Theory U: open mind

For the rest of the week I'm going to address one of the three practices for moving deeper into the U – open mind, open heart, and open will. That makes my life relatively easy today, because they get harder to think and write about as they progress. Remember, the central claim of Theory U is that we can "lead from the future" only if we change the interior space from which we as individuals and groups operate. In other words, what matters most in creating effective exterior results is the quality of our own interiority. (The reasons for claiming this are complex, controversial, and to an extent simply a matter of faith.) Getting to this optimum interior state requires opening our mind, opening our heart, and opening our will. In my last post I tried to give an introduction to what these three movements describe. Here I'm going to dig a bit deeper, pulling in references from through the Theory U writings. Before one succeeds in opening the mind Scharmer claims – I think quite correctly – that our default mode of operation is based on habits, customs, expectations, and a lack of self-reflection. Indeed there are strong arguments for why this must be the case, because placing every move and thought and consideration under the loupe would render us utterly unable to function. In other words unreflective action has to be our default modus or else we wouldn't be able to get anything done. But in the Theory U process we are aiming at an exceptional experience that requires us to make that effort an open our minds.

What does Scharmer mean by an open mind? Having an open mind in this sense means suspending those habits, customs, and expectations regarding whatever social system we are confronting and pursuing inquiry and analysis of what is really the case. In short, this is the work of science, of critical thinking, of analytical skills, of gathering and weighing facts to see how they compare with the paradigm we have followed to date. This is the work of the rational, subjective self and work that requires us to suspend the Voice of Judgment. The Voice of Judgment is the one that often speaks as common sense, the voice that tells us not to question the way things seem or what one does in a given state of affairs. To exercise the open mind we must become radical skeptics (if only for a time.)

What does this look like in action? In action I think this movement towards an open mind is quite easy to distinguish. Take a discussion on K-12 education as an example. The closed mind tells us that kids need to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic; it says that science is more useful than music; it says that smaller class sizes are better; it says that we have to have grades to distinguish between students; it says kids should be grouped by age; and so on. In contrast, the open mind first places all of these "accepted idea", these pieces of common sense in question. Are these really true? Could the opposite in fact be the case? Are we totally missing something that would force us to change our minds? And once it has placed these ideas in question it goes to the phenomena itself, to facts, to research, to real, lived experience to see whether the actual state of affairs matches up with what the closed mind has wanted us to believe. Thus, at the simplest level the movement from the closed to the open mind has two parts. First, become aware of what is taken for granted and place it in question. Then, go see whether there's any good reason to continue to believe in those ideas or whether they should be altered, suspended, or discarded.

In our community building efforts, this might seem like a familiar and easy first step. We're used to discussions and meetings where people "ask tough questions" and when writing out job descriptions we often ask for people with "excellent critical thinking skills." And I'm sure we mean it, but just as often the really tough questions and the truly excellent critical thinking skills will crash into forbidden territory, into areas that even those who claim to place everything into question are unwilling to question. In my experience the most common responses are nervousness and silence. Then the social awkwardness brings us right back to jokes or small talk or just another topic. Whew, that was close. But really opening our minds means going there, it means plumbing the true depths of our habits, beliefs, and expectations, it means questioning the immovable monuments of common sense. Pushing on them first just a little, then with more and more force. Are they really anchored so securely?