes men,” a return to old solutions (e.g. bringing back coal), a blaming of others for our problems (e.g. immigrants), and a tendency towards destructive behaviors (e.g. dismantling environmental protections).

The Presencing institute provides a number of helpful design tools for use with the Theory U Model and below I provide my commentary on some of my favorites. In the Supporting Evidence section is the U.Lab sourcebook which is included in the Ed.x Theory U 1.x course and I’ve designed this commentary to be read alongside the appropriate sections of that book. In addition to the tools, it contains helpful summaries and illustrations of key concepts arranged to correspond with which phase of the U they are most applicable.

Journaling Prompts (throughout)

Journaling is a key practice of Theory U and there are many journaling exercises throughout the sourcebook. These can be of particular interest for design thinking in general and so are useful outside of Theory U.

Levels of Listening (p.1)

A key aspect of the model is understanding and paying attention to one’s levels of listening. Becoming adept at recognizing and regulating one’s level of listening in a given situation can be a transformative skill as a designer. When used with an understanding of the Fields of Conversation (p. 5) it can dramatically improve group processes.

 Seven Principles of Presencing (p.1)

Remembering these foundational principles is a fundamental step in the path to becoming facile with the U process; without these it will not work, and in and of themselves these principles are applicable to a variety of design processes besides Theory U.   (While the shared 2016 version of the Source Book provides six important principles to remember, many facilitators add a seventh.)

1. Energy follows attention
2. We have to go through a process that deals with three movements: observe,observe, observe; retreat and reflect; act in an instant.
3. This only works if we cultivate the inner instruments: Open Mind, Open Heart, Open Will
4. At the source of this inner cultivation process are the two root questions of creativity: Who is my Self?  What is my Work?
5. You will face three enemies that prevent you from accessing your deeper sources of creativity: Voice of Judgment; Voice of Cynicism;Voice of Fear
6. This opening process is not only important to do as an individual; you need to hold the space to go through the same process on a collective level.
7. The inverse of this process is Absencing

Case Clinics (p.3)

Both as a participant and as a facilitator, I’ve found Case Clinics can be a helpful tool in shifting an individual’s understanding of their own role in a leadership challenge, thereby shifting their perspective on how to intervene. While there is only one Case Giver in a Case Clinic, the process is also a useful exercise for the rest of the participants (Coaches) to notice and practice their levels of listening as well as exercising Open Mind, Open Heart, and Open Will. All of these qualities require regular practice so a standing schedule of Case Clinic opportunities can be a boon to any group. Also, for teams that are working on joint projects it can help the entire team acquire a deeper understanding of their situation with regard both to the field of the project and to the field of the team.

Sensing Journeys and Stakeholder Interviews (pp. 6 & 9)

These are each in their own way practical methods for gaining a deeper understanding of a field of investigation and of the perspective of diverse stakeholders within the field.

Social Presencing Theatre (pp. 12 -18)

The various SPT exercises can be the hardest tool within the Theory U kit for new initiates to accept. Indeed, for most it is well outside their normal behaviors and it is precisely for this reason that it is so useful: it engages thinking skills and qualities of perception that are typically underutilized. Despite its apparent abstract nature, when well facilitated or after some practice, it is quick and powerful tool to illustrate a complex adaptive system in a way that is easy to grasp, even for a large number of people.

The 7 Rs of Prototyping (p.45)

While the prototyping process is arguably the least developed phase of Theory U in terms of procedures, the 7 Rs provide a useful framework for evaluating whether an idea is appropriate and ready for prototyping.

The standout distinction I find between Theory U and most other systems design methodologies is the recognition of the inner condition of the designer as a determining factor in the success of an intervention. Starting from this premise, Theory U is designed with the complete integration of a personal transformation process as an essential part of the model. By comparison, in the case of Permaculture we see this recognition arriving decades after the original development of the system and consequently being poorly integrated. The clunky name itself, “Zone 00 Cultivation,” reveals both that it was a later add-on (Zone 0 having already been used) and that it wasn’t fully understood, as Toby Hemenway contends when he argues that it is actually a Sector in the design and not a Zone. Looby Macnamara, on the other hand, simply reorders the Zones in her 'People and Permaculture' to establish the Self as Zone 0.  To this day, is appears as if the Zone 00 concept and processes to support it are still poorly understood and unevenly disseminated by many Permaculture teachers and practitioners alike.

When we look at design processes such as GSADIE, it is important to recognize that these are not intended as fully integrative design systems themselves but as processes to employ within a larger context. Thus the absence of a personal development component is not relevant as the practitioner is assumed, at least if working within the field of ecosocial design, to be engaging in complementary personal development processes. A more useful comparison might be to ask how these methods compare to Theory U as a design tool. If for the comparison to be fair we recognize a priori that “the inner condition of the intervener” is a key factor in how well they will use either tool, we will assume the same Designer using both tools and having sufficiently developed their “inner condition” to use Theory U correctly in the first place. In this case, it might appear as if GSADIE and it ilk are the faster, more agile tools. However, if the designer is already liable to use similar practices of inquiry, the same level of care, and to keep the Seven principles of Presencing in focus during the Goals, Survey, and Analysis phases as they would during Co-Initiating, Co-Sensing (Learning Journeys, Stakeholder Interviews, or their equivalents), and Presencing (Sensemaking tools), then the outcomes are likely to be similar.

One key distinction is the practice of beginning with Goals. Unless the goal is something broad, such as “identify the source of problem X and design a solution” then there is a danger of leaping to “fix it” mode. In other words, the designer is susceptible to acting from Downloading and compromising their ability to access deep listening if they are asked to identify their intended outcomes from the beginning. Knowing that there is a problem, but admitting that you don’t know the cause and therefore can’t possibly imagine an appropriate intervention is a core premise of Theory U which sets it apart it from these other methods and opens the door for, indeed requires, deep inquiry.

Looked at differently, it is possible that diverse design processes could shine if utilized within Theory U to compensate for weaknesses within that system. For instance, whereas Theory U does provide some important principles and criteria for initiating the Prototyping process, I have heard several facilitators and practitioners comment that this is the weakest part of the process.  The Presencing Institute continues to refine this phase, but even for experienced practitioners, principles such as “Listen to the Universe” can be a bit “woo woo” for quick and dirty prototyping work. Thus, a process like GSADIE with it’s integrated Evaluation phase and inherent implication of reiteration can prove a useful complement to the Prototyping Principles and Criteria of Theory U (Sourcebook, p.45). In a similar vein, PI's implementation of Prototyping for C4C borrowed from the Lean Canvas methodology for business planning with the adoption of a Prototype Canvas. 

In summary, Theory U's uniqueness as a design methodology lies primarily in its explicit incorporation of criteria and methodology for personal development as an inherent part of the process.  Absent that, it is similar in broad strokes to design process found in other disciplines such as Permaculture, Transition Design, the Disrupt Design method, Human Centered Design, etc., and can in fact benefit from the adoption of tools and techniques refined in those in some instances.  That said, this integration between the design method and the cultivation of the designer is an important development in the field, and hopefully paves the way for other methodolgies to consider the importance of the inner condition of the intervener.

Theory U is a comprehensive systems analysis and design practice that understands and accounts for the importance of personal development and transformation at all levels of the field, from the designer to the entirety of implicated stakeholders. It’s analysis of the source of society’s prevailing challenges is simple and succinct and builds on the work of systems thinkers as far back as Aristotle and as contemporary as Peter Senge. The main author, Otto Scharmer, is a learned and experienced practitioner of systems analysis and design and the process he has co-created in collaboration with many wise and thoughtful participants is complete and effective. While its absorption and comprehension by those uninitiated in systems thinking can be challenged by the “jargoniness” of Scharmer’s language, talented facilitators are continuously improving ways to convey it. Indeed, Theory U is a living and growing model and the Presencing Institute itself continues to refine and improve both its content and its presentation in deep collaboration with an extensive field of practitioners. For the world-changer seeking a complete, versatile, and integrative process it is an excellent starting place.  Just be prepared to be changed by what you learn!