One reason is that each team member brings to the group fundamental differences in his or her way of working and seeing that are usually not recognized and accommodated. These differences can create discomfort or conflict that consumes energy rather than releasing it for creativity and new learning. When the differences are known and understood, however, they can be utilized for superior team functioning.

For example, imagine that a four person team has been assigned the task of creating a human resource development training program for their organization. It becomes clear from the outset that each member has a distinctly different point of view. Even before they get into the assignment, one team member wants definitions — he wants to know precisely what is meant by the terms “human resources” and “development,” and what the long-term purpose of the training is.

Another person believes it is more critical to know what has been done in the past — she wants more data to set the context for considering next steps. She asks what has worked in the past and what the measurable results have been.

The third member of the group is most focused on assessing and promoting the comfort level of each team member, including himself. He wants to feel that the group is harmonized before they discuss the task. He is concerned with the individual relevance of the proposed program, and the personal implications for the people who will participate in it.

Finally, the fourth member of the team simply wants to move forward. She can’t understand why the team doesn’t just begin with something innovative and untested. It is evident to her that human resources requires sustained development, so she thinks, “Why all the discussion? Let’s put out some ideas and take some action.”

As each team member works to resolve his or her own needs, conflict builds within the group. None of the members can understand why the others are not “hearing” them. The frustration gradually builds until it reaches a point at which the group may not be able to address the task effectively.

Human Dynamics

Underneath the dynamics described above are some fundamental distinctions in the way people function. The study of Human Dynamics, which began in 1979 and has involved more than 40,000 people from over 25 cultures, is devoted to understanding these distinctions. It has resulted in new awareness — both of individuals’ unique personality systems and of the interactions of these systems in the larger contexts of the family, the classroom, the workplace, and the community. With such an understanding, we can begin to build on the synergy of different learning processes to enhance our dialogues and to create more effective teams and organizations.

The Core Universal Principles

Human Dynamics focuses on exploring the interaction of three universal principles: the mental, the emotional (or relational), and the physical (or practical). Each of these principles is critical in the development of a complete and balanced person.

The mental principle in the human system is related to the mind — to thinking, values, structure, focus, objectivity, and perspective. The emotional principle is more subjective. It is concerned with relationships — with communication, organization, feelings, and putting things together in new ways (creativity). The physical principle is pragmatic. It is the making, doing, and operationalizing part of ourselves.

These three principles combine in nine possible variations to form distinct ways of functioning, which we term “personality dynamics.” Five of these personality dynamics predominate in Western cultures, while two of the five predominate in the Far East. Each constitutes a whole way of functioning, characterized by distinctive processes of learning, communicating, problem-solving, relating to others, contributing to teams, maintaining well-being, and responding to stress. Each has distinctive ways of handling change, and each has a characteristic path of development.

The personality dynamics appear in every culture, characterize males and females equally, and can be observed at every age level. One of the many distinguishing features of the Human Dynamics perspective is that it is possible to identify the personality dynamic in childhood, even in infancy, thus providing invaluable information for parents and teachers on the specific educational and developmental needs of their children and students. Part of the research has involved tracking the development of children over the course of many years. The personality dynamic remains consistent over time, but is expressed with increasing maturity.

It is essential to understand that Human Dynamics is a developmental paradigm. Every personality dynamic has an embedded capacity for maturation, though the path of development toward wholeness is distinct for each. A spiritual dimension, termed the Deep Capacity, is also recognized. Maturation involves integration and development of the mental, emotional, and physical aspects of each personality dynamic, and fuller expression of the Deep Capacity.

Another distinctive feature of the Human Dynamics approach is that no testing is required. People identify their own personality dynamic through a process of discovery, and are helped to recognize the personality dynamics of others through sensitive observation and participation.

It is important to note that each personality dynamic is of equal value. Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, compassionate, skilled, or gifted. It is the way in which each dynamic functions that is entirely distinct.

The implications of recognizing these distinctions for the development of learning communities is profound. People really do learn, communicate, relate, and develop in fundamentally different ways. Awareness and understanding of the distinctions offer new opportunities for self-understanding and growth; for improved communication and positive relationships; and for teamwork that utilizes the gifts of each member in conscious synergy. Each whole system potentially complements the others, enhancing the overall functioning of a team or organization.

Personality Dynamics

Below are thumbnail sketches of each of the five predominant personality dynamics, with particular emphasis on their functioning in teams:

Mentally Centered. The mentally centered plan from the top down, from the abstract to the particular, and back again. They usually have a gift for long-range perspective and for logical planning to achieve long-term goals. They ask the essential questions, often beginning with “Why?”

Their sensitivity to basic principles and precepts enables them to offer “course correction” should a group begin to stray from its purpose or vision. Because of their natural objectivity and affinity for perspective, they are often able to articulate the principle or overarching consideration that unifies seemingly disparate views.

However, they may often be silent in a group. One reason for this is that they typically feel no need to articulate a point if someone else is making it. Also, because they process internally, think logically, and like to articulate their point of view precisely, they may have difficulty finding space to contribute in a less orderly group process. Their silence should not be interpreted as aloofness or non-involvement. They can be helped to contribute if asked questions.

Phrases commonly used by mentally centered people include: “What exactly is the purpose?” “What are the long-term implications?” “What exactly do you mean by…?”

Emotional-Mental (also called Emotional-Objective.) Emotional objective people are emotional about their ideas, which they often express with great intensity. One of the main functions of this group is to initiate; they light the fires of new endeavors. Movement is their inner directive. They want to establish the direction of a task, its purpose and value, and then move into action as soon as possible, learning as they go. They are usually adept at creating beginning structures that allow a process to take form.

Theirs is a brainstorming, experimental, open-ended “R&D” process in which new possibilities and lines of inquiry are offered and explored, typically directed toward the short-term future. It is often assumed that this group wants to “take charge,” when in fact they are usually simply living their natural function of breaking new ground.

The processing of emotional objective people is primarily external — they think on their feet. In teams, this group frequently begins the discussion, facilitates the interplay of ideas, and wants to keep the process moving forward. Phrases you may hear from emotional-objective people include: “Let’s put all the ideas on the board and prioritize.” “The details can wait–first let’s create a general structure.” “It’s good enough.” “Let’s go!”

Emotional-Physical (also called Emotional-Subjective). Emotional subjective people respond to tasks (as to all of life) in a personal way. They feel the personal implications of any undertaking, both for themselves and for others who may be involved or affected. In order to explore, understand, and become comfortable with these implications, they need time to engage in extensive intrapersonal and interpersonal processing. They require dialogue that involves exploring their own feelings and those of others, as well as related personal experiences, while at the same time dealing with the problem or assignment itself. They learn most readily through interpersonal exchange.

One of the core motivations of emotional-subjective people is to create and sustain harmony. In a team situation they therefore have a double task — that of maintaining group harmony while simultaneously addressing the team’s purposes and issues. Emotional-subjective people are usually highly insightful regarding the “people issues” involved. They are highly intuitive, but are not always able to explain these feelings rationally in the moment. Given time for processing, the emotional-subjective person will usually come to a rational understanding of his/her intuition and be able to recommend an appropriate action. The intuitive capacities and creative skills of emotional-subjective people are natural resources that organizations often waste.

Phrases that are familiar to emotional-subjective people are: “Is that comfortable for you?” “I need time to process before I can take another step.” “My gut feeling is…”.

Physical-Emotional. Physical-emotional people are natural systems thinkers. In any undertaking, they spend the longest time gathering data, assimilating and synthesizing it — an organic process that mostly takes place internally, and takes its own time. The result, if sufficient time is allowed, is a plan or product that is detailed, comprehensive, and systemically linked.

On teams, physical-emotional members are often people of few words, preferring communication that is factual, down-to-earth, and pragmatic. It is sometimes difficult for them to contribute to a team process if the pace is not sufficiently deliberate, but because they see and think in terms of whole systems, they may have a great deal to say on any particular issue if they are given the opportunity. They absorb enormous amounts of factual information, and their capacity to remember detail is usually prodigious. They are capable of summing up the content of any meeting because they are natural recorders of everything said. However, they may not be ready to give their conclusions regarding the meeting until a later occasion, when they have had time to assimilate all that has occurred.

Phrases you might hear from a physical-emotional person include: “I need some sense of the parameters.” “Can you give me more context?” “We need to expose them to the actual experience, not just talk about it.”

Physical-Mental. The physical-mental group shares many of the characteristics of the physical-emotional group. They, too, are pragmatic, need a considerable amount of context, and take in a great deal of information. However, they are more selective of the data they take in and begin to structure it more quickly around the purpose, which they want to clearly establish from the beginning. Like the physical-emotional, they think and plan systemically, but in less detail. They therefore tend to move to action more quickly.

Like the mentally centered, they have natural gifts for objectivity, structure, and long-range strategic planning. Unlike the mentally centered, however, they tend to work from the concrete to the abstract — from current reality to future outcomes — so they gather more factual detail. Phrases you might hear from a physical-mental person include: “What is the purpose?” “What is the current reality?” “Let’s make a model to clarify this…”.

Human Dynamics and the Five Disciplines

Human Dynamics provides a foundation of human understanding and development that facilitates implementation of each of the five disciplines identified by Peter Senge as crucial in building learning communities.

Systems Thinking. Human Dynamics offers the opportunity for including in any process the most fundamental system of all, the human system. Human Dynamics looks at people as distinct learning systems. Each individual is acknowledged as representing a specific whole system of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual interaction and expression. Further, each personality dynamic system is recognized as functioning as an essential component of an interactive system that includes all of the personality dynamics. Not only are the needs and gifts and processes of all of the individual personality dynamics taken into account, but so is their dynamic complementarity. Groups on any scale, whether a family unit, project team, organization, or even the human race, can be viewed as a system of interaction of the different personality dynamics.

Mental Models. Human Dynamics demonstrates how each of the personality dynamics operates from a fundamentally distinct experiential base. Therefore, each brings to any discussion or endeavor a specific perspective and set of assumptions that differ from those of the other personality dynamics. One purpose of the Human Dynamics work is to make these distinctions clear, so that an individual’s words or actions can be understood in the context of that person’s basic “way of being.” This helps assure greater mutual understanding and more empathic communication.

Personal Mastery. Every aspect of Human Dynamics is concerned with personal mastery, beginning with the most essential requisite of all — knowledge of oneself. Human Dynamics programs involve a voyage of discovery — about oneself, others, and the different processes of communication, problem-solving, learning, and developing, and about what can be done in light of these discoveries to optimize how we live and learn and work together.

Human Dynamics looks at people as distinct learning systems. Each individual is acknowledged as representing a specific whole system of mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual interaction and expression.

Shared Vision. The quality of a shared vision depends upon the visionary capacity of the individual participants. From the perspective of Human Dynamics, the capacity for vision is an attribute of the mental principle. However, the vision must also include people’s needs (emotional principle) and a way to bring the vision into being (physical principle). Combining exercises for the development of the three principles in a visioning session can produce a much more inclusive and qualitative personal or collective vision, in which head, heart, deep aspiration, and actualizing intent are all represented.

Team Learning. Awareness and understanding of the different personality dynamics is an essential ingredient in qualitative team functioning.

The team developing the human resource training program, for example, would have begun their process at a completely different place of understanding, respect, and empowerment if they had had a framework for understanding each other’s ways of learning and operating. This particular team was fortunate to have the diversity of perspective of one mentally centered, one physical-emotional, one emotional-subjective, and one emotional objective person. However, without a framework for understanding and integrating their distinct gifts so as to achieve a common goal, the group became mired in a frustrating and unproductive process.

Not only can existing teams learn to function more harmoniously and productively, but balanced teams can be consciously assembled in which the various personality dynamics are all represented. As many organizations are currently discovering, such a team can turn its attention to almost anything with success because the results will integrate the natural gifts and way of seeing of each of the personality dynamics.

When teams (or families, groups, or communities) are conscious of the distinctions, the differences become assets rather than liabilities, and the performance of the team indeed becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Human Dynamics programs are currently being disseminated in the fields of business, education, healthcare, and community development.

Sandra Seagal is founder and president of Human Dynamics International (Topanga, CA) and executive director of Human Dynamics Foundation. Both organizations are devoted to the development, empowerment, and sustainment of individual and collective human potential.

David Horne has been involved in the development of Human Dynamics since 1983.Together they coauthored Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations (Pegasus Communications, 1997).

The post Human Dynamics: A Foundation for the Learning Organization appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Both people were convinced that their perspective was right. The technical leader was focused on the longer term — what he knew could be done to delight the customer 12 months down the road. The business manager, on the other hand, was focused on the customers’ present needs. She wanted the team to look at the problems that needed to be solved in the next product release, due out in three months. The argument escalated until the two were shouting at each other across the table.

Although it appeared that the two perspectives were in opposition, the truth was that both people were in violent agreement on the underlying value of meeting the customer’s needs. Their conflict was due to fundamental distinctions in the way they thought about, processed, and perceived the world. The technical leader was focused on the longer-term vision, while the business manager was focused on the next practical step — both equally important and valuable perspectives that held the customer as the number one priority.

Fortunately, another team member noticed this distinction and explained what was happening. He pointed out how their different personality dynamics were leading to this disconnect, and that they really were on the same track in many ways. The two players both stopped in silence, suddenly realizing how they were caught up in their own perspectives. Meanwhile, another engineer, expressing his characteristic gift of empathy, admitted, “And 1 feel your pain!” Everyone in the room broke up with laughter, releasing the tension that they, too, felt. The group was then able to move on and develop some productive solutions that would serve the customers’ long-term needs, while still addressing the immediate issues that needed to be resolved.

Human Dynamics

This incident, which took place earlier this year within Digital’s Networks Software Group, is an example of how many people are beginning to apply a fundamental new understanding about how human beings function, called Human Dynamics”’. This technology has been researched and developed by Dr. Sandra Seagal since 1979, and it offers a frame-work for understanding differences in the way people learn, communicate, relate, and develop as human beings. Human Dynamics presents a systemic approach to the complexities and wonders of human functioning that is clear, logical, and structured, yet broad and flexible enough to encompass the infinite nuances that make each of us unique human beings (see “Human Dynamics: An Overview”).

Human Dynamics was introduced into Digital Equipment Corporation in 1993, and it has since become a central part of everyday functioning for people in many groups across the organization. Some say it has become as fundamental as knowing the alphabet — so much a part of the way they think and communicate that they take it for granted.

The Beginning

It all began in August 1992, when we in the Networks Group recognized that Human Dynamics was a critical technology that could enhance and leverage Digital’s return to profitability. That was also the beginning of two years of restructuring, downsizing, and cost containment, which was the mandate if we were to survive as a viable company.

As the company launched itself into that difficult work, our concern was, “What are we doing for the survivors?” Research statistics on large corporations who downsize clearly show that only a fraction of them actually return to profitability — and an even smaller fraction return to previous levels of employee productivity and morale. From our prior work with systems thinking and learning skills, we knew that the most fundamental obstacle to improved product quality and customer satisfaction — and hence profitability — lay in the absence, avoidance, or break-down of authentic communication between human beings (see “A Journey Through Organizational Change,” April 1995).

Our work in Human Dynamics initially started as a “grass-roots” effort. Funds were “tincupped” from five concerned middle managers and used to train two people to become licensed Human Dynamics facilitators. When they returned from their training, the two facilitators could hardly stop talking about the power of Human Dynamics for helping build team synergy and productivity. Soon the first formal request for a workshop came in. In May 1993 this workshop was delivered, and it received an evaluation of 5.5 on a 6-point scale.

That same month, Sandra Seagal and David Home came to Digital in Littleton, MA, and delivered a workshop for the Networks Group vice president and his newly forming leadership team. As a result of this experience, the team was able to recognize, understand, and appreciate the special gifts that each of them brought to their work — knowledge they used over the next several months as they established Digital’s core Networking Business.

A Boost In the Middle

From initial experiences like these, word of the power and usefulness of Human Dynamics soon spread. For example, a program manager needed some critical decisions to be made by a technical leader. She knew her own personality dynamic and his, and she was aware of the distinctions and potential points of conflict in their communication processes: she would naturally approach the issue by building up from the details until the structure emerged, whereas he would identify the principles and structure first, and then fill in the details. Knowing this, she designed her communication to best suit his process, by starting with the structure first. As a result, they secured the required decision in one 15-minute conversation. Prior to her understanding of the significance of personality dynamics, the same issue would have been addressed through multiple two-hour arguments and discussions. While the result might have been the same, the cost — in terms of time, energy, and goodwill — would have been much greater.

Such anecdotes drew the attention of the late Peter Conklin, who was then serving as leader of the Engineering Excellence Program. He saw the importance of this work in engineering, where teams deal with increasingly complex issues that require the clearest possible communication to make rapid decisions that are also sustainable. So, in January 1994, Peter funded the training of four new facilitators — and Human Dynamics became an official educational program under the auspices of Digital’s Engineering Excellence Program.

Over the next four months, we began offering four to five workshops per month, each one jointly facilitated by two of our Human Dynamics facilitators. Workshops were delivered to “intact” teams who focused on delivering a product, service, or specific set of results. These teams usually spanned organizational, functional, and hierarchical boundaries.

We were very encouraged by the ongoing requests for workshops. Our past experience showed that the best indicator for the value or usefulness of any new technology is the level of continued demand. Since the Human Dynamics work began as a bottom-up effort, and continued as a middle-across effort through the Engineering Excellence program, we knew that no one was seeking a workshop just because he or she was being pressured by upper management.

Naturally, there were people who were somewhat skeptical of what they saw as another “team-building” workshop. Engineers in particular (who made up about half of the participants) were very wary of what they called “touchy-feely” stuff. The vast majority of these skeptics, however, saw the practical value of Human Dynamics by the end of the first day of training. This was in large part due to the open, interactive process of the workshop, and the fact that it centers on self-identification. In addition, people seemed to appreciate the holistic nature of the Human Dynamics technology, along with its recognition of each individual’s intrinsic value and infinite developmental capacity.

A few people (about 3%) continued to be skeptical, even after the training, because of their fundamental objection to any form of categorization or “labeling,” as they saw it. These negative reactions were rooted in past experiences with traditional typologies, where people were not only categorized by an “expert,” but they often felt judged as being of lesser value than other types. There is no such value judgment inherent in the Human Dynamics work, but it clearly remains a concern for some people.

A Setback

While the groundwork in Human Dynamics was being laid, Digital was still struggling to get back on its feet financially. The quarter ending in December 1993 was a profitable one — the first in a very long while. It felt good, but many of us were afraid that it was only a “blip” on the screen due to short-term actions and symptomatic fixes. As it turned out, the company was seriously back in the red the following quarter. As a result, starting in May 1994, the company underwent the severest belt-tightening yet. Among many things, this included an immediate stop to most training expenses. Overnight, the Human Dynamics program came to a halt. Even worse, five of our six Human Dynamics facilitators left the company as a result of cutbacks in overhead functions.

Yet although no new people were being trained in Human Dynamics, those that had been trained continued to use their understandings to work more effectively. One group vice president faced a reporting structure above her that changed four times during this period. Fortunately, she knew her own personality dynamic and that of each new manager. From her Human Dynamics training, she understood what this meant in terms of differences in communication preferences, and the way they each approached problem solving and decision making. So she used her understanding to tailor her communication to each person, consciously using the most helpful language for that individual. As a result, she continued to get much of the support she needed for the success of her business, despite the many changes in the hierarchy above her.

Many of us using Human Dynamics at Digital continued to deepen our understanding of the methodology through tutorials and lunchtime, “brownbag” seminars. The aim was to share our actual experiences with Human Dynamics and to coach people in its everyday application. By this time, we were using Human Dynamics as a kind of short-hand that alerted us to listen more effectively to each other by understanding the special gifts and perspectives that each of us brings.

By late 1994, the company was finishing the final stages of its restructuring, and it was settling down to about 60,000 employees world-wide — half its original size. The moratorium on training expenses began to lighten. After a seven-month hiatus, a Human Dynamics workshop was delivered in December 1994. As before, word quickly spread and more requests followed.

Margaret Ledger, the new manager of Digital’s Technical Competency Development Group (TCDG), began to see Human Dynamics as a foundational technology for effective project team leadership and operation across the company. With support from key people in the newly formed business segments, including Peter Conklin and Jean Proulx, Margaret incorporated Human Dynamics into the TCDG’s core curriculum, to be delivered on demand across the company. Once again, Human Dynamics is formally embedded in a “middle-across” program, this time alongside the delivery of technical training such as C++, Object Oriented Design, and Windows 95.

Sustainment

Today, Human Dynamics has reached almost 600 people across the company, and the demand for more workshops is steady. In April 1995, three new facilitators were trained.

A key challenge we now face is to establish more frequent and regular mechanisms for sharing experiences and offering “refresher” seminars. Also, we have yet to learn how to surface the really difficult “undiscussables” that Chris Argyris talks about. But we do know that Human Dynamics has given us an immensely valuable springboard from which to begin this work.

Digital has now enjoyed three consecutive profitable quarters. But many of us feel that we cannot sustain this forward momentum without enabling the continued empowerment, connection, and creative potential of each and every employee. What better foundational technology to utilize than Human Dynamics, which goes to the very core of human functioning and development. We hope, in time, to build on our bottom-up and middle-across success and add a third and final piece to the strategy of Human Dynamics at Digital—top-down engagement and action.

Chris Strutt Is a consulting engineer, Systems Thinking Methods, in the Network Integration Software Segment at Digital Equipment Corporation. She is also a senior facilitator of the Human Dynamics Program for Individual and Team Empowerment.

Editorial support for this article was provided by Kellie Wardman O’Reilly.

The post Individual and Team Empowerment: Human Dynamics at Digital appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

John’s comment seems more prescient as our world becomes increasingly interconnected. Events in one place can literally echo around the world in a matter of hours or even minutes. Formerly secure enclaves of homogeneity can no longer live in isolation from one another. Gradually, we are realizing that our lives are affected by many people who are different from us. The “systems age,” as John pointed out, is really, in more personal terms, the “age of diversity.”

So it should come as no surprise that societies everywhere in the world are struggling with how to live harmoniously with difference. Few are succeeding. Corporations endeavoring to become more “global” are finding that what globalism means in personal terms is working across cultural boundaries. Private- and public-sector organizations alike are wrestling with increasingly diverse workforces — in many areas, groups previously labeled “minorities” in the U.S. now constitute majorities.

But the challenge of understanding diversity does not apply just to cultural, ethnic, or racial diversity. Within organizations, there are many diverse subcultures, such as the functional “silos” or “chimneys” that divide manufacturing, sales, marketing, and research. Often, little real understanding, empathy, and cooperation exist between subcultures. In the old hierarchical model, the name of the game was “do your job and please the boss.” Now it’s about working and learning with people whose experience, education, gender, and professional affiliation all differ.

But diversity can just as easily represent an opportunity as a problem. Difference is the wellspring of innovation. People who see the world differently have fresh ideas and see new possibilities. Difference is what makes life challenging and surprising. Although predictability may afford comfort, it also stultifies creativity and imagination. Qualities we value deeply, like harmony and beauty, spring from diversity — a rainbow is far more beautiful than a single color, and a chorus moves us with its blend of different voices.

Of Categories and People

The challenge of working productively with diversity begins with understanding how we perceive others. Recognizing differences requires making distinctions. But most distinctions we invoke regarding people are based on inherited assumptions and unexamined stereotypes. Those distinctions then become the basis for automatic judgments and evaluations, which then reinforce the stereotypes. The basic problem is two-fold: (1) most categories we invoke are inherently evaluative; and (2) we tend to invoke and act on these categories automatically, with little awareness of how these assumptions are actually driving our perceptions and actions.

Given this dual challenge, many theorists have advocated explicit, nonjudgmental sets of distinctions for understanding differences. Some of those have become well known and widely used. Today there are literally dozens of such category systems being taught to educators, managers, and other professionals interested in dealing with difference more effectively. Using such approaches, we can come to appreciate the different ways that people learn, solve problems, and interact with others.

But although they can be useful, I have always been somewhat uneasy with the “categorization systems” I have been taught. Part of me rebelled against the feeling of being “put into a box.” I also worried about just embedding another set of categories invoked automatically. What about this approach, I wondered, will make us more aware of how we invoke categories in thinking about ourselves and each other?

Human Dynamics

One framework for understanding human functioning that does provide a way to become more aware of how we view ourselves and others is Human Dynamics (see “Human Dynamics: An Overview”). Given my apprehension about category systems, the first thing that surprised me when I was introduced to Human Dynamics five years ago was that it felt comfortable, although I had no idea why. Even before I understood it fully, it was compelling — it made deep sense.

Over time, I began to see how deeply each distinct “personality system” within Human Dynamics was appreciated and valued. This experience helped me understand one of my past difficulties with category systems: in learning most theories, 1 did form judgments. I did think it was better to be one kind of person rather than another. I was secretly proud of the way I was. My old habits of judgment and evaluation were subtly reinforced. But as I learned Human Dynamics, nothing like that happened. One of the foundational strengths of Human Dynamics, I now realize, is that the differences among the personality dynamics are truly a source of richness to be celebrated and appreciated, without any implicit judgment.

There is also a kind of “meta-theory” underlying Human Dynamics: that all human kings are questing for wholeness, although our developmental paths vary. Understanding the “developmental continuum” for each personality dynamic is very different from being “stuck in a box.” It leads to seeing each of us as a process rather than a thing. As I have come to appreciate this more fully, I am gradually seeing new and unexpected aspects of myself and others. I am becoming more curious, more open to surprise. Perhaps this is the key to a system that actually makes us more rather than less conscious in our dealings with each other.

The Coming Knowledge Era

Today, we hear much talk about the “knowledge-based economy” and about knowledge and learning as the key competitive advantage in business. What we don’t often realize is that behind such statements is a simple mandate: we must understand people better and more deeply than ever before, and must therefore embed in our institutions a continual curiosity to understand ourselves and each other. During the industrial age, people were fundamentally viewed as a type of resource “standing in reserve” to support an organization’s needs. The industrial age thus required only rudimentary understanding of human nature, because most workers served essentially as interchangeable parts.

But the knowledge era will require much more sophistication in understanding one another. Knowledge matters only when it is embodied in people. Likewise, knowledge is generated only by people. So if knowledge and learning are indeed becoming a key source of competitive advantage, the industrial-age view of people will have to change. In the future, understanding the diversity of human functioning will play a central role in the success and sustainability of both organizations and societies. Human Dynamics, with its simple, yet elegant, framework for understanding the diversity of human functioning will be an important part of this process. Nothing less will suffice in order for businesses to thrive, schools to offer genuine opportunities for growth and learning for all children, and societies throughout the world to be peaceful and to nurture a sense of community and belonging for all.

Peter M. Senge Is director of the MIT Center for Organizational Learning.

This article was excerpted from the forward to the book, Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations, (Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communications), 1996.

Further Reading: Sandra Seaga! and David Home. “Human Dynamics: A Foundation for the Learning Organization.” The Systems Thinker. May 1994.

The post The Need to Understand One Another appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

What Is Human Dynamics?

Human Dynamics is a body of work that identifies and illuminates innate distinctions in the way people function as whole systems that include mental, emotional, and physical dimensions. It is the result of an ongoing investigation launched 24 years ago that has so far involved more than 80,000 people from over 25 cultures. From this research, we discovered that three universal principles – mental, emotional, and physical – combine in people in specific patterns characterized by distinctly different ways of processing information, learning, communicating, relating to others, solving problems, undertaking tasks, and, as a result, exercising leadership and contributing to groups or teams. These different “ways of being” appear to be so foundational in the human make-up that they can be seen the world over, identified at every age level (even in infancy), and observed in males and females equally. In other words, these distinctions are more fundamental to who we are and how we function than age, race, culture, or gender.

We have identified nine of these distinct human systems, or “personality dynamics.” Of these, five appear to be by far the most prevalent. The individuals representing these groups have characteristic gifts and affinities for certain ways of functioning. They flourish and contribute best under certain conditions. Most importantly, they have their own distinctive paths of development.

Being aware of and understanding these natural, inherent differences is significant for developing successful and effective human relationships of all kinds – for leading and partnering with others in the workplace, for developing loving and supportive family relationships, and for successful teaching and learning. When we don’t recognize and take into account these differences, we fall prey to misunderstanding others and misinterpreting their behavior; poor communication; less than optimum teamwork; and, in class and training settings, teaching approaches that do not “match” students’ specific learning processes. When we do understand the differences, the way is open for us to acknowledge and appreciate diverse ways of functioning; to see and adapt to others’ needs; and to relate, manage, and teach in ways that enable each group member to perform at his or her best. We are able to consciously utilize our own and others’ distinctive processes and capacities to achieve optimal individual and group performance.

The Three Principles

Let us first briefly explain what we mean when we refer to each of the three principles – mental, emotional, and physical. The Mental Principle is related to the mind. It is expressed in thinking, seeing things from a detached perspective, formulating a purpose or vision, seeing the overview, setting structure, and establishing principles and values.

The Emotional Principle is concerned with forming relationships. It is the subjective part of us that knows and values the world of feelings in ourselves and others; that needs and offers personal communication; and that relates, organizes, and collaborates. We express the Emotional Principle when we make new connections among diverse elements and exercise our creative imagination.

The Physical Principle is that part of us that is most down-to-earth and practical. It is expressed in making, doing, actualizing, and operationalizing. The Physical Principle has to do with the realm of the senses, rather than that of the mind or the emotions. It is concerned with understanding the operation of systems, both natural and human-made, and with creating effective systems of operation.

All of these dimensions are active in all people, but to varying degrees and in various combinations (see “The Mental, Emotional, and Physical Principles”).

It is also important to note that each of these principles is of equal value. They are all needed in the functioning and development of a whole and balanced person. We could also say that all are equally needed for the functioning of a whole and balanced organization.

At this point, pause and ask yourself, “With which of these principles am I most comfortable and familiar? Which do I express most easily and naturally? Could I benefit from some development or help with one of these areas?” As we shall see, individuals are generally more comfortable and familiar with two of the principles, while the third is often less known, developed, and utilized.

Mental, Emotional, and Physical Centering

While all of us have mental, emotional, and physical dimensions, we have discovered that people seem to be “wired” in such a way that one of these three principles is central in each individual’s functioning. People are “centered” mentally (rationally), emotionally (relationally), or physically (pragmatically) (see “Centering”).

Of course, each human system comprises a continual interplay of mental, emotional, and physical life. Nevertheless, each person is characterized by a central process that is specific and consistent. The principle at our core determines how we typically take in and process information.

Mentally centered people process information in a logical and sequential way. They are also characterized characterized by an innate detachment. They experience life as if they were standing on a hilltop, so they naturally maintain a birds-eye view on events and a long-term perspective.

Emotionally centered people, on the other hand, process information in a non-linear, associative, interactive way that incorporates feelings and intuition, rather than through a strictly rational process. This relatively spontaneous way of proceeding often results in the generation of new ideas and the exploration of new avenues of thought or action that might not have emerged through a more linear process. For emotionally centered people, engaging in dialogue with others is essential as a means of clarifying thoughts, feelings, and intuitions, as well as for establishing the sense of personal connection with others that makes life meaningful for them.

Finally, physically centered people process information in a systemic way – they gather and assimilate large amounts of data, and think in terms of the interconnections that make up whole systems of functioning. Because of their affinity for the systemic, they may be fascinated by the patterns they observe in the flow of events across time, from past to present and projected into the future, or they may have a keen interest in, and sense for, how things work mechanically.

Five Predominant Personality Dynamics

We have found that there are three variations on each of these major themes. Mentally centered people may be “mental-mental,” “mental-emotional,” or “mental-physical.” Emotionally centered people may be “emotional-mental,” “emotional-emotional,” or “emotional-physical.” And physically centered people may be “physical-mental,” “physical-emotional,” or “physical-physical,” making nine personality dynamics in all. Whereas the first principle indicates how one processes information, the second indicates what one processes – the kind of material that is the natural focus of attention. (This interaction will become clearer when we outline particular personality dynamics.)

CENTERING

While all of us have mental, emotional, and physical dimensions, people seem to be “wired” in such a way that one of these three principles is central in each individual’s functioning. People are “centered” mentally (rationally), emotionally (relationally), or physically (pragmatically).

Of these nine possible systems of functioning, we have found that five are by far the most prevalent – mental-physical, emotional-mental, emotional-physical, physical-mental, and physical-emotional. Any group of people – the members of a management or project team, a department, the students in a classroom, family members seated around the dinner table, a meeting of heads of state – will include some combination of these five different ways of being “wired,” with their distinctly different natural processes of learning, communicating, problem-solving, relating, developing, and so on.

Following are brief thumbnail sketches of each of these five most commonly encountered personality dynamics. These summaries provide a basic sense of their similarities and distinctions, and also of the misinterpretations of each that commonly arise as a result of their particular ways of functioning.

Mental-Physical. As we have already indicated, the thinking process of mental-physical people is linear, logical, and sequential (mental principle), and it is focused upon operations in the external world (physical principle) – as opposed to emotional data. Because of their “hilltop” perspective, they tend to focus on the long term and to think in relation to enduring principles and values. Because of their innate detachment, their emotional life is typically extremely even. Mental-physical people offer teams emotional stability, objectivity, and their gift for selecting and articulating what is essential – key points, principles, values, goals, and information. They value clarity; for this reason, they often prefer written communication. They are usually precise and meticulous in any task that they undertake.

Mental-physical people often ask the questions “Why?” and “What do you mean by…?” But they are frequently silent in groups, either because they feel no need to speak if others are saying what needs to be said, or because they think carefully before speaking and cannot find the space to participate if a process is less than orderly. Because of their natural detachment and reticence, and because they do not readily express their feelings, others may interpret mental physical people as being aloof, disengaged, uncaring, or unwilling to be approached. None of these interpretations is necessarily true. If you want to know how a mental-physical person is really thinking or feeling, just ask. Such questions will help him or her to connect and communicate.

Emotional-Mental. Emotional mental people process in a non-linear, associative way (emotional principle) the world of ideas (mental principle). They deeply enjoy a highly interactive brainstorming kind of communication, in which one idea triggers another, leading to the generation of new ways of thinking or acting. Emotional-mental people typically love movement and change. They are often innovators, drawn to the new and untried. They intuitively sense new possibilities in people, situations, and events, and endeavor to make them happen.

In undertaking new projects, emotional-mental people can move into action with the strong sense of a general direction to be taken, but with minimal data and little or no real prior planning. This experimental movement leads to new experiences, which suggest next steps that may be entirely unanticipated at the beginning. They repeat this process until they reach a satisfactory outcome.

Because emotional-mental people concentrate on the future, they typically recollect very little about the past. They do, however, remember data required for any project that is their current focus of attention – but only until the project is completed. Emotional-mental people usually have little awareness of physical signals from their bodies. They may be able to work long hours with great concentration because they are unaware that they are hungry or tired.

Others may misunderstand emotional-mental people as being either pushy or, because they will initiate movement with little or no prior planning, irresponsible. Instead, they are following their natural instinct to move things forward and light the fires of new endeavors, often relying on others to execute the details.

Emotional-Physical. Emotional-physical people also think in a non-linear, associative way (emotional principle), preferably through dialogue with others, but their focus is on the physical world (physical principle) – especially people! They experience constantly changing emotional responses to their environment and all the objects, people, and events in it. They are sensitive to others’ feelings and often can sense those feelings in their own bodies, even when others aren’t outwardly expressing them. This ability can be a gift, providing helpful information and insights; it can also be a burden, affecting the emotional physical person’s sense of well-being in negative circumstances, or creating confusion about whether feelings experienced are his or her own or those of someone else.

Emotional-physical people value personal connection and communication with others. They bring to teams both a high degree of creative thinking and a concern for creating harmony among group members. The quality of the group’s process is as important to them as the outcomes. However, they can only offer their full capacities if they feel comfortable and “safe.” If they feel threatened or judged in any way, they may withdraw and stay silent.

Emotional-physical people can relive emotion-laden events from the past as if they were occurring again in the present. Sometimes others judge them as “too sensitive,” “using too many words,” or insufficiently logical. The truth is that their sensitivity is a gift to be valued – they use it for understanding individuals and interpersonal situations. Their sometimes extensive communication results from their need to establish personal connections and to ensure that misunderstandings don’t arise. And their non-linear thinking has an emotional logic, frequently reflecting a “knowing” that they cannot rationally explain. Their intuitive gift is often a wasted resource in organizations.

Physical-Mental. Physical-mental people think systemically (physical principle), with a focus on ideas, purposes, and structures (mental principle). They plan consciously, strategically, and systematically. They want to know the purpose of any endeavor and then create a logical step-by-step plan for achieving that purpose. They tend to have a conscious strategy for almost everything they do.

Physical-mental people value efficiency and create systems of operation to achieve it, then refine those systems to make them even more efficient and, if possible, broadly applicable. They like to use models, diagrams, and charts to assist their thinking or communicate their ideas. Physical-mental individuals gather considerable data as a basis for their planning and put it into logical structure quite quickly. They have a capacity for seeing patterns in varied data or in the flow of events, from which they make projections into the future and devise action plans.

Physical-mental people have a detailed memory for data in areas that interest them. In communicating with others, they are always looking for the action to be taken or problem to be solved. They like communication to be factual and organized.

A common misunderstanding about physical-mental people is that they do not care about people or their feelings. This misperception can occur because they may be so focused on results that they may sometimes fail to consider human factors in their planning. Also, they usually find it difficult to express personal feelings. They typically express their caring through their actions rather than their words.

Physical-Emotional. Physical-emotional people process in a systemic way (physical principle) the connections (emotional principle) among data, events, and people in order to comprehend or create whole systems of operation. Their natural process of thinking, planning, and learning is not systematic but organic. When approaching any new endeavor, they immerse themselves in gathering and absorbing data without initially sorting or prioritizing it. (Because for them everything is connected to everything else, they do not always know initially what might be relevant). They then assimilate, sort, and link all of this information in a process that may be as much unconsciously as consciously directed. This process, like digestion, takes its own time, until suddenly everything comes together in a highly detailed, systemic understanding of a situation, plan of action, or product. Because the entire process takes place internally, others may think that “nothing is going on,” when in fact very much is “going on,” though the person may not be able to clearly articulate what it is until the process is complete.

Physical-emotional people are sometimes labeled “slow” in a negative sense. In classrooms they may be categorized as “slow learners,” with the implication that they may not be as smart as other students who respond more quickly. They are not really slow at all, but rather thorough. Their organic process takes time, but they are typically able to assimilate and synthesize more data and comprehend and handle more complex situations than people of any other personality dynamic.

Physical-emotional people typically have a prodigious capacity to remember data. They can recollect events from even the distant past in which they were fully engaged in extraordinary sensory detail. Because physical-emotional people think and experience in terms of interconnections, they appreciate communication that provides “the whole story,” and they often convey information through detailed stories.

Distribution of Personality Dynamics

The personality dynamics that we have identified are not equally prevalent or evenly distributed. Of the five dynamics that we have described, mental-physical people are encountered most rarely – they seem to constitute no more than about 3 percent of the population. The great majority of the world’s people appear to be either emotionally or physically centered.

Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, more or less compassionate, more or less contributive, more or less gifted.

It has been fascinating for us to experience over the years that in the Western cultures in which we, or the facilitators we have trained, have worked extensively (such as North America, Europe, South America, and Israel), we have found a slight majority of people to be emotionally centered and the rest to be physically centered. In Eastern countries in which we have worked, such as Malaysia, China, Singapore, and Japan, we have found by far the great majority of the people to be physically centered. These findings apply even to people of Asian descent whose families have lived in the West for many generations.

We have no explanation for the fact that the two physically centered personality dynamics seem to predominate in the East and the two emotionally centered ones in the West. We simply offer our findings. However, we emphasize that no value judgments adhere to this observation. All of the personality dynamics are equal in value. It is not “better” to be one more than another. Anyone of any personality dynamic may be more or less intelligent, more or less compassionate, more or less contributive, more or less gifted. What is different is how they “are,” think, experience, and go about things. Indeed, we can say that each needs the others for results that are optimal and whole.

Nature vs. Nurture

We have often been asked if we think that this distribution of personality dynamics could be the result of cultural influence. Our experience has led us to believe otherwise, for a number of reasons:

The cultural explanation does not account for the many physically centered people in the West or the emotionally centered people in the East.

If culture created the personality dynamics, then one would expect the many people of Asian background who have been assimilated over generations into Western cultures, and who are not part of an Asian community within the larger community, to show the characteristic processes of the majority in their adoptive cultures. However, we have not observed this to be the case. Although many Asian Americans, for instance, may have adopted more characteristically Western values, their foundational processes of handling information, learning, problem-solving, and so on remain those characteristic of physical centering.

We have come up with the same findings in following infants adopted from the East into families in the West in which both of the adoptive parents were emotionally centered. As these youngsters develop, they may exhibit their parents’ influences in some aspects of their outer behavior – for example, by being somewhat more expressive of their feelings and individually oriented than is typical of their Asian-raised counterparts – but their fundamental processes remain those we have described as characteristic of physical centering.

The evidence indicates, therefore, that while there is a continual interaction between any individual’s personality dynamic and the external environment, the latter neither determines the basic natural processes nor fundamentally alters them. It may influence what one thinks or learns, but not how one naturally thinks or learns.

We are led to assume, therefore, that the distinctions we have identified are inherent and genetically determined. This conclusion is reinforced by our findings that people almost always identify at least one parent as having the same personality dynamic as themselves or, if not, a grandparent.

Implications for the Workplace

These different ways of being and functioning are represented wherever people live, learn, and work together. They are present in every work environment, among management and project teams, in boardrooms and training rooms, in meetings with staff or potential clients, in conference calls with colleagues or strangers from around the globe, and, of course, in classrooms (see “Human Dynamics in Education”). It has been said that 90 percent of the difficulties that organizations face can be attributed to dysfunctional relationships among people. When people develop awareness and understanding of the different personality dynamics, much interpersonal misunderstanding and conflict is avoided. Also a groundwork is laid for developing optimal communication, teamwork, coaching, mentoring, and training. A shared base of understanding enables colleagues to work together more effectively and to consciously leverage one another’s gifts and capacities.

Sandra Seagal and David Horne are the founders and directors of Human Dynamics International, an organization that disseminates unique training programs in the fields of organizational development, education, healthcare, and cross-cultural bridge-building. They are also the founders and directors of the Human Dynamics Institute, which is engaged in original research into the personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal functioning and development of people. Sandra and David are coauthors of Human Dynamics: A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in Our Organizations (Pegasus Communications, 1997) and are working on a new book directed toward parents, teachers, and all who care about children. For more information, go to www.humandynamics.com.

The post Human Dynamics for the 21st Century appeared first on The Systems Thinker.