Foreword

by Ken Wilber

The dictionan definition of business, dry and prosaic, is "occupation, work, trade, commerce; serious, rightfijl, proper endeavor." Conscious means "having an awareness of one's inner and outer worlds; mentally perceptive, awake, mindful." So "conscious business" might mean, engaging in an occupation, work, or trade in a mindful, awake fashion. This implies, of course, that many people do not do so. In my experience, this is often the case. So I would definitely be in favor of conscious business —or conscious anything, for that matter.

That starts to sound interesting. Still, I wonder exactly what "conscious" or "mindful" might mean, especially since under "conscious" we find the provocative phrase, "aware of inner and outer worlds." Just how many worlds are there, and do I have to be conscious of all of them in order to be really conscious?

Here, I think, is where the entire idea of conscious business starts to become truly intriguing. Worlds, terrains, landscapes, environments: It's a big world, and the better we understand that world—both inner and outer— the better our navigation of it will be.

A map of the outer world would help; so would a map of the inner world. Together they would provide a tool that would dramatically improve my navigation through any environment, any world, including the world of business. A comprehensive map that combined the latest knowledge of both

inner and outer worlds would provide an extraordinary means for fulfilling any goals that I might have. It would also provide the key to being conscious of both inner and outer worlds. Conscious business —in fact, conscious living—would start to become a very real possibility.

BIG WORLD, BIG MAP

A map, of course, is not the territory, and we definitely do not want to confuse any map, no matter how comprehensive, with the territory itself. At the same time, we don't want to have an inadequate, partial, broken map either. The fact is, most human endeavors, including most business practices, operate with incomplete and often misleading maps of human potentials. These partial and fractured maps of inner and outer realities consistently lead to failures in both personal and professional endeavors.

In the past few decades there has been, for the first time in history, a concerted effort to take all of the known maps of human potentials, both inner and outer, and combine them into a more comprehensive, inclusive, and accurate map of reality. This "Big Map" —sometimes called an Integral Map—represents the most comprehensive and balanced overview to date, and as such offers an unparalleled navigational aid in defining and fulfilling virtually any goals, personal or professional.

How comprehensive is this Big Map? It started with an exhaustive cross-cultural comparison of all the known interior maps offered by the world's major cultures, including psychological maps from Freud to Jung to Piaget; Eastern maps, including those offered by yoga, Buddhism, and Taoism; the extensive results of cognitive science, neurobiology, and evolutionary psychology; typologies from the Enneagram to Myers-Briggs; transformation tools from ancient shamans to postmodern sages. The idea was simple: What psychological map or model could account for, and include, all of those possibilities? Because human beings have in fact proposed all of those various schools and systems, there must be a model comprehensive enough to account for all of them, and the Integral Model, as far as we can tell, does exactly that.

The result in the interior domains is that there appears to be a spectrum of consciousness available to men and women. This spectrum ranges from body to mind to spirit; from prerational to rational to transrational; from subconscious to self-conscious to superconscious; from emotional to ethical to spiritual. The point is that all of those potentials —body to mind to spirit—are important for a comprehensive approach to any situation, personal or professional, because those realities are in fact operating in all humans in any event, and you either take them into conscious account or they will subconsciously sabotage your efforts at ever\- turn. This is true in an\ human endeavor, from marriage to business to education to recreation.

In addition to these interior or psychological realities, the Integral Model also includes the most recent maps of the outer world, maps offered by widely respected empirical sciences, from dynamic systems theory to complexitv' and chaos theories. Combined with interior maps, the result is indeed an Integral Map of inner and outer worlds —a map that therefore is the measure of what it means to be really conscious.

Complex as this Integral Map sounds (and is), it actually shakes down into a handful of fairly simple factors that can be quickly mastered. The easiest way to summarize the Integral Map is that it covers a spectrum of consciousness operating in both inner and outer worlds: t he Integral Approach includes body, mind, and spirit in self, culture, and nature.

We have already briefly examined the first part of that equation — namelv, "body, mind, and spirit" —which we saw as the spectrum of consciousness that constitutes the interior realities or worlds. The second half of the integral equation —"in self, culture, and nature"-represents the three most important worlds themselves; that is, the three most fundamental environments, realities, or landscapes through which the spectrum of consciousness operates.

"Self" simply refers to my own interior world or subjective realities, which can be accessed by introspection, meditation, and self-reflection. "Culture" refers to the world of shared values, mutual understanding, and common meanings that you and I might exchange, such as a common language, an interest in business, a love of classical music, or any shared meaning or value.

This is not subjective but intersubjective, a world accessed by interpretation and mutual understanding. And "nature" refers to the exterior world of objective facts, environments, and events, including exterior human nature with its products and artifacts. Because the human organism is a part of nature, then the products of human organisms, such as automobiles, are products of nature and can be approached with natural sciences such as systems theory and complexity theory.

These three major landscapes —self, culture, and world —are often called the Beautiful, the Good, and the True. Or Art, Morals, and Science. Or simply I, We, and It. They are also sometimes called "the Big Three," so fundamental and important are these three worlds in which human beings are always operating. Conscious living—and certainly conscious business-would therefore necessarily take these three worlds into account when planning any activity, because, again, these worlds exist in any event, and you will either take them into conscious account or they will subconsciously sabotage your every move.

INTEGRAL BUSINESS

Gonscious business —business that is conscious of inner and outer worlds-would therefore be business that takes into account body, mind, and spirit in self, culture, and nature. Put differently, conscious business would be mindful of the way that the spectrum of consciousness operates in the Big Three worlds of self, culture, and nature. This means very specifically that integral business leadership would use the tools that have been developed to best navigate and master self, culture, and world.

It's not surprising, then, that business management theories break down into three large categories covering the Big Three landscapes: approaches that focus on individual motivation; those that emphasize corporate culture and values; and those that focus on exterior objective systems, flow patterns, and quality control. The whole point is that integral business leadership would use the tools of all of them in a coordinated and integrated fashion for maximum results, or else settle for less than optimal results.

For example, integral business leadership would use systems theory to understand the dynamic patterns of the exterior world. The systems approach to business has been made popular by writers such as Peter Senge, Meg Wheatley, and Michael C. Jackson, among literally hundreds of others. The systems approach is also widely used to track business cycles, as in the groundbreaking work of Clayton Christensen on disruptive technologies.

But integral business leadership would also use the tools of the interior spectrum of consciousness in individuals —tools such as emotional intelligence, made popular by Daniel Goleman; Myers-Briggs, already widely used as a management aid; and personal motivational tools, from Tony Rob-bins to Franklin Covey.

But integral business leadership would not stop with self and world. It would also draw on our extensive knowledge of corporate culture, shared values, and company motivation. Every company has a culture, and specific business cycles seem to be most effectively navigated by different types of corporate cultures, as suggested by the important research of Geoffrey Moore or the empirical research of Jim Collins. Both point to the overriding importance of corporate values and intersubjective factors in long-term success, which any integral leadership would take into account if it wanted to be mindful and awake in the world of corporate values and maximum effectiveness.

In other words, all of those major theories of business management and leadership —from systems theory to emotional intelligence to corporate-culture management, covering the Big Three landscapes faced by all humans —have an important place in a true Integral Model of conscious business. Although this might at first seem too complicated, the undeniable fact is that any less than integral approach is doomed to failure. In today's world, nobody can afford to be less than integral, because the guaranteed costs are otherwise much too high. Body, mind, and spirit—and self, culture, nature —are all there, all exerting an influence, all actively shaping events, and you either consciously take them into account in any human endeavor or stand back and watch the roadkill.

BIG MAP, BIG MIND

I have attempted to give a simple summary of this overall approach to business in A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. But perhaps the best place to begin an integral approach to business is with oneself. In the Big Three of self, culture, and world, integral mastery starts with self. How do body, mind, and spirit operate in me? How does that necessarily impact my role in the world of business? And how can I become more conscious of these already operating realities in myself and in others?

This is the great value of Fred Kofman's Conscious Business: How to Build Value Through Values, hitegral mastery begins with mastery of self, at an emotional level, a mental-ethical level, and a spiritual level. Anything more than that is not needed; anything less than that, disastrous.

Fred Kofman is a living example of what he preaches, a man of sensitivity, impeccability, and keen consciousness. It's not just that this makes him a better, more effective, more successful businessperson, but that it makes him a more admirable human being, whom I am proud to call friend. I highly recommend that you take the following journey with Fred, learning to transform body, mind, and spirit as a prelude to transforming self, culture, and world. And in that integral embrace, neither you nor the world will ever be the same.

Foreword

by Peter Senge

The past ten years has seen an explosion of how-to management books. The only problem is that most how-to books aren't very practical. Life is much too contingent, complex, and emergent to ever conform to a formula. Knowing what should be done and being able to do it are two different things. Consequendy, it often seems that the more we learn about great companies, winning competitive strategies, or visionary change leaders, the less we are actually able to build such organizations, effect such strategies, or be such leaders. Management "know-about" has vastly outpaced management "know-how."

What is missing? Ironically, I believe that it is exactly what bestselling management books say makes the difference: the human dimensions of the enterprise. Yet such books rarely discuss how to cultivate and activate those human capabilities, which, after all, determine whether any significant change ever gets implemented. There is wide agreement on what needs to happen, but very little help for those who seek to make it happen.

I believe that what is missing, most fundamentally, is a deep understanding of what it means to develop an organization as a conscious human community. Fred Kofman argues that a conscious organization starts with what matters most to us: a commitment to achieving a vision that exceeds any individual capacities, a vision that connects people in a common effort

with genuine meaning. Such commitment is grounded in people taking unconditional responsibility' for their situation and for their wavs of responding to it.

We then must choose what matters more to each of us —knowing or learning. Real learning opens us to the fear of uncertainty and the embarrassment of incompetence, as well as the \ ulnerability of needing one another. We begin to see day-to-day work as a continual dance of learning with and from one another, where what we achieve rests on the qualit}' of our con\ersa-tions —because our working together centers on how we talk, relate, and commit to one another and to our aims. Ultimately, Fred argues, an enterprise flourishes or fails based on its technical and its emotional intelligence, integrit}, and capacit}^ to nurture "success beyond success." More impor-tanth', Fred shows in-depth what is needed to work together in building such capabilities. In effect, he offers a detailed map and an instruction manual for developing collective consciousness.

When I first met Fred, he was a young professor of accounting at MIT, a rather unusual professor of accounting. For example, he often started his classes b\ ha\ing his students listen to Beetho\en, taking the same piece of music and playing it a half dozen times so that people could see that each time they heard something different. How could they keep hearing something new when the same music was played again and again? Because, they gradually came to realize, the music was not in the CD but in their listening.

This, Fred pointed out, was the first principle of accounting: The information's only value is in how it is interpreted through the mental models of the "listener." Fred argued that the only justification for performance measurement was to enhance people's capacities to produce outcomes they truly desired. If this was taken seriously, it followed logically that the truth was not in the numbers but in the meaning we made from them. Moreover, the distinction between accounting that led to learning and accounting that did not lay in the cultivation of the accountants and the managers they ser\ed. Was their real aim learning and improvement? Did they treat the data they collected as the truth, or were they open to continually challenging and improving the assumptions upon w hich such data was collected? Were they

part of a larger human community learning how to shape its future, or were they merely keeping score of a game whose players they neither identified with nor cared about? Did the business have a larger purpose, and how could accounting contribute to this purpose?

Then, as now, Fred argued that the key to organizational excellence lay in transforming our practices of unilateral control into cultures of mutual learning. When people continually challenge and improve the data and assumptions upon which their map of reality is grounded, as opposed to treating their perspectives as the truth, tremendous productive energ}^ is unleashed.

Needless to say, Fred's course was not for everyone. Most students regarded it as a life-changing experience; that's probably why they selected him Sloan School Teacher of the Year. But ever\^ semester there would be at least one or two who would urge the deans to fire the lunatic who was teaching managerial cost accounting as a spiritual practice.

Nor is this book for everyone. If you are looking for a book to fix others, you are in the wrong place.

The inventor Buckminster Fuller used to be fond of saying, "If you want to change how a person thinks, give up. You cannot change how another person thinks. Give them a tool the use of which will gradually lead them to think differently." Fred Kofman provides some of those tools. Now it is up to serious practitioners to use them.

Prologue

Everything said, is said by someone.

HUMBERTO MATURANA

Whatever you have to say, leave

the roots on, let them

dangle

And the dirt,

Just to make clear

where they come from

CHARLES OLSON, "THESE DAYS"

I grew up under a militar}' dictatorship in Argentina. Everv'thing seemed under control —I went to school every day, the economy was stable, and the terrorist attacks that had plagued the country in previous years had stopped. I played soccer, went to the movies, and had fun with my friends. Life was good. Or better said, it appeared good to me.

In the late '70s rumors began to circulate: kidnappings, concentration camps, tortures, murders, and thirt\' thousand desaparecidos ("missing"). Mostly, the information came from foreign sources —the national media was under government censorship. I felt enraged. I was told, and believed, that this was an anti-Argentinean campaign. The country was plastered with

bumper stickers that read, "Argentineans are human and righteous" (a word play on the "human rights" that foreigners alleged were being violated).

Obviously, we thought, if we are human and righteous this cannot be true. I guess we didn't want it to be true. If the grim reports were accurate, we would face an impossible dilemma: Inaction would turn us into accomplices to mass murder; action would turn us into victims of mass murder. In Argentina we have a saying: "Nobody's more blind that the one who doesn't want to see." There were plent}' of signs for us to see, but we were afraid to look and to assume responsibility for what we found. It was much easier to remain unconscious.

Unfortunately, it all turned out to be true. This period was later known as the Dirty War. In order to protect the "Western and Christian Values of the Homeland" (as the slogan said), the military followed a policy of systematic extermination. Anybody who didn't adhere to its nationalist right-wing doctrine was an enemy. Even volunteering for soup kitchens or teaching illiterate adults how to read indicated dangerous left-wing tendencies. In order to protect against an amorphous terrorist threat, the military arrested and killed anybody who looked suspicious to them. "If out often people killed, one is a terrorist, the other nine are worth the price," said one general.

I lived in a nice neighborhood and went to a private school. I was a good student and didn't get in trouble. I did not feel the evil around me. I was completely oblivious. The bus I took to school stopped daily at the Navy School of Engineering, a beautiful building with a manicured lawn. Its basement held hundreds of prisoners, most of whom never made it out alive. People were tortured and killed there regularly. This ostensibly respectable institution hid a death camp beneath its polished floors.

I am Jewish, so waking up to the horrible circumstances that had surrounded my life had a tremendous impact on me. In school and at home I repeatedly heard how the Germans had stood idle while six million Jews were exterminated. Self-righteous judgment came easily to me. "Hov\ awful! How evil! How could anybody do something like this?" Well, I now occupied the place of the "awful" and the "evil." Thousands of people had been carried to concentration camps under my own nose, and I didn't see it.

For many years I felt deep shame. I had been so unconscious. How could I not know? How could I have been so blind! Was I evil? After years of vvrestHng with these questions, I accepted that I had done the best I could in the moment. To redeem myself, I committed to learn from the experience and work so that it would not happen again. I wanted to stop the violence at its roots, teaching people to be more conscious and more respectful of diversit}'. I finally mustered enough compassion to forgive myself and the Germans of World War II. Nobody is immune from unconsciousness. The best way to deal with it is not to judge it, but to touch it with compassion and awareness.

Looking back years later, I have learned that unconsciousness is not the exclusive propert}' of Argentineans. I've been in many business meetings where the sole purpose has been to obscure the truth. Worse yet, I suspect that everyone in those rooms knew what was going on, but nobody dared to speak up and deal honestly with the situation. There are great rewards for those who go along, and equally great threats for those who rock the boat. There are no death camps in corporations, but many apparently successful companies hide great suffering in their basements.

I have seen professional identities destroyed in meeting rooms through innuendo, rumors, and negative opinions. Although sometimes an ill-intentioned act, this is more generally an unconscious expression. The problem is not that people think differently, the problem is that somebody thinks that he is right, and anybody who does not think like him must be wrong. Thus, the "different ones" become enemies to eliminate. Instead of seeing the alternative view as a valuable perspective that can be integrated, power-hungry individuals take it to be a stumbling block. Not surprisingly, they don't want to waste their time engaging with it in dialogue. They simply want to get rid of it by any means and move on. The seeds that sowed the Dirty War lie within everyone's heart.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Russian Nobel laureate, wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, "If only it were all so simple! If onl\' there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line

dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is wilhng to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

I vowed as a child that when I grew up I would never fall for easy lies again, but growing up is not simply a matter of time. When I was in college, the military government started a war with Great Britain by occupying the Falkland Islands. The espoused goal was to redeem Argentina's sover-eignt\ over its territory'; the real goal was to divert attention from its domestic situation. Throughout the short war, the state-controlled media constantly reported that Argentinean forces had the upper hand. Ever\' morning's paper repeated the same optimistic news, "We're winning, we're winning, we're winning!" until one afternoon when the commander of the armed forces appeared on TV to report starkly, "We lost." I had known that the daily reports were propaganda, but I was still shocked. I realized then that awareness is not a one-time decision. Staying conscious is an ongoing process that demands constant attention and commitment. I vowed to keep my eyes open and look beyond appearances.

Years later, working as a consultant, I discovered that without a commitment to the truth, individuals and groups are prone to degenerating into manic delusions. Everyone receives tranquilizing information while leaders trumpet the importance of "positive thinking" and "being a team player." This makes it seem as if "we are winning" until the last possible moment, when it is announced that the project has failed, the division will be sold off, the company is going under. "We lost."

I always dreamed of being a professor, so when I finished college I left Argentina to pursue a doctorate in economics at the University of California at Berkeley. I chose game theory as my specialization. I wanted to get away from all the human craziness I'd experienced in Argentina. I wanted to deal with rational agents and understand how they make rational decisions. I was doing very well with my studies until I made a decision that ruined my career. I got married.

The problem was not that I got married, but how I decided to get married. I still remember the phone conversation in which I told my father, "Dad, I'm getting married." "Are you crazy?" he challenged me. "Absolutely,"

I answered, 'TonVe got to be crazy to get married." If you do the math, the risk/benefit ratio is a total turn-off. Marriage is not about cold calculation; it is about love.

I found that I could not continue to embrace the theories I was studying. The assumption of perfect rationality no longer made sense to me. I now-understood that human beings are not just rational beings who calculate; we are emotional-spiritual beings who seek meaning. I had spent seven years working on decision theor\', but I threw them out the w indow when I fell in lo\'e. If I did not use rationalit} to make the most important decision of my life, how could I assume that others w^ould?

While I continued to study economics, I began to explore philosophy. Berkeley had a top-notch department. I met great teachers who opened my mind to the philosoph\ of language, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, ethics, existentialism, and hermeneutics. Paradoxically, I found these disciplines much more practical than my mathematical models. I finally began to understand how human beings really make decisions. I learned how we organize our perceptions, build an image of the world, and act accordingly. I studied language. I saw how communication enables an "I" to join a "Thou" and form a "We." Most important, I learned that happiness and fulfillment do not come from pleasure but from meaning, from the pursuit of a noble purpose.

A deep thirst for transcendence brought me to spirituality. My traditionalist Jewish upbringing had led me to believe that religion was a matter of faith and folklore, not of meaning. But as I read the great philosophers I discovered that spiritualit}' was much more than belief in a supernatural being and ritual. I became fascinated by the Eastern traditions, particularly by Zen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. I started to meditate and developed an invaluable practice that I still maintain today. Meditation has kept me sane through my most difficult times. It has also driven me insane, challenging my most cherished beliefs about myself and life in general. I worked with many wonderful teachers who helped me discover "the pathless path to the gateless gate."

I also discovered the personal transformation movement. California was still teeming with workshops promising enlightenment in a week. I couldn't

pass up the offer, so I took most of them. Among the New Age psychobabble, I found valuable nuggets of truth. I like to think that I kept these babies when I threw out the bathwater.

When I graduated, I took a job teaching management accounting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I was in heaven, until I wasn't. All my life Yd been climbing the proverbial ladder, but when I reached the zenith of my academic career, I realized that I had placed it against the proverbial wrong wall. I was interested in teaching people how to make things happen, not how to account for the things that others made happen. Leadership development became my passion, one unsuitable for a university professor. Leadership is about being more than knowing; about emotion more than cognition; about spirit more than matter. I couldn't teach greatness in a traditional classroom style.

I couldn't stay, and I couldn't leave. Losing my affiliation with MIT scared me to death. Losing my job was like losing my identity. What would be left of me if I didnt have my teaching position? Would there he anything left of Fred Kofman if you took away the MIT professorship? This feeling was reflected in the difference between my objective business card and my subjective experience of it.

Here's what my business card looked like:

Fred Kofman, Ph.D.

Professor of Management Accounting and Information Systems

MIT

Here's what my experience of the card was like:

XXIV

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

Fred Kofman, Ph.D.

Professor of Management Accounting and Information Systems

MIT

I discovered how much of my identiU' was based on my job. I saw how Httle I knew about myself and how much effort Yd put into proving my self-worth through achievements. I realized also that I wasn't the only one. When I shared this story in my seminars, most managers confessed to having the same fear. Losing a job is not just an economic blow; it is a blow to your identity.

With great trepidation, I left MIT. I lost my professorship and found myself. I refocused on my psycho-spiritual explorations. For the following ten years, I took to the path of self-discovery and self-improvement. But at some point even this pursuit fell away. I realized that my true identit}' transcended my professional circumstances, my successes, and my failures —even the spiritual success of enlightenment. I am who I am, and perfectly so. I am not perfect; I am perfectly imperfect in my own unique way. And so is everything. So what is there to do? Let the dream become lucid. See ever}- fake identity for what it really is, a phenomenal disguise of The One.

I started what later became Axialent, a consulting company devoted to helping leaders realize their true greatness and express it at work. I worked with leaders throughout the world to achieve extraordinary success through the development of cooperative relationships and dignified human behaviors. It's been a great journey.

Conscious Business is the result of fifteen years of work with leaders of major corporations in the United States, Europe, and South America. My associates at Axialent and I have worked with all levels of management, from

PROLOGUE

first-line supervisors to senior executives, in a wide range of industries. The material has been refined and tested in the real world by thousands of leaders from companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo!, EDS, Cisco, Google, General Motors, Chrysler, Shell, Citibank, Unilever, and many others.

These leaders realized that to be successful they needed more than technical competence; they needed to grow as people. As they learned the skillful means necessar\ to run a business with wisdom and compassion, they helped all of us at Axialent make the material that we present in our seminars —and that I present in this book —user-friendly and practical.

What did these leaders learn? First, they learned that freedom, respon-sibilit}', and integrity^ are the keys to success, but that these qualities demand the courage to face existential anxiety. They learned that speaking the truth is essential, but that the truth that needs to be said and heard is not the one most people call "truth." They learned that "win-win" is a powerful concept for negotiations, but only mature human beings can implement it. They learned that impeccable commitments are essential for cooperative relationships, but that they require a strong foundation of personal values. They learned that they needed to manage their emotions, but not in the stoic way thev had adopted. They learned that who the\^ are is the main determinant of what they can and cannot do. And they learned that when all is said and done, service to others is the highest spiritual and business imperative.

They also learned how to embody their freedom with confidence and inner peace. They learned to find the essential truth in themselves and others. They learned to express it and receive it with dignity and respect. They leamed to tap their imagination to create options when at an impasse. They learned to establish, maintain, and repair networks of trust and coordinated actions. They learned to maintain equanimity in the face of the most difficult circumstances, simultaneously keeping their hearts open and their minds sharp. They learned that who they are is the most amazing space of possibilities in which life manifests its creative potential. And they learned how to serve others without betraying their highest goals and values. They learned, in short, to succeed beyond success.

They learned all this. And if you read this book, 1 hope that you will too.

I've presented some of my background to show you where this book is coming from. Now, I invite you to think where you want this book to take you. What made you pick it up? What do you want from it? Why is this search important to you? What can you accomphsh if you find what you're looking for? How can you use this knowledge for your own benefit and that of those around you? It is important to ponder these questions. As the Cheshire Cat told Alice, if you don't much care where you want to get to, then it doesn't matter which way you go. On the other hand, if you know what you want, you will be able to use almost anything to go in that direction. Like a skillful sailor who can use any wind to navigate toward his destination, you will be able to use any concept to pursue your goals.

The main difference between a workout tape and real exercise is participation. When you go to a gym, you have to expend effort to get any benefit. Just so, with a book you have to get involved in the text in order to take full advantage of it. I invite you to read with a pencil in hand, agreeing, discussing, analyzing, challenging, and linking ideas with real situations in your life. The ideas are incredibly simple, but thev are not easy. Thev sound like common sense, but they are not common practice. If you want to learn to put them into practice, you'll need to participate. You'll have to get up close and personal to get the most benefit. Learning is a contact sport.

You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books. You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me. You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.

WALT WHITMAN, FROM "SONG OF MYSELF"

Acknowledgments

First of all, I'd like to thank the president of the social club who organized the dance where my mother met my father in Argentina almost fifty years ago. Thanks to him and other innumerable factors, I was born, have lived, and have written this book. No, I'm not kidding. In thanking this man, I'd like to honor the unimaginable convergence of forces that created this present. If we look at anything closely, we discover that it doesn't exist as a separate or independent thing, that eventhing that seems isolated is nothing other than a node in an infinite network of crisscrossing energies. There's no such thing as a book independent of all the things that influenced the life of its author.

Tom, Dick and Harry think they have written the books that they sign ... But they exaggerate. It was a pen that did it, or sonne other implement. They held the pen? Yes, but the hand that held the pen was an implement too, and the brain that controlled the hand. They were intermediaries, instruments, just apparatus. Even the best apparatus does not need a personal name like Tom, Dick, or Harry.

If the nameless builders of the Taj Mahal, of Chartres, of Rheims, of a hundred cathedral symphonies, knew that—and

avoided the solecism of attributing to their own egos the works that were created through their instrumentality—may not even a jotter-down of passing [management] notions know it also?

WEI WU WEM

I'd like to thank the people who have had a positive influence on my professional life and made this book possible. Many of them I don't even know. Some of those I remember are Guido Di Telia, Albert Fishlow, Drew Fudenberg, Fernando Flores, Pat Sculley, Greig Trosper, Marcia Glark, Dave Meador, Dave Prett, Jerry Golden, John Sequeira, Frank Trogus, Dale Holecek, Wendy Goles, Dave Sharpe, Fred Schaafsma, Fernando Esquivel, Eugenio Beaufrand, Therese Lenk, Gheryl Van, Sheryl Sandberg, and David Neenan. I also want to thank my partners in Axialent for their support and friendship: Andy Freire, Ana Diniz, Ricardo Gil, Patrick Gampiani, Gristina Nogueira, and Garolyn Taylor.

I'd also like to thank everyone who has participated or will participate in my programs. Your questions, challenges, input, and energy are constant sources of enthusiasm and motivation for me. In the crucible of learning, we all melt, mix, and are separated again. In the end, ever\'one takes away a piece of everyone else. I feel that my life has become immensely richer every time I've poured myself into that process.

I am indebted to two teachers, two intellectual and spiritual giants on whose shoulders I stand: Peter Senge and Ken Wilber. Peter Senge men-tored me with overwhelming generosity. From the start, he pushed me and nurtured me; he challenged me to grow and try new things. A number of times, he vouched for my work when companies doubted putting their senior executives in the hands of an unconventional thirty-year-old professor. I hope that someday I can return such kindness by encouraging other people's growth as Peter did with me. Ken Wilber is a phenomenon. If he weren't so human, I'd think he was an extraterrestrial. I believe he's one of the most important philosophers of all time. To read his books, get to know him, and finally work by his side has been a privilege.

Ted Rose spent hundreds of hours trying to make my thoughts understandable: a grueling task if there ever was one. His editing skill, effort, and commitment to this project have gone well beyond the call of duty. Of course, any remaining mistakes are a consequence of my stubbornness.

Tami Simon, my publisher, dear friend, and Dharma sister, has always encouraged me to speak the truth. I hope I can honor the name of her company with an offering that really Sounds True.

Finally, I'd like to thank my wife Kathy and our children Michelle, Paloma, Tomas, Rebecca, Sophie, and Janette for their love and support.

Boulder, Colorado, 2006

CHAPTER 1

Conscious Business

Cogito ergo sum. (I am conscious, therefore I am.)

RENE DESCARTES

Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness ... is a matter of conscious choice.

JIM COLLINS'

I love molecules," explains Marcus. "You apply a certain amount of heat and a certain amount of pressure, and you know exactly what's going to happen. At the start of m\' career I did great working with molecules, but now I work with people. People are unpredictable. You apply a certain amount of heat and a certain amount of pressure, and you never know what's going to happen."

Marcus, a research manager at an oil company, has two doctorates. He is an intellectual wonder and a management disaster. Technical excellence propelled him into management, exposing his social incompetence. Marcus deals with people in the same way he dealt with molecules. This doesn't work. In contrast to molecules, people ha\e minds of their own.

As they climb the corporate ladder, managers like Marcus stumble and fall. They fail to make the transition from the operational requirements of the lower rungs to the leadership requirements of the higher ones. Ironically,

some of the traits that drove their success as individual contributors derail their success as leaders.^ Success in business requires dealing with human beings, which is to say conscious beings. This book presents the basic principles and skills needed to deal with people while honoring their conscious nature. Although this is helpful for anybody who works, it is fundamental for those who manage and lead others. Great leadership is conscious leadership.

In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins studies what drives average companies to take a quantum leap and become extraordinary. He concludes that a crucial component of greatness is a group of leaders with a paradoxical blend of personal humilit}' and professional will. These leaders, whom Collins calls "Level 5," channel their ego ambition awa\" from themselves into the larger goal of building a great company. "All of the companies in the study that went from good to great," says Collins, "had Level 5 leadership in key positions, including the CEO, at the pivotal time of transition." However, Collins couldn't answer a central question: how to develop Level 5 leadership. "I would love to be able to give you a list of steps for becoming Level 5, but we have no solid research data that would support a credible list." The inner development of a person remains a "black box."' This book is m\ effort to unlock the black box of great leadership. My key is the set of attitudes and skills that I call "Conscious Business."

Living consciously is a state of being nnentally active rather than passive. It is the ability to look at the world through fresh eyes. It is intelligence taking joy in its own function. Living consciously is seeking to be aware of everything that bears on our interests, actions, values, purposes, and goals. It is the willingness to confront facts, pleasant or unpleasant. It is the desire to discover our mistakes and correct thenn ... it is the quest to keep expanding our awareness and understanding, both of the world external to self and of the world within.

NATHANIEL BRANDEN^

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

CONSCIOUSNESS

Consciousness is the ability to experience reality, to be aware of our inner and outer worlds. It allows us to adapt to our environment and act to promote our lives. All living beings possess consciousness, but human beings have a unique kind. Unlike plants and other animals, we can think and act beyond instinctual drives and conditioning. We can be autonomous (from the Greek, "self-governing"). While this autonomy is a possibility', it is not a given. We must develop it through conscious choices.

To be conscious means to be awake, mindful. To live consciously means to be open to perceiving the world around and within us, to understand our circumstances, and to decide how to respond to them in ways that honor our needs, values, and goals. To be unconscious is to be asleep, mindless. To live unconsciously means to be driven by instincts and habitual patterns.

Have you ever driven down the highway on cruise control, engaged in a conversation or daydreaming, only to realize that you missed your exit? You didn't literally lose consciousness, but you dimmed your awareness. Relevant details, such as your location and the actions needed to reach your goal, receded from the forefront of your mind. Your eyes were open, but you didn't see. This is a poor way to drive —and an even poorer way to live.

When we are more conscious, we can better perceive our surroundings, understand our situation, remember what's important to us, and envision more possibilities for action to attain it. Consciousness enables us to face our circumstances and pursue our goals in alignment with our values. When we lose consciousness, we are swept away by instincts and habits that may not serve us. We pursue goals that are not conducive to our health and happiness, we act in ways that we later regret, and we produce results that hurt us and those we care about.

A unique characteristic of human consciousness is self-awareness. We not only perceive the external world, we can also bear witness to our internal world. We can pose questions like, "Why am I thinking what I am thinking?" "Do I have sound reasons for my conclusions?" "Am I letting my desires cloud my judgment?" Self-awareness allows us to consider the deepest aspects of our existence. We can ask ourselves, "Who am I?" "What is my mission in

life?" "What values should guide me?" "How should I live?" "Is my behavior aligned with my values and puq)ose?" "Am I happy?"

Not only do we experience self-awareness, we also recognize "other-awareness." I'm talking about something more subtle than perceiving other people from an external perspective. We know that beyond people's observable behavior, they are conscious, choosing their actions based on their reasoning. We can ask, "What leads you to think what you are thinking?" "Do you ha\'e evidence for \ our conclusions?" "Why is this issue important to you?" "What do you really want?" Other-awareness enables us to inquire into others' deeper motivations, posing such questions as, "What is most meaningful in your life?" "What are vour hopes and dreams?" "What values guide your behavior?" "What makes you happy?"

Another unique characteristic of human consciousness is its capacity for abstraction. We can transcend our concrete experiences through our intellectual abilit\ to understand, judge, and reason. Intellect allows us to organize information in order to understand and manage complex situations. We mav not be able to look at every tree, but we can consider the whole forest. As our cognitive capacity develops, we operate at higher and higher levels of abstraction, from immediate experience to symbols to concepts. At the highest level, we wonder, "What is true?" "What is beautiful?" "What is good?" Abstract reason enables us to transcend our immediate circumstances and consider human existence: "What is human nature?" "Are there moral imperatives derived from such nature?" "What is a good life?" "What brings authentic happiness?" A conscious life is concerned with such questions.

And so is a conscious business. Business is an essential part of our lives, so doing business consciously is an essential aspect of living consciously. In order to do business consciously, we need to ponder the most fundamental questions pertaining to reality and human existence and let these insights guide our business choices.

A conscious business promotes mindfulness for all of its stakeholders. Employees are encouraged to investigate the world with rigorous scientific reasoning and to reflect on their role in it with equally rigorous moral

reasoning. They are in\ited to contemplate their own selves, finding what it means to li\e with \irtue, meaning, and happiness. They are also asked to think of their colleagues as human beings, rather than as "human resources." Finally, they are required to understand their customers, offering them products and services that support their growth and well-being. A conscious business fosters peace and happiness in individuals, respect and solidarity- in the community-, and mission accomplishment in the organization.

Most of us recognize that companies need emplovees with a high level of technical knowledge if the\' are to succeed in the information economv. I believe it is more important, and far less recognized, that companies also need emplo\ees with a high le\"el of consciousness. W'ithout conscious emplovees, companies cannot achiexe greatness —let alone sur\i\e. Hou" many companies have gone out of business because of the arrogance of their executives? How many ha\ e imploded because of the disengagement of their employees? How many millions of dollars have been wasted by managers who are in denial? How man\ corporate leaders have chosen the immediate gratification of quarterlv earnings at the expense of long-term profitability? Conscious employees are an organization's most important asset; unconscious employees are its most dangerous liabilit}'.

CONSCIOUS EMPLOYES

I use seven qualities to distinguish conscious from unconscious employees. The first three are character attributes: unconditional responsibility, essential integrit}, and ontological humilitw The next three are interpersonal skills: authentic communication, constructive negotiation, and impeccable coordination. The seventh qualitv is an enabling condition for the previous six: emotional master}. These qualities are easy to understand, but hard to implement. They seem natural, but they challenge deep-seated assumptions we hold about ourselves, other people, and the world. This is why although most of us know about them, we don't know how to enact them. They are common sense, but not common practice.

Conscious employees take responsibility for their lives. They don't compromise human values for material success. They speak their truth and listen to others' truths with honest}' and respect. They look for creative solutions to disagreements and honor their commitments impeccably. They are in touch with their emotions and express them productively.

Unconscious employees do the opposite. They blame others for problems, seek immediate gratification regardless of ethics, and claim to be alwavs right. They hide significant information, sweep conflicts under the table, and negotiate to beat their opponents. Thev expect to get what they need without asking, make irresponsible promises, and don't honor their commitments. The\ repress their emotions or explode irrationalh.

Of course, productive employees must ha\e the necessarv' cognitive power, knowledge, and technical skills to do their jobs. If vou don't know engineering, you're the wrong person to build a bridge. But productive employees must also have conscious business skills. If you know engineering but can't communicate, negotiate, and coordinate, you are the wrong person to work on the construction team.

Conscious employees require conscious managers if they are to fully commit their energy to organizational goals. Unless they feel acknowledged, supported, and challenged by their managers, conscious employees will withdraw. Conscious managers create the right en\ironment for employees to blossom as professionals and as human beings. They enable employees to contribute their best. Nothing is more vital for exceptional performance than conscious management.

No matter what t}pe of business, the only way to generate a competitive advantage and long-term profitabilit}' is to attract, develop, and retain talented employees. The top management of the company can provide an inspiring vision and a solid strategy, but these aren't enough. Managers at all levels determine the everyday world of employees. Only conscious managers can elicit employee engagement. Unfortunately, managerial consciousness is in short suppK. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus report that fewer than one out of e\ er\ four employees works at full potential. Half said they only do what's necessar\- to keep their jobs, and three out of four say they could be

more effective than they are.^ The good news is that there's lots of room for improvement. If companies could harness the lost energy, organizational performance would surge.

Finally it should be obvious that if management views workers not as valuable, unique individuals but as tools to be discarded when no longer needed, then ennployees will also regard the firm as nothing nnore than a machine for issuing paychecks, with no other value or meaning. Under such conditions it is difficult to do a good job, let alone to enjoy one's work.

MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI6

CONSCIOUS MANAGERS

In First, Break All the Rules, Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman report the results of a twent\'-year research project on organizational effectiveness undertaken by The Gallup Organization. The study focused on a single question: "What do the most talented employees need from their workplace?"

After surveying over a million individuals from a broad range of companies, industries, and countries, the study concluded: "Talented employees need great managers. The talented employee may join a company because of its charismatic leaders, its generous benefits, and its world-class training programs, but how long that employee stays and how productive he is while he is there is determined by his relationship with his immediate supervisor."

This led to the researchers' next question: "How do the world's greatest managers find, focus, and keep talented employees?" Gallup surveyed four hundred organizations, interviewing a cross section of eighty thousand great and average managers. To determine who was great and who was average, they used objective performance measures such as sales, profit, customer satisfaction, and employee turnover. The combination of both these studies resulted in the most extensive empirical research ever carried out on this subject.

The researchers found that exceptional managers created a workplace in u hich employees emphatically answered "yes" when asked the following questions:

1 Do I know what is expected of me at work?

2 Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

3 At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?

4 In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5 Does my super\asor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?

6 Is there someone at work who encourages my development?

7 At work, do my opinions seem to count?

8 Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?

9 Are my co-workers committed to doing high-qualit}' work?

10 Do I have a best friend at work?

11 In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?

12 This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?^

These results are not just true for individual performers and their immediate supervisors; they hold at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. Top management's primary responsibilit}^ is to populate the company with what I've called "conscious employees." Senior managers do not just set the corporate mission and policy; they also create an environment that attracts, retains, and develops their junior managers. To attract conscious employees, managers need to exercise conscious leadership.

The worst leader is he who people despise. A good leader is he who people worship. A great leader is he who makes people say: "We ourselves did it."

LAO TZU, TAO TE CHING

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

CONSCIOUS LEADERSHIP

Leadership is the process by which a person sets a purpose for other persons and motivates them to pursue it with effectiveness and full commitment. Leadership transforms individual potential into collective performance. The leader's job is to develop and maintain a high-performing team. Her effectiveness is demonstrated by the performance of the team.*

Anyone who manages people has a leadership responsibility. Formal authorit}' is never sufficient to gain enthusiasm from those to be managed. An essential part of the manager's job is to enlist the full cooperation of those she leads, shifting their motivation from external compliance to internal commitment. Thus, great leadership is a necessary condition for great management. A team that is well managed, and thus well led, operates in alignment, because each of the team members takes the team goal as his own. Great managers (i.e., great leaders) earn the trust and respect of their' subordinates. Without trust and respect, followers will rarely exert more than a minimal effort in the pursuit of the goals set by a leader.

Asking whether someone is a manager or a leader is like asking whether someone is a soccer player or a ball-kicker. Kicking the ball is the way in which a soccer player plays soccer. It is ridiculous to say that Joe is a good soccer player but a bad kicker, or that we have too many soccer players but not enough kickers. By the same token, leadership is a necessary skill for anyone who manages. Leadership is the way in which a manager manages.

How does a great manager earn the trust and respect of her subordinates? First, she needs to demonstrate the cognitive and technical competence to do her job. Note the w ord "demonstrate" here. Not only does a leader need to have the competence, she needs to convince her followers that she is management-worthy. The manager does not need to show that she can do the subordinates' jobs; she must show that she can do her job. In other words, she needs to prove

'Eventhing in this book applies to all people, regardless of their gender. When I speak about individuals, I could use "him or her" everv' time, but I find this cumbersome and distracting. Instead, I will alternate between "him" and "her." Either way, I refer to both genders.

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

that she can perform managerial functions, such as selecting the right people to join the team, assigning tasks appropriately, providing context for how all the tasks fit together in the pursuit of the team goal, and so on.

Second, she needs to exercise conscious leadership. That is to say, she needs to lead with the seven qualities of conscious business I described earlier in this chapter. A great manager leads through unconditional respon-sibilit), essential integrity, ontological humility, authentic communication, constructive negotiation, impeccable coordination, and emotional mastery. In addition, she fosters —and demands —the enactment of these qualities in her subordinates. A great manager holds not only herself accountable for conscious behavior, but everybody else as well; and she holds everybody else accountable for holding ever\'bod\ else —including the manager herself—accountable. This creates a culture in which everybody supports and calls for evervbodv else's consciousness.

... Leadership begins with what the leader must Be, the values and attributes that shape the leader's character... Leadership is a matter of how to be, not how to do.

BE-KNOW-DO: LEADERSHIP THE ARMY WAY^

THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF BUSINESS

Every organization has three dimensions: the impersonal, task, or "It"; the interpersonal, relationship, or "We"; and the personal, self, or "I." The impersonal realm comprises technical aspects. It considers the effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability of the organization. The interpersonal realm comprises relational aspects. It considers the solidarity, trust, and respect of the relationships between organizational stakeholders. The personal realm comprises psychological and behavioral aspects. It considers the health, happiness, and need for meaning of each stakeholder. Just as material objects exist in three-dimensional physical space, businesses exist in

three-dimensional organizational space. Even' object has length, width, and depth; every business has It, We, and I.

When we look at an organization from the impersonal It perspective, we consider its ability to achieve its goals, pursue its vision, and fulfill its mission in a way that enhances its capacit}^ to continue to do so in the future. In the impersonal realm, the goals of a business include making money today and in the future, increasing shareholder value, and gaining market share. (The goal of a nonprofit could be to care for the sick, feed the hungr\-, or educate children.) In this dimension, the concern is for efficiency, attaining the maximum output with the minimum consumption of resources.

Impersonal success is essential. Without it, the survival of the organization is at risk. If it does not fulfill its reason for being, it will be unable to draw energ)' and resources, and it will collapse. For a business to get raw materials it needs to pay its suppliers; to get the contribution of employees it needs to offer them an attractive compensation package; to get revenue from its customers it needs to offer them attractive products or services; to get funding from its investors it needs to offer them attractive expected returns. If the business cannot appear attractive to its stakeholders, it will fail.

Instead of looking at the business world as a three-dimensional space, most managers —and investors —focus only on the It. It is as though they wear polarized lenses that filter out the We and the I. Stripped of the human dimensions, business appears to be an unconscious activity in which success and failure depend exclusiveh on the management of mindless things. How ever, business success essentially depends on the leadership of conscious beings.

When we look at an organization from the interpersonal We perspective, we examine its abilit}- to create a communit}' that works with solidarit), trust, and respect. In the interpersonal realm, the goal is to build a network of collaborative relationships—a community in which people feel included, respected, and enabled to contribute their best.

Interpersonal success is also indispensable to sunival. Human beings are social beings. In order to offer their full engagement to the organization, people demand to feel accepted, respected, supported, acknowledged, and challenged. Monetar}' compensation alone cannot accomplish this. This is

why solidarity is so fundamental to long-term business success. If people do not cooperate and respect each other, the organization will fail.

When we look at an organization from the personal I perspective, we focus on its ability to foster well-being, meaning, and happiness in each one of its stakeholders. In the personal realm, the goal is to cultivate psychophysical health and a high quality of life. Every person wants to feel whole in body and mind, to know that her life is meaningful, to be happy. A conscious organization's goal in the personal realm is to promote the self-actualization and self-transcendence of everyone it touches.

Finally, personal success is critical. Without it, no organization can last. Happy people are much more productive and able to cooperate with others.'^^ They are resilient when suffering setbacks and enthusiastic when facing opportunities. They trust themselves to respond appropriately to life's circumstances, to connect with others, and to deliver exceptional results. If people are not happy in their jobs, they will not remain engaged; they will not last as productive employees. They may not quit formally, but they will quit emotionally. In order to obtain energy from its employees, the organization needs to provide them with opportunities for physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual well-being. If an organization's people do not experience this well-being, it will fail.

Over the long term, the It, We, and I aspects of this system must operate in concert. Although it is possible to achieve good financial results in the short term with unhappy people, cold relationships, or wasteful processes, the gains will not endure. Strong profits will not be sustainable without equally strong interpersonal solidarity and personal well-being.

BEING, DOING, HAVING, AND BECOMING

"The best way to do is to be," said Lao Tzu nearly 2,500 years ago. The recommendation is still valid, even though it goes against our instincts. Our attention is normally drawn to that which we can see (the effect), which obscures the importance of what remains hidden (the cause). We focus on results (the having) and forget the process (the doing) necessary to achieve

those results. We are even less aware of the infrastructure (the being) that underlies processes and provides the necessary capabilities for their functioning. Achieving specific results requires behaving in a way that produces such results, and behaving in such a way requires being the type of person or organization capable of such behavior. Thus, the highest leverage comes from becoming the person or organization capable of behaving in the way that produces the desired results.

Consider a computer. At the level of being (platform or infrastructure) it relies on an operating system. For example, my computer uses Microsoft Windows. This master program enables the operation of the application programs, which appear at the level of doing (processes or behaviors). I wrote this text using Microsoft Word. At the level of having (products or results) we find the output of the application program. I produced a text file that has been published as the book you are now reading. If the operating system couldn't support the application programs, they would not run properly. In order to yield the correct output, the operating system must provide the process capabilities required by the applications.

An Integral Perspective of Organization

PRODUCT (HAVING)

PROCESS (DOING)

m^^.

PLATFORM

(BEING)

WE

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

This sequence of platform, process, and product occurs in the three dimensions I described earHer: It, We, and I. hnagine three cubes stacked on top of one another (see figure i). The bottom cube represents the platform, the middle cube the process, and the top cube the product, hi each cube, the height represents the I or personal dimension, the width represents the We or interpersonal dimension, and the depth represents the It or impersonal dimension.

The impersonal aspect of the platform (the bottom cube) is the business infrastructure: the material, technological, economic, and administrative base comprising property, plant, equipment, financial structure, information systems, organizational design, etc. The interpersonal aspect is the organization's culture: the shared beliefs, values, and norms that let people know how to behave and what they can expect fi-om others. The personal aspect is the individual's mental model: her beliefs, values, and psychological structures.

The impersonal aspect of the process (the middle cube) is the functional tasks: procurement, sales, marketing, operations, etc. The interpersonal aspect is the interaction of the organization's stakeholders: communication, negotiation, and coordination. The personal aspect is the behavior of these individuals: their thinking, feeling, and acting.

14

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

The impersonal aspect of the product (the top cube) is the business results: mission accomplishment, profitability, and growth. The interpersonal aspect is the experience of community: the group's sense of solidarity, connectedness, and belonging. The personal aspect is the quality of life of each of the individual stakeholders: her wellness, happiness, and sense of meaning.

Table i is a convenient summary, but it obscures an important fact. These are neither three independent columns put side by side nor three independent rows stacked on top of each other; they are a system. Each element relates to ever}' other element; each one influences and is influenced by the others. It is possible to influence the system starting from any element, so the critical question is, "Where is the best place to focus improvement efforts?"

I believe that the highest leverage can be gained by focusing on culture. I also believe that the strongest determinant of an effective, healthy culture is conscious leadership. Developing consciousness in its top managers is the most efficient way for an organization to improve.

CONSCIOUS CULTURE

No man is an island. Human beings are social animals who band together in families, clans, tribes, and organizations. Our biological and psychological survival requires relationships with other people. Thus, we look for signals about how to fit within a certain community, and we adapt our behavior accordingly. If we cannot adapt, we leave or are ejected. Ever)' group exerts pressure on its members to conform to its cultural norms. Those who fail in their acculturation suffer ostracism.

Culture is best described as the standard beliefs and expectations of "how we do things around here." Culture develops from the messages that group members receive about how they are expected to behave. It comprises shared goals, beliefs, routines, needs, or values. Cultures exist in all groups, from corporations to sport clubs, from schools to families.

Developing a conscious culture is a business imperative. Culture undergirds an organization. It enables the execution of the organization's strategy, the achievement of its goals, and the fulfillment of its mission.

Culture is as essential a part of the organization's infrastructure as its technology; perhaps it is even more essential. Collins found: "Technology and technology-driven change has virtually nothing to do with igniting a transformation from good to great."" Yet typical companies channel the bulk of their investment toward the purchase of unconscious capital while spending relatively little on the development of conscious (human) capital.

The key infrastructure question is, "What culture do we need in order to execute our strategy and fulfill our mission?" Although specific missions entail specific cultural attributes, at the core of every productive culture are the seven qualities of conscious business. These qualities are rare in people, but they are even rarer in organizations. Establishing them as the organizational way of doing things requires a cultural change.

To change a culture, the leaders have to change the messages people receive about what they must do to fit in. When people understand that there are new requirements for belonging, they adjust their behavior accordingly. Cultural change starts with a new set of messages. Culture-changing communication is nonverbal —the "doing" rather than the "saying" —and comes most vividly from leadership behaviors. The behavior of leaders exemplifies what people with power-and those who aspire to have it—are supposed to do. A small change in a senior manager's behavior can send a big message. For example, a CEO who begins to hold his reports accountable for treating others with respect—perhaps demoting a notoriously disrespectful high performer—would show that respect is now a cultural norm.

The good news is that a cultural change inevitably leads to an organizational change. If the leadership can change people's beliefs about "the way things are done in this organization," things will definitely be done differently. Those who adjust and fit into the new culture will thrive; those who don't will leave. As the culture changes, its thoughts, behaviors, interactions, systems, processes, and results will change.

The bad news is that changing a culture is exceedingly difficult. Culture is not something that leaders can change by decree. They can only reshape it through new behaviors. The chicken-and-egg problem is that leadership behaviors are strongly determined by the existing culture. Furthermore,

those who have reached leadership positions are the ones who thrived in the old culture. How can they lead the organization away from the patterns that helped them succeed? Only through a change in consciousness. The spark that ignites a process of cultural change is a change in the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of top management: in other words, a shift from unconscious to conscious leadership.

In the hands of a mature, healthy human being—one who has achieved full humanness—power ... is a great blessing. But in the hands of the immature, vicious, or emotionally sick, power is a horrible danger.

ABRAHAM MASLOWI2

UNCONSCIOUS ATTITUDES

Three attitudes lie at the source of unconscious organizations. They establish a toxic infrastructure that leads to disastrous results in the impersonal, interpersonal, and personal dimensions.

Unconditional blame is the tendency to explain all difficulties exclusively as the consequence of forces beyond your influence, to see yourself as an absolute victim of external circumstances.

CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

Every person suffers the impact of factors beyond his control, so we are all, in a sense, victims. We are not, however, absolute victims. We have the abilit)- to respond to our circumstances and influence how they affect us. In contrast, the unconditional blamer defines his victim-identity by his helplessness, disowning any power to manage his life and assigning causality only to that which is beyond his control.

Unconditional blamers believe that their problems are always someone else's fault, and that there's nothing they could have done to prevent them. Consequently, they believe that there's nothing they should do to address them. Unconditional blamers feel innocent, unfairly burdened by others who do things they "shouldn't" do because of maliciousness or stupidity. According to the unconditional blamer, these others "ought" to fix the problems they created. Blamers live in a state of self-righteous indignation, trying to control people around them with their accusations and angry demands.

What the unconditional blamer does not see is that in order to claim innocence, he has to relinquish his power. If he is not part of the problem, he cannot be part of the solution. In fact, rather than being the main character of his life, the blamer is a spectator. Watching his own suffering from the sidelines, he feels "safe" because his misery is always somebody else's fault. Blame is a tranquilizer. It soothes the blamer, sheltering him from accountability for his life. But like any drug, its soothing effect quickly turns sour, miring him in resignation and resentment. In order to avoid anxiety and guilt, the blamer must disown his freedom and power and see himself as a plaything of others.

The blamer feels victimized at work. His job is fraught with letdowns, betrayals, disappointments, and resentments. He feels that he is expected to fix problems he didn't create, yet his efforts are never recognized. So he shields himself with justifications. Breakdowns are never his fault, nor are solutions his responsibility. He is not accountable because it is always other people who failed to do what they should have done. Managers don't give him direction as they should, employees don't support him as they should, colleagues don't cooperate with him as they should, customers demand much more than they should, suppliers don't respond as they should, senior

executives don't lead the organization as they should, administration systems don't work as they should —the whole company is a mess. In addition, the economy is weak, the job market tough, the taxes confiscatory, the regulations crippling, the interest rates exorbitant, and the competition fierce (especially because of those evil foreigners who pay unfairly low wages). And if it weren't difficult enough to survive in this environment, everybody demands extraordinary results. The blamer never tires of reciting his tune, "Life is not fair!"

Essential selfishness is the exclusive focus on ego gratification, without concern for the well-being of others. It is the drive toward immediate satisfaction, without considering the long-term consequences of your actions on others —or even on yourself

The selfish individual is single-mindedly focused on her desires. She seeks pleasure, assuming that getting what she wants is both necessary and sufficient for a good life. Winning is everything for her; all her attention is on "taking care of number one," coming out on top, being first at any cost. She is ready to do anything to achieve her goals: bend some rules, break others, use people if convenient, disregard them if not, sack them if necessar)'. The selfish individual respects no moral or legal boundaries in her pursuit of ego gratification. She may obey the law, but only out of fear of punishment—not because of any sense of moralit}^ She is ruthless and relentless in her pursuit of pleasure. She sees other people as a means whose only role is to ser\e her purposes. She is guided by greed, envy, and jealousy, consumed by possessive-ness. Her desire is never satisfied; she always wants more, more, and more.

The blindness of the selfish individual is that her attachment to success is the ultimate source of her suffering. Her endless cravings lead her to a hellish realm of anxiet}', fear, frustration, and depression. In the Buddhist tradition these individuals are called "hungry ghosts" and are depicted as having huge mouths and long thin necks, which make them unable to swallow what they bite off. Their bodies are emaciated since they cannot get any nourishment. Spiritual traditions of East and West teach that attachment to egoic desire always leads to suffering. The selfish individual disregards this wisdom, trusting that the satisfaction of her endless appetite is the key to happiness.

For the selfish individual, work is just another place in which to get as much as possible while giving back the least possible. Her contributions are to be minimized and her compensations are to be maximized. She always seeks to take advantage of situations and people, regardless of whether this may hurt others. Cutting corners is alright if it allows her to succeed now-even if it is harmful in the long term.

Unflattering portrayals of selfish business people often appear in the news. Their greed and unscrupulousness give business a bad name. They see their companies exclusively as means for their own gratification. They exploit employees, lie to investors, squeeze suppliers, and take advantage of customers, all for their own personal gain.

Ontological arrogance is the claim that things are the way you see them, that your truth is the only truth. It is the belief that the only valid perspective is the one you hold, and that anybody who sees things differently is mistaken.

The ontological arrogant (ontology is the branch of philosophy that asks what actually exists) does not distinguish his personal opinions from objective truth; for him, his opinions are the truth. Neither does he distinguish his subjective experience from objective realit\-; for him, his experience defines reality. He lives in a dream world and takes it to be the real world. He acts as though his \'iews are absolutely right and v\hoe\er disagrees with him must be wrong. For the ontological arrogant there is only one way of thinking: his. Diversit}' of thought is anathema to him; his goal is to get everybody to surrender to his ideas. He is intent on showing that he is right, and will argue passionately to prove his point—even if he is not sure about it. He is the classic know-it-all, always pontificating about how things are, how they ought to be, and what everybody else should do.

The ontological arrogant "loves his face more than he loves the truth." He refuses to question his views, even against overwhelming contradictory evidence. His self-esteem depends on being right—or at least looking like he is. His self-image is brittle and would be shattered if he were forced to acknowledge a mistake. This makes it impossible to have a producti\e conversation with him. His self-righteous assertions antagonize those who hold different perspectives. His behavior polarizes people and touches off quasi-

religious wars in which each camp tries to prove that it owns the truth. This prevents groups from integrating the information of all their members into a more inclusive perspective.

The current work environment means trouble for the ontological arrogant. The information economy requires humility and a willingness to learn from others, hi the old days a manager was able to do most jobs under his super\'ision better than his employees. Nowadays employees know better than managers w hat is happening in their areas and what to do about it. The manager has a role in aligning individual efforts as parts of a team strateg}', but the most effecti\e tactical responses come from the employees with local knowledge. The arrogant manager, however, cannot listen to his employees. He uses his formal authority to impose his perspective. This demotivates his subordinates into compliance or even malicious obedience. Nobody feels like offering his best to someone who does not listen to him.

When unconditional blame, essential selfishness, and ontological arrogance become the toxic infrastructure of an organization, they lead to three types of per\'erse interactions: manipulative communication, narcissistic negotiation, and negligent coordination.

UNCONSCIOUS INTERACTIONS

At work we interact in three basic ways. We communicate to understand each other, we negotiate our differences to make decisions, and we coordinate our actions through mutual commitments. Each t}'pe of interaction poses a challenge in the It, We, and I dimensions.

The challenge of communication is to share difficult information with honest}' and respect in a way that honors your values, deepens your relationships, and improves your (and the organization's) performance. To understand this challenge, consider how you would tell a colleague, in a way that helps both of you work better together, that \'0u think his proposal is a terrible idea.

The challenge of decision-making is to turn disagreement into consensus, taking care of each party's concerns. To understand this challenge, consider

how you would go from your wanting to do "A" and your colleague wanting to do "B" to the two of you freely deciding (and committing) to doing "X" in a way that builds self-esteem, connection, and excellence.

The challenge of coordination is to make and fulfill commitments in the face of uncertainty and change. To understand this challenge, consider how you would honor your word, enhance trust in your relationships, and accomplish your (and the organization's) goals when you make promises that are subject to risk.

There are conscious and unconscious ways to address these challenges. Unfortunately, most people tend to act unconsciously.

Manipulative communication is the choice to withhold relevant information in order to get what you want. Those who communicate manip-ulatively seek to pursue their personal agenda above all else. They hide data that does not support their arguments and fabricate information to buttress their positions. If necessary, they are willing to deceive others to reach their goals. They have no desire to present a full picture of the situation and enable others to make free, informed choices. The\ only convey information that supports their arguments. Simultaneously, they have no curiosity about what others really think. They only care about getting others to think what they think. Thus, their questions attempt to undermine others' positions and advocate their own. Genuine inquir}' is anathema to them, since it may allow others to present information that contradicts their view.

When people communicate manipulatively, there is a wide gap between public speech and private thoughts. On the outside, it may seem as though a polite conversation is taking place. But significant facts and opinions remain hidden in each person's mind. This leads to serious problems. From a task perspective, miscommunication destroys effectiveness and creates escalating errors. It is impossible to operate successfully if people don't share relevant information. It is equally impossible to cooperate without a frank discussion in which people understand each other's views and needs. From a relationship perspective, it is impossible to experience mutual respect and connection when relating dishonestly. In order to develop a sense of community it is necessary to view the other person as a legitimate partner, one who deserves

to be heard and make her own decisions freely and with full information. From a personal perspective, the gap between your real thoughts and your messages sets off a feeling of hypocrisy. Hiding relevant parts of your truth produces stress because it violates your sense of honesty.

Narcissistic negotiation is the attempt to prove your worth by beating up your opponent. The narcissist's primary goal is not to achieve what he wants, but to show the other "who's the boss." The narcissist puts others down as a way of pulling himself up in comparison. In a negotiation, the narcissist seeks to wm against the other, as opposed to win with the other. Instead of tr)^-ing to satisfy every part\'s needs, narcissistic negotiators focus only on having their demands met. This prevents them from exploring options that could address their underlying interests without clashing with the other person's needs. Narcissistic negotiation prevents shared problem solving and escalates conflict.

When people use disagreement as an arena in which to prove that they are more valuable than their opponents, performance suffers. For starters, the expectation that differences of opinion will degenerate into fights encourages people to avoid necessar\ discussions and sweep disagreements under the table. I explained earlier how these manipulative conversations seriously hurt personal, team, and organizational performance. Beyond that, in a narcissistic negotiation, even when people share their information and engage in discussion, the decision-making process is politicized and fraught with personal attacks. Narcissists become identified with their opinions and consider any disagreement a personal affront. They are unable to distinguish a challenge to their ideas from a challenge to their identit}'. So the discussion is never really about the relative merits of the contending points of view—although it may look like it on the surface. The discussion is all about who wins and who loses, who gets the right to trounce the other. A resource allocation process based on such contentiousness cannot yield a good outcome. On the contrary, decisions tend to be erratic and based on power rather than logic.

Narcissistic negotiations destroy relationships. People see each other as enemies competing for scarce resources. There is overt competition for material things, but, more damaging, there is covert competition for what appears

to the opponents as a fixed and limited amount of self-esteem. This sets up a zero-sum game in which one player wins only what the other loses. There is no room for cooperation, creativity, synergy, or solidarity. It's a dog-eat-dog world in which one person ends up on top and all the others on the bottom. The rivalry usually goes beyond the individuals directly involved in the conflict. As representatives of different organizational factions, participants engage their "allies" in the fight. Additionally, it is typical for the contenders to stab each other in the back by going to a senior person to advocate their case against the other. This is seriously detrimental because it engages the managers in the subordinates' turf wars.

Negligent coordination is a careless way to collaborate, making promises without a serious commitment to honor them. Collective action requires counting on each other's word: a word kept by making and fulfilling commitments. If people let each other down, performance suffers, trust disappears, and anxiety reigns. The situation is even worse when the would-be collaborators don't know how to make clear requests and hold others accountable for their promises. There is a perfect convergence of careless requests, groundless promises, fulfillment breakdowns, and ineffective complaints that destroys coordination, reliance, and integrity.

Some t}pical examples of negligence in making a request include not asking for what you want; expecting the other to read your mind and fulfill your unstated wishes; failing to address your request to a specific person; not defining the concrete deliverables that you are asking for; leaving undetermined the time bv which you want the request to be fulfilled; and assuming that because the other didn't explicitly decline your request, he promised to fulfill it. Some typical examples of negligence in responding to a request include accepting a request without understanding it; promising to deliver something that you have no skills or resources to produce; committing to do something without really intending to do it; and leading the requester to believe that you are committed when you are truly not, with a weak response such as "I'll do my best" or "I'll see what I can do." Some t\pical examples of negligence in honoring a commitment include failing to plan for risk mitigation and being blindsided by predictable events; not alerting the requester

when you realize that you may not be able to fulfill your promise; letting the requester know of the risk but not taking responsibility (using "victim" justifications that blame external events); not working with the requester to minimize disruptions; and failing to contact the requester to apologize and repair the damage even after the deadline, or worse yet, reacting with anger to the requester's legitimate complaint.

As if these perverse attitudes and interactions were not enough to overwhelm individuals and organizations, their effects are compounded by a seventh factor that undermines people's attempts to remain conscious: emotional incompetence.

UNCONSCIOUS REACTIONS

Emotional incompetence manifests in two ways: explosion and repression. The first is acting out your feelings, indulging in counterproductive behaviors that ouly serve to discharge your emotional impulses. The second is hiding your feelings behind a facade of stoicism, pretending that nothing is going on while you are seething inside. We tend to display both behaviors in cycles. Repression builds up a charge to the point where we cannot contain it and we explode —with disastrous consequences for ourselves and others. The pain and guilt we feel after such an episode triggers a new cycle of repression, which is surely followed by another explosion, and so on.

Emotions can take over your mind and trigger actions that you later regret. As you reflect, it is shocking to realize that you lost your cool and behaved irrationally. E\en if, under normal conditions, you can fight off the pressure to think and behave perxersely, your psychological defenses are inclined to collapse under emotional stress. Grief, fear, anger, and guilt are typical emotions that can debilitate your mind to the point where you revert to automatic patterns of fight or flight. Such biological programming is entrenched in the most primitive part of your nervous system, known as the reptilian brain. When intense emotional energ}- overcharges your system, you blow the proverbial fuse. The ensuing short circuit puts the rational part of your mind off-line and allows atavistic impulses to take over.

Wliile in the throes of passion, most of us have caused harm. Some of us have concluded that it is better to suppress our emotions. Pushing them into a dark corner of our minds, however, defeats our purpose. In the shadows, beyond the reach of awareness, they grow unhl thev become strong enough to mount an assault and take control. If we manage to repel them, they revert to covert tactics, creating stress, anxiety, depression, and other psychosomatic diseases.

If wc get o\erwhelmed by our emotions, we re\ert to acti\e and passi\e aggression. E\en though they always end up backfiring, these tactics are deeply ingrained. They seem to protect us in the short term, but thev harm us (and those around us) in due course. Thev promise relief, but the\ deliver only suffering.

0\er the course of this book, I will explore the transition fi-om these unconscious attitudes, interactions, and reactions to a more conscious w av of doing business. I w ill present concepts, tools, and practices to foster a more vibrant, more rewarding, and more producti\e (business) life.

AN IN\ IT.\TION TO CONSCIOUS BUSINESS

You know that there is more to w ork than making money. You know that it is possible to experience great joy as you engage in meaningful w ork ot w hich you are proud; soulh-il w ork that confronts \ ou w ith challenges and develops your skills; work that is aligned with \our mission in life. This is work you enjox doing for its ow n sake, w ork that pro\ ides you with significant material and spiritual rewards.

W bile \ ou do this w ork, you feel fully absorbed. Time seems to stop, and you enter into an extraordinary reality. Difficulties become creative challenges. You feel in control —not because you can guarantee the result, but because you trust yourself and know that you can respond skillfully. This is an ecstatic w orld that "stands outside" every day dullness, a w orld that captures \ ou so thoroughK that \ ou forget \ ourself There's a sense of flow, an ex"perience of hard work performed with ease. Life seems to be living itself effortlessK, and e\ enthing that needs to get done gets done.

You may be alone, but you don't feel lonely. You feel connected to something larger than yourself. Whether people are physically present or not, you feel a bond with a community of purpose. You feel an exquisite intimacy, a sense of belonging to something larger than yourself, and yet completely at one with your true self.

Some people say that work is hell. I claim that work can be heaven. Heaven and hell are not realms of the afterlife; they are states of mind. When you li\'e and w ork unconsciously, situations seem hellish, but when you intensify the light of awareness, the same situations seem heavenly. I hope this book helps you brighten the light of consciousness for yourself, your organization, and the world.

A big, tough samurai once went to see a little monk. " Monk," he barked, in a voice accustomed to instant obedience, "teach me about heaven and hell!"

The monk looked up at the mighty warrior and replied with utter disdain, "Teach you about heaven and hell? I couldn't teach you about anything. You're dumb. You're dirty You're a disgrace, an embarrassment to the samurai class. Get out of my sight. I can't stand you."

The samurai got furious. He shook, red in the face, speechless with rage. He pulled out his sword, and prepared to slay the monk.

Looking straight into the samurai's eyes, the monk said softly, "That's hell."

The samurai froze, realizing the compassion of the monk who had risked his life to show him hell! He put down his sword and fell to his knees, filled with gratitude.

The monk said softly, "And that's heaven."

ZEN PARABLE

CHAPTER 2

Unconditional Responsibility

The basic difference between an ordinary man and a warrior

is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge,

while an ordinary man takes everything as a blessing or a curse.

DON JUAN, YAQUI SHAMAN"

We who lived in the concentration camps can remember

the men who walked through the huts comforting others,

giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been

few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that

everything can be taken from a man but one thing:

the last of human freedoms —to choose one's attitude

in any given set of circumstances—to choose one's own way. ...

It is this spiritual freedom —which cannot be taken away—

that makes life meaningful and purposeful.

VIKTOR FRANKL2

You're late, Al," says John with a grimace. "Again." John is the procurement vice president for AFs largest client, and he is clearly not a happy customer. "I'm sorty, John, my previous meeting ran over. The client was late and everything got delayed."

Al's explanation doesn't appease John. "It's not the meeting, Al, it's the dehvery. We are still waiting for your shipment, the one that was supposed to arrive last week!"

"Well, that's not my fault," says Al. "The freight company dropped the ball. They screwed up the paperwork and delayed the whole thing."

"I don't give a damn whose fault is it. We can't afford delays. Our plant is starved for parts: your parts."

Al leaves John's office muttering under his breath, "I'm not responsible for my previous meeting running over or for the shipping company's mistake. He's blaming me for problems I didn't create. People are so unfair ..."

Next time a colleague is late for an appointment, listen to his explanation. Maybe, like Al, your tardy associate will blame another meeting "running over"; maybe he will complain about traffic. If the previous meeting had finished on time or the freeway had been clear, he would have been on time. His explanations may be accurate, but they are ineffective. To understand why, let's take a closer look at the consequences of this conversation between Al and John.

For starters, they failed to resolve the shipping problem. Furthermore, there's little reason to believe that similar problems won't arise in the future. When confronted with John's demands, Al offered explanations that didn't solve anything. According to his logic, as long as other people make him late, Al will continue to be late. As long as Al's business associates make mistakes, his clients will suffer delays. There's more. On the interpersonal level, the conversation hurt the relationship. John was left distrusting Al while Al was resentful toward John. It's hard to imagine an effective supplier-customer relationship based on mutual exasperation. Finally, it is safe to assume that both John and Al finished the conversation feeling worse than when they started. Each probably felt some combination of stress, grief, anger, and fear. It's not a stretch to imagine each of them complaining about the other to anyone who will listen.

Unfortunately, this conversation is t\pical of many that I've w itnessed in corporations, nonprofit organizations, families, and friendships. When blame meets avoidance, conflicts escalate and people feel alienated. How can you avert these disasters?

You must take unconditional responsibility; you need to see yourself as a "player," as a central character who has contributed to shape the current situation —and who can thus affect its future. This is the opposite of seeing \ourself as a "victim," subject to forces beyond your control. The player is in the game and can affect the result. The victim is out of the game and can only suffer the consequences of others' actions.

While Al's explanations were true, they weren't the whole truth. In fact, they were the weakest and most unproductixe part of the truth. His explanations disempowered him and his partner. They made it more difficult for them to resolve the problem, heal the relationship, and be at peace.

There are man\- ways to look at any problem. Some promote power and achievement; others promote weakness and failure. In order to pursue personal and organization greatness, you need to adopt the former and eschew the latter. You need to address ever\- situation from a player's stance. You need to claim }our unconditional response-ability. In this chapter, I will define unconditional responsibilit} and explore why it is so critical to the health of individuals, teams, and organizations. I will also show why, in spite of its obvious benefits, it is so rare. Let's start with a distinction bet\veen two t\pical characters: the victim and the player.

RESPONSE-ABILITY

Response-abilit}' is your abilit\^ to respond to a situation. You can respond to an offer by choosing to buy or not to buy. You can respond to a complaint by choosing to listen or argue. I call response-abilit}^ "unconditional" because your responses are not determined by external circumstances or instinct. They may depend on external factors and inner dri\es, but you always have a choice. As a human being, you are an autonomous (from the Greek, "self-ruling") being. And the more conscious vou are of your autonomy, the more unconditioned \ our responses will be.

Abilit}' to respond does not mean abilit\ to succeed. There is no guarantee that what vou do will \ield what \ou want. The guarantee is that as long as you are alive and conscious, you can respond to your circumstances

in pursuit of your happiness. This power to respond is a defining feature of humanity. Our response-abihty is a direct expression of our rationality, our will, and our freedom. Being human is being response-able.

Unconditional response-ability is self-empowering. It lets you focus on those aspects of the situation that you can influence. When you play cards, you have no control over the hand you are dealt. If you spend all your time complaining and making excuses for your cards, you will feel disempowered and will most likely lose the game. But if you see yourself as having a choice in how to play those cards, your feelings will change. You will have a sense of possibility. Even if you don't win, you can always do your best with the cards you've got.

When you live in this world, you have no control over the hand you are dealt. You will live a sorry life if you keep blaming fate for the unfairness of your lot. Response-ability is looking at your cards and making the best of them. Response-ability is knowing that no matter how bad things appear, there is always a possibility to express your truth in the face of a challenge.

Response-abilit}' is not guilt. You are not responsible for )'our circumstances; you are response-able in the face of your circumstances. Let's take an extreme example: You are not responsible for world hunger. You didn't start it and you didn't worsen it. It exists independently of you. You are, however, able to respond to world hunger. In fact, world hunger is such a pervasive problem that you cannot not respond to it. You can ignore it, you can read about it, you can donate money, you can work in a soup kitchen, you can volunteer for the Peace Corps, or you can devote your life to feeding the hungry. Whatever you do, that is your choice, your expression of your response-ability in the face of world hunger.

Response-ability is the source of power and integrity^ the power to influence your situation and the integrity to do so in alignment with your values.

WHY DOES THE PEN FALL?

In my seminars I conduct a simple experiment. I pick up a pen and let it fall to the ground. Then I ask the group, "Why did the pen fall?" "Gravity" is

usually the first answer. Sometimes people point out that I dropped it. Both answers are correct. Both gravity and my releasing of the pen caused it to fall. Most problems involve multiple factors as well, yet when we analyze them we don't look at all the causes. Normally we focus on a single reason. We look for a simple explanation. The question is, which reason is the most useful? In order to assess usefulness, we need to examine our goals. What are we trying to accomplish through our explanation?

If you want to prevent the pen from falling again, pointing out that the pen falls "because of gravity" will not help you. As long as there is gravity, the pen will fall and, according to your explanation, there is nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, if you want to argue that the fall of the pen "is not your fault," gravity is the perfect explanation. (Perhaps that's why my kids, who've seen me do the pen experiment, argue that the food that falls on the floor does so "because of gravity.")

If you say that you dropped the pen, however, there is something you can do about it. Now you have a role in the drama and you can pursue your goal actively. If you do not want the pen to fall, hold on to it. "Gravity" places causality in the realm of the uncontrollable; "I dropped it" puts me in control. Of course, most situations are more complex, but the example demonstrates an important distinction between self-disempowering explanations and self-empowering ones. It distinguishes between the explanatory st}4es of the victim and the player.

THE VICTIM AND THE PLAYER

The victim pays attention only to those factors he cannot influence. He sees himself as soniebody who suffers the consequences of external circumstances. The victim keeps his self-esteem by claiming innocence. His explanations never include himself, since he has nothing to do with the problem. He never acknowledges any contribution to the current situation. When things go wrong, the victim seeks to place blame. He points his finger at other people's mistakes. For him, problems always come from other people's actions. Self-soothing explanations placate him. They allow

him to maintain the ilhision of blamelessness when confronted with the reahty of failure.

When an infomiation systems manager-as-victim receives a customer complaint, for example, his automatic response is to blame the problem on his programmers. The programmers may indeed have made mistakes, but his explanation conveniently avoids the fact that he is supposed to supervise their work. When an account executive-as-victim loses a client, he immediately claims that the shipping department did not deliver on time. This may also be true, but overlooks the fact that he may have failed to ask the shipping department if it could meet the deadline.

The player pays attention to those factors she can influence. She sees herself as somebody who can respond to external circumstances. She bases her self-esteem on doing her best. Her explanations focus on herself, since she realizes that she is an important contributor to the problem. When things go wrong, the player seeks to understand what she can do to correct them. She chooses self-empowering explanations, explanations that put her in control.

If the information systems manager were a player, he would recognize his contribution to the undesirable outcome; that is, the role his supervision played in producing the customer's complaint. If the account executive were a player, he would choose to focus on his contribution to the problem; that is, on the ungrounded commitment that led to the late shipment and consequent loss of the customer.

The victim knows the way to innocence. "If you want to look good," he thinks, "you can't be seen as part of the problem. You have to blame external circumstances over which you had no control." The player knows the way to power. "If you want to be part of the solution," she thinks, "you have to see yourself as part of the problem. Unless you recognize your contribution to a bad situation, you won't be able to change it."

For a player, the world is full of challenges that she feels empowered to face as a "warrior" —as don Juan says in this chapter's epigraph. The player does not feel omnipotent. She understands that there are external factors beyond her control. She takes these factors neither as blessings nor curses, but simply as challenges.

Several years ago, as I presented the victim/player dichotomy in one of my seminars, an irate black man stood up and announced that my argument was worthless, that people of his race had been abused for generations, and that I was a typical clueless white guy. I was touched by his grief, and a little scared by his anger. I listened to him without interruption. When he finished, he headed for the exit. I asked him to stay and consider listening to my response. To my great relief, he agreed.

I told him that I had no intention of denying that there are people — black people among them —who have suffered great injustices. I explained that I had grown up a Jew under an anti-Semitic military dictatorship and felt the same fear that many minorities experience daily throughout the world. I hadn't been physically harmed, but several people I knew had "disappeared." Most likely they were kidnapped, tortured, and killed by military death squads. I told the man that I considered his outrage perfectly valid and assured him that I wanted to correct and repair these injustices as much as he did.

I then shared an insight that I had gleaned during those dark years in Argentina. I realized that the people oppressing me had absolutely no concern whatsoever for my well-being. I realized that the only way I could improve my situation was to take responsibility to protect myself. I stopped expecting the rulers, who only had ill will toward me, to change. I decided to do what / could, given that they wouldn't.

I noticed that the man was nodding slightly. I told him that perhaps I was a bit paranoid, but after my experience in Argentina I didn't trust government officials —or anyone who feels antagonistic toward me—to place my interests above theirs. So I have gone to great lengths to minimize my dependency on others. "Although I may have done it in an incompetent way," I explained, "my only goal was to invite you to realize that you are much better suited to take care of yourself than those who are intent on discriminating against you."

He smiled and nodded. As he returned to his seat I added, "Taking care

of ourselves does not preclude educating abusers or removing them from our organizations."

Reverend Andre Scheffer was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in Africa. He had a dry sense of humor and liked to poke fun at us. "You know," he would say, "the white man has a more difficult task than the black man in this country. Whenever there is a problem, we (white men) have to find a solution. But whenever you blacks have a problem, you have an excuse. You can simply say, 'Ingabilungu' ... a Xhosa expression that means,'It is the whites.'"

He was saying that we could always blame all of our troubles on the white man. His message was that we must also look within ourselves and become responsible for our actions—sentiments with which I wholeheartedly agreed.

NELSON MANDELA3

No one is simply a victim or a player. The victim and the player are archetypes that capture two basic tendencies in human beings: openness and defensiveness. Each represents a different lens through which we provide explanations for the many occurrences in our lives. We may take on each of these roles at different times. My acting like a victim in one particular instance doesn't preclude my acting like a player under different circumstances, and vice versa. Some people, for example, operate in full player mode when they are at work and return home to become perfect victims.

Regardless of which role you adopt, there are always factors that will be beyond your control. You must choose whether to focus on the ones within your control and be a player, or to focus on those beyond your control and be a victim. Choosing the stance of the player is clearly more effective. Yet there are powerful reasons why so many of us choose to act like victims. Let's take a look at the "benefits" of victimhood.

IT S GOOD TO BE A VICTIM

We take the victim stance to protect ourselves from blame. We want to look good and project an image of success —or at least to avoid the tarnish that comes with failure. Victimhood is an attempt to cover up our incompetence so that we look more capable than we really are. Whether we like to admit it or not, many of us depend on other people's approval for our sense of achievement and happiness. Thus, we expend a great deal of energy building an "unblamable" public image.

Many executives explain poor results by fixing blame on economic factors such as inflation, deflation, or taxes and competitive factors such as low Asian wages, currency valuations, or trade barriers. Other common explanations focus on technological change, shifting consumer tastes, or an insufficient pool of competent job applicants. All those factors may be real, but, like gravity, they are out of any executive's control. They are not determinants of poor results but environmental conditions that call for responses. It is much more comfortable, however, to shift responsibility to external factors than to take it for oneself.

For many of us, responsibility is synonymous with guilt and therefore is to be avoided. It is a connection we make in early childhood. One of our first lessons in "self-defense" is to argue that we are always innocent. Some time ago, my three-year-old son, Tomas, walked into my office in a forlorn mood. With his best puppy-dog look, he said, "Daddy, I did it by accident." Naturally, I was concerned. "What did you do?" I asked. Tomas quickly changed his statement. "Daddy, it was an accident," he said and then grabbed my hand and led me to the dining room. I noticed the lamp was on. "Tomas, you plugged in the lamp. You know I don't want you to mess with electricity!" "But Daddy," he pleaded, "it was an accident."

Children believe that finding external causes for problems, or reporting that they did things unintentionally, erases their responsibility. That is why they often say such things as, "The juice spilled," implying that they had nothing to do with the cup's tipping over; "The toy broke," as though the toy committed suicide right before their eyes; or the lamp turned itself on by accident. Another favorite phrase is "I didn't mean to ... ," which assumes that good intentions make up for bad behavior and poor results.

A third popular strategy' is, 'Tou made me do it." If, after interrupting one of their fights, I ask one of m\ kids, "Why are you hitting your sister?" his self-righteous answer will be something like, "Because she teased me." This answer implies, "She is responsible for my hitting her; I'm just a mechanism that reacts automatically to her teasing. Actually, it's not me who hit her; she hit herself through me." Of course, when I ask m\ daughter why she was teasing her brother, her self-righteous answer will be something like, "Because he stuck his tongue out at me first."

Many adults act in this same fashion. In coaching a client who had called me because he felt disconnected from his team, I asked him whv he had answered the phone during a staff meeting. He told me, "Because it rang." This was true. The phone did ring, but his explanation didn't account for his choice to take the call while his staff waited. Taking the call hurt his relationship with the team, vet he couldn't see that he had exercised a choice. Similarly, a manager from a hospital told me how she heard a nurse yell at a patient's famih member. When the manager informed the nurse that her outburst was unacceptable, the nurse offered a stardingly childish response: "He yelled at me first." As I was helping two executives repair their relationship, I heard the first say, "You ignored my request." To which the other responded, "That was not my intention, I was too busy." (That's the grownup way of saying, "I didn't mean to do it" or "I did it by accident.")

You are not a robot. You make choices. You choose to act as you do because you think it is the best way to pursue your interests in a given situation. External facts are information, not stimuli. You don't answer the phone because it rings. You choose to answ er the phone when it rings, because you want to. You assess—perhaps automatically—that you are better off taking the call. External circumstances and internal impulses influence your behavior, but they don't determine it. You are a conscious human being; you always have a choice.

Acknowledging that you have a choice is uncomfortable. "Choicelessness" is a great place to hide. When a phone rings in the middle of a meeting and you sav, "Excuse me, I have to take this call," you are really decei\ing yourself and others. You do not have to take the call. You are choosing to take it, because \ou find it preferable to continuing the con\ersation. It is awkward admitting that

the phone call is more important to you than the conversation—so you mask the thorny truth. It is much easier to blame the phone than to take responsibil-it}' for the interruption. It is much safer to hide behind the ringing phone and relinquish accountability for your choice. It is also much weaker.

I am not suggesting that you dispense entirely with social graces. They are an effective lubricant for normal conversations. Neither am I proposing that you explicidy evaluate every choice you make. Habitual responses are extremely useful in normal circumstances. But in difficult situations, unconscious routines can be dangerous. When operational, interpersonal, or personal problems arise, you need to disconnect the automatic pilot and fly the plane consciously. You need to understand how your past choices contributed to the problem, and take accountabilit}'. You need to fully own the response-abilit}^ and the power that you have in the present. If you pick up the phone because it rings, the phone is in control. If you pick up the phone because you choose to, you are in charge.

Take the case of Esteban, a South American sales executive. He had learned that the human resources department had scheduled his staffs vacations without checking with him. Now his department would be understaffed at a critical time. He was furious. "This is unbelievable!" he told me. "How dare they let people take vacations in Februar}? Are they out of their minds? Those jerks don't know that our biggest clients are in the Northern Hemisphere. February is our busiest month!"

I asked him, "Esteban, whose problem is this?"

"Theirs, of course," he answered angrily. "They should have checked with me before scheduling my staffs vacations."

I insisted, "Who's suffering because of their decision?"

"I am, of course!" he said.

"So," I repeated, "whose problem is it?"

There was a long silence, and in that moment I saw a spark of understanding in his eyes. "I didn't avoid talking to HR; they avoided talking to me. They screwed up; how can it be my problem?" he asked in disbelief

"You didn't make the decision," I acknowledged, "but you are suffering the consequences. If you are the one suffering, you are the one who has the

problem. And that means that you are the one who had better take corrective action. If you expect the ones who made the decision that suited their needs to solve your problem, I wish you luck."

Esteban followed my train of thought, but he wasn't ready to give up his victim stor}'. "Why do I have to solve a problem that I am not responsible for?" he asked. "They broke it; they ought to fix it."

"Because you are the one who is being hurt by it," I told him. "You may not have caused the problem, but if you are hurt, you had better make it your problem. If you want things to change, you've got to deal with the problem yourself. You may not be responsible for the problem, but vou can respond to it. You can make it better for yourself Either that or you can continue to blame others. That may soothe you, but I think you'd be better off trying to change the situation. Feeling sorr\' for yourself in self-righteous indignation won't solve anything."

"But that's not fair," he argued. "This is not my fault!"

"Esteban," I said somewhat sadly, "life is not fair. If you wait for things to be fair you will spend a lot of your time stuck in resentment and resignation. Give up the illusion that other people will take care of your problems just because you think they caused them. You'll feel much better if you deal with the situation yourself. It does not matter if you are the one who broke it; you are the one who needs to fix it. Even if you don't succeed, just taking charge and doing your best—doing something that makes \'ou proud of yourself—will reestablish your sense of power and integrity."

Why do we take the victim stance? Because we choose to. Why do we make this choice? Because, perhaps without giving the matter much thought, we feel that we will be better off as victims than as players. Yet as Esteban's story suggests, there is a huge cost to clinging to victimhood. Since the victim does not see himself as part of the problem, he cannot imagine himself as part of the solution.

For the victim, life is a spectator sport. His favorite place is on the sidelines, not on the field. His only option is to criticize those who play the game. This makes him feel safe, because although he can do nothing to help his team, he cannot be blamed when it loses. His routine is to blame the players, the

coach, the referees, the opponents, the weather, bad luck, and everything else. Although his explanations are technically correct (just as it is correct that the pen falls because of gravity), they are also disempowering. This is the sharp hook behind the bait of innocence. The price of innocence is powerlessness.

Forsaking responsibility in the face of problems that are not of your making may seem justifiable, but if your ship encounters a storm, you can't very well say, "This isn't my mess; I don't have to deal with it." A captain accepts that everything that happens during his watch is his responsibility. You are the captain of your life. You must sail as best as you can no matter how "unfair" the weather is.

This may seem overly demanding, but when you think about it, victim-hood is a terrible alternative. Consider the situation of psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, who was imprisoned at Auschwitz during World War II. It is hard to imagine a situation more unfair and tragic than his. Yet even amidst the horrific conditions, he woke up each morning and found a reason to survive. To paraphrase Nietzsche, Frankl realized that whoever has a "why" can withstand almost any "how." Even though all of the prisoners suffered extraordinarily, Frankl later noticed an important trait shared by many of the camp's survivors. Despite their lack of control over their exterior circumstances, they never relinquished control over their inner experience. Certainly, many prisoners who maintained this discipline also perished, but they never lost their integrity, gave up, or took their own lives. Frankl discovered that a human being's fundamental dignity lies in his capacity to choose his response to any situation —his response-ability.

Any situation —from the horrific to the mundane —can be explained from the point of view of determinism or of free will. Freedom distinguishes a human being from every other type of being; being human means being able to choose. Perhaps the most important exercise of this freedom is the decision about whether to live as a victim or a player.

To cover all the earth with sheets of hide— Where could such amounts of skin be found?

But simply wrap some leather round your feet, And it's as if the whole earth had been covered!

Likewise, we can never take And turn aside the outer course of things. But only seize and discipline the mind itself, And what is there remaining to be curbed?

SHANTIDEVA, THE WAY OF THE BODHISATTVA^

THE PLAYER: UNCONDITIONAL FREEDOM

The traditional definition of freedom describes it as our capacity to do what we want. We want to be ''free from" constraints. This freedom is "relative" or "conditional" because it depends on factors beyond our control. Life is full of constraints. We can't stop our bodies from aging or following the laws of physics. We can't make others think and feel as we wish. We can't start a company (at least not legally) without the necessary government licenses. We have different degrees of relative freedom, but nobody is "totally free."

The essential or unconditional definition of freedom is our capacity to respond to a situation by exercising our free will. According to this definition, ever}' person is free. Essential freedom is a basic condition of human existence. We always respond to situations the way we choose. If we face an armed robber threatening to take our money or our life, we have plent\' of options: hand him the money, attack him, tr\' to escape, shout, seek help, etc. What we cannot choose is the criminal's not being there to attack us. Another thing we cannot choose is whether our strategy will be successful. Essential human freedom is unconditional because, as we face our situation, we can choose to do what we deem best.

We are always ft'ee to choose our behavior; we are even free to choose to deny ourselves this freedom and feel as though we are not free. Take Nancy, for example, an engineering manager. She felt victimized by her boss who "forced" her to attend a meeting I was facilitating between the engineering and sales departments. When I asked her why she attended the meeting, she replied,

"Because my boss sent me." It was true that her boss had asked her to come to the meeting, but not the whole truth. It was also true that she chose to accept her boss's request. Nancy's interpretation led her to feel resentment and resignation. She was physically present at the meeting, but her heart and mind were somewhere else. I challenged her gently, asking her iishe hadn't agreed to attend the meeting when her boss had requested it. The obvious implication was that she could have chosen not to come to the meeting in spite of her boss's request.

"No, I couldn't disagree with my boss and miss this meeting. My job is on the line," Nancy argued. I pointed out that she could have missed the meeting but instead chose to attend because the consequences of declining her boss's request were worse than the consequences of accepting it. "Well, it's the same thing," she said. "The difference is purely semantic."

The difference is not just semantic. To own her power, Nancy must stop denying her freedom. Once she realizes that she is free to respond to her boss (even though she is not free from her boss's authority), Nancy could try to negotiate not attending the meeting, or if the meeting was that distasteful for her, to risk declining her boss's request anyway. This could result in unwanted consequences: Nancy cannot choose to keep her job if her boss fires her, but quitting her job in protest for being sent to the meeting is an option.(although probably not the most desirable one). Freedom does not mean doing what you want without consequences; it means having the capacity to choose, in the face of a situation, the response that is most consistent with your values.

Unconditional freedom is the player's secret weapon. The player understands that all results are a consequence of the interplay between a certain challenge and her ability to respond to it— what we've been calling response-ability. If the challenge is greater than her capacity to respond, the result will be negative, a failure. If her capacity to respond is greater than the challenge, the result will be positive, a success. Thus, she can increase her chances of success by either increasing her response capabilities or by reducing the challenge she is facing. In situations where the challenge is beyond her control, trusting success to luck is a risky proposition —a chance that a player is not willing to take. (The victim, on the other hand, assumes that other people and the forces of the universe should go her way.)

The player always describes herself as a significant part of her problems. She is willing to take the hit of accountability because it puts her in the driver's seat. Self-empowering explanations let her understand how she contributed to the situation and find ways to improve it. When she understands what she did or didn't do that contributed to the problem, she understands what she can do or not do to prevent the problem from recurring.

Let's go back to Esteban and his scheduling problem. "Fine," he granted begrudgingly. "Let's say that this is my problem. What am I supposed to do now?"

"First, you need to understand how you contributed to it," I answered.

"What?" he burst out. "This is too much! / didnt do anything wrong. They made the mistake. Why do you want me to take the blame?"

"I don't want you to take the blame, Esteban. I want to find your part in the problem."

"And why is that?" he asked.

I said, "I have three reasons: First, it will help you think of ways in which you can be a part of the solution; second, it will allow you to have a conversation with the HR guys that starts non-confrontationally; and third, it will let you avoid falling into the same trap in the future."

"Okay," Esteban accepted, "let's try it."

After some inquiry we established that Esteban's contribution to the problem was that, as he had said, he hadnt done anything. Specifically, he hadn't told the HR department that February was his busiest month and that he needed all his staff. This was not wrong; it was subject to improvement. We agreed that the best way to proceed would be for him to have a conversation with the HR department to try to change the current schedule. I will describe in detail how to tackle this type of conversation in chapter 5, but let me give you a preview here. I asked Esteban to do a reverse role-play. 'Tou play the HR guy and I'll play you," I instructed. "Improvise using your best judgment. Don't make him easier than you think he would be, but don't make him a monster either. I'll use my judgment to play you. If you feel I say something that you wouldn't honestly say, interrupt me and let me know, okay? So what's your nemesis's name?"

Esteban sneered, "Oh, I'm going to enjoy being the bad guy. Call me Rick."

Esteban (Fred): Hi, Rick, I'd like to talk to you about the holiday schedule.

Do you have a minute now? It's kind of urgent. Rick (Esteban): Sorry, Esteban, the schedule is all set, we can't change it. Esteban (Fred): Well, that's one of the things I'd like to talk about, but not

the only one. I'd really appreciate a few minutes of your time. Rick (Esteban): All right. Let's talk now. Esteban (Fred): Thank you. I want to ask for your help. You couldn't

know this, since I never told you, but February is my department's

busiest month —we ship mostly to the Northern Hemisphere.

Given the current vacation schedule, I will find myself severely

understaffed. I am wondering if there's anything we can do

about that. Rick (Esteban): Well, don't blame me! That's your problem. Esteban (Fred): Exactly, this is my problem, and I'm asking you for help. I

understand that you couldn't have known, because I didn't tell you.

"Wait a minute!" the real Esteban interrupted. "He could have asked! You're making me take all the heat. Rick has some 'response-ability' in this situation too, doesn't he?"

"Absolutely, but at this point I don't think it would be productive to focus on that. My taking a hundred percent responsibilit}' does not mean he doesn't have his own hundred percent as well. Every person can take full ownership. Do you disagree that you could have told Rick and you didn't?"

"No."

"Okay, then let's keep going."

Esteban (Fred): Exactly, this is my problem, and I'm asking you for help. I understand that you couldn't have known because I didn't tell you.

Rick (Esteban): You should have told me.

Esteban (Fred): Yes. It would have been a lot better if I had told you. But I didn't. So now I have this situation and I need your help. Is there something you can do to help me?

Rick (Esteban): We get a lot of complaints when we change schedules. My boss doesn't like that a bit.

Esteban (Fred): Let me check if I understand. It may be possible to reschedule my department's vacations, but you are concerned that if people complain you'll get in trouble with your boss. Is that correct?

Rick (Esteban): You got it.

Esteban (Fred): I see how that would be a problem for you. But what if I can guarantee that the people in my department won't complain? They are also frustrated with the schedule and would like to work during our busy month.

Rick (Esteban): Would you put that in writing?

Esteban (Fred): Absolutely. What if I send you a memo, signed by all the people in my department, explaining that February is our busiest month and that we would appreciate your rescheduling vacations so that everybody is on the job?

Rick (Esteban): That would work for me.

Esteban (Fred): Thanks, Rick, you've been very helpful!

"How the hell did you do that?" Esteban exclaimed. "You made me want to help you!"

"I can't make you, and you can't make Rick, do anything. But I can ask in a very compelling way. I used several techniques, but the crucial step was to stop blaming you (Rick) for the problem and focus on my contribution. That lowered your defensiveness. Then, when I asked you for help, you were much more willing to explore options with me."

"That's great, but what if Rick refuses to change the schedule after all?" Esteban added.

"Why would he do that?" I inquired.

Esteban replied, laughing, "I don't know, because he's a prick!"

I challenged him: "Would he say that he doesn't want to change the schedule because he is a prick?"

"Of course not."

"So what do you imagine he would say?"

Esteban answered, "He may claim that there's a pohcy in place and even if all my people ask to have their vacations changed, he is not allowed to do it at this point."

'Then I would ask Rick to let you speak with the person who has the power to make an exception to the policy. This is not just for your benefit, but for the sake of the company. You could make a pretty strong case."

"Come on, Fred," said Esteban, a bit exasperated. "You know what I mean. What if he just can't change the damn schedule?"

"All right, just for argument's sake, let's say that there is an insurmountable constraint. This would be odd, because there are very few non-negotiables in business. But at the ver}' least, the problem will not reoccur next year. You would have made it clear that February' is not vacation time for your department. But more importantly, if you tried everything and couldn't change the date, you'd deal with the situation the best way you could, with as little resentment as you could. And then when you looked in the mirror, you would be proud of yourself, because you did your best in alignment with your values."

In any situation, the player strives to do her best to respond according to her values. The player feels secure, but not out of a naive faith that everything will work out. Her peace of mind comes from knowing that, regardless of the challertge, she has the unconditional ability to respond. She may not achieve the result she desires, but she can behave righteously in the face of her trials. Her impeccable efforts yield joy, freedom, and dignity.

What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthernnore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer

to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.

VIKTOR FRANKL5

THE PRICE OF POWER: ACCOUNTABILITY

Taking the stance of the player is not without cost. Accepting your freedom requires that you account for your choices. Freedom and accountabiht}' are two sides of the same coin. If the devil made you do it, you don't have to explain why you did it. It isn't really you, but the devil, who actually did it. If you own your actions, you can be asked for your reasons and held accountable for their consequences. Power is the prize of responsibility; accountabilit}- is its price.

Freedom demands that you acknowledge your contribution to your problems. Contribution is not blame. In fact, the player's response-ability is at the antithesis of the victim's blame-ability. The victim tries to justify his victimhood by blaming others. There is no victim without a perpetrator. The player blames neither others nor herself. The player recognizes that she contributed to the unfolding of the situation and that perhaps she could have acted in more effective or dignified ways. The victim uses the language of "should," indicating obligation and judgment. The player uses the language of "could," indicating possibilit}' and learning. A client of mine captures the meaning of contribution with a pithy phrase. "Whenever I have a problem," he says insightfully, "I'm around."

Blame seems like a safe haven when self-esteem is at risk. It is tempting to protect yourself by blaming others. Notice how when things get hot, your mind boils with questions such as. Who screwed up? Who is bad? Who's wrong? Who should pay? I learned how automatic the blame process can be by making a fool of myself in front of my kids. I was in my living room when the phone upstairs rang. I ran up, kicking a plastic cup that had been left on the stairs as I reached the top step. I got ver\ upset. Not only did I spill purple grape juice on the carpet, I also missed the call.

I walked into the kids' room and asked in my best self-righteous voice, "Who left a cup at the top of the stairs?" A tiny voice replied, "And who kicked the cup?"

Blame obscures what's causing the problem and what can be done to solve it. When things go wrong between people, each individual owns a piece of the mess. But this is not how each of us experiences our contribution. As the saying goes, "Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan." I think the problem is totally your fault, and you think it's totally my fault. The truth is that both of us contributed to the situation. We are both response-able to find a way to make things right. Although you can take full ownership of the problem regardless of my attitude, it will be much easier to address the situation if I acknowledge my contribution as well. Besides taking the lead on recognizing your part, you can invite me to accept my contribution. If I am open, you can point out the facts of the matter, highlighting that I also did or didn't do things that contributed to the problem.

Understanding her contribution, the player can find power even in situations where she carries no blame. Let's take the case of a New Orleans resident who lost her home in the flood caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Obviously, she didn't bring this disaster on herself. But taking the stance of the player, she could recognize that she is accountable for choices that contributed to the situation: for example, the choice to live in New Orleans or the choice not to buy flood insurance. There's nothing "wrong" with those choices, yet they were parts of a process that ended in a loss. This not only helps her get over her natural feeling of resignation and resentment in the face of such a loss; it also helps her plan future actions that can correct the situation and minimize the chances of its recurrence.

To claim that those affected by a problem contributed to it is not politically correct It sounds insensitive, like "blaming the victim." One more time, contribution is not blaming the victim. Those who blame the victim claim that "you create your reality." "If you are suffering," they reason, "you must have brought it on yourself. If something bad happened to you, you deserved or wanted to be victimized." That is absurd. Nobody "creates" his reality alone. At the same time, nobody can relinquish responsibility for

"co-creating" his circumstances. You contributed to bringing about your present, and you can contribute to bringing about your future.

FROM VICTIM TO PLAYER

When you take the stance of the player, you give up the hope for anything to be different than what it is. You take reahty as the challenge that allows you to show who you really are and what you stand for. Whether you are talking to yourself or to others, an essential step of shifting from victim to player is to change your language from third to first person, from outside causality toward personal accountabilit}'. The language of the player includes words like "I" and addresses specific actions that you could have taken —and that you can currently take. Examples of player statements are, "I didn't back up the file," "I missed my deadline," "I lost track of time and stayed at the meeting too long," "I could not find a way to reach our profit targets without the layoffs," "I could not establish rapport with the client," and ''I couldn't convince senior management to support the project."

Even when unexpected things happen, you can use the language of the player. Instead of focusing on the event, you can acknowledge that you did not anticipate the possibility. You can say, for example, "I did not anticipate that there could be a traffic jam," "I did not foresee that the weather could turn nasty," "I didn't think that our suppliers could fail to deliver on time," or "I underestimated the risk of the project."

The specific words are not crucial, but the frame of mind is. Consider how the difference in the following expressions reflects a change in underlying attitude:

"It's hopeless." "I haven't found a solution yet."

"Someone should take the first step." "I could take the first step."

"It can't be done." "I choose not to do it."

"You make me angry." "When you speak that way, I feel angr)."

"I have to leave." "I want to leave."

"I don't have time (or money)." "I prefer to focus on other priorities."

The first sentence of every pair states, "It's not up to me"; the second claims, "I am making a choice." The best way to understand this shift in attitude is through an exercise.

Recall a painful situation: an ineffective meeting, a harsh conversation, a business failure, or a personal breakdown. The best scenario is one where you believe you were treated unfafrly, where you saw yourself at the mercy of other people or events that were beyond your control. Based on this situation, answer the following questions from a victim's perspective. (To accomplish the goals of the exercise, you must adopt the victim's role. Make an effort to feel completely "innocent" and "wronged" by others.)

In my seminars I do this exercise in small groups. While one group member complains, I encourage the others to "help" him by sympathizing with expressions such as "I can't believe they did that to you," "That is so unfair," "They can't treat you like that," "They are so mean," "You deserve better than this." The goal is to provide what seems like "moral support" to the victim. However, this "help" is obviously unhelpful; it encourages a sense of impotence, blame, and self-righteous indignation. These comments are a life jacket made of lead that sinks the person deeper and deeper into his victim stor}'.

Pity is an empty form of support. Nurturing the victim's feeling of helplessness, resignation, and moral outrage is a cheap way to be friendly. Just as you can buy a child's affection by giving her all the chocolate she wants or an alcoholic's affection by buying him another drink, you can buy a victim's affection by telling him he has been unfairly wronged. Chocolate, alcohol, and self-soothing explanations may bring easy pleasure, but they are ultimately destructive. Remember, your drug dealer is not your friend. Neither is your victim-support buddy. A truly caring friend offers you long-term wellness rather than immediate gratification. He blends a compassionate acknowledgment of your pain with a fierce challenge to your self-disempowering beliefs.

The questions to elicit the story of the victim are:

1 What happened to you?

2 Who wronged you?

3 What was wrong (or unfair) about what he did to you?

4 Why do you think he did this to you?

5 What should he have done instead?

6 What should he do now to repair the damage?

7 How should he be punished?

Once you have answered all of these questions, you can go on to the second round of questions. Answer them from the player's perspective. It is vital that you refer to the same event. The facts remain the same; what changes is your story about the situation. The purpose is to see how the player's point of view illuminates opportunities for action and learning that were hidden from you before. The stor}^ of the pla\'er is not "more true" than the one of the victim, but it is preferable because it allows you to see yourself as a contributor, capable of having influenced what happened, and capable of influencing what will happen.

The questions to elicit the story of the player are:

1 What challenge did you face?

2 How did you contribute (by acting or not acting) to create this situation?

3 How did you respond to the challenge?

4 Can you think of a more effective course of action you could have taken?

5 Could you have made some reasonable preparations to reduce the risk or the impact of the situation?

6 Can you do something now to minimize or repair the damage?

7 What can you learn from this experience?

These questions are as useful in personal as they are in professional situations. The same way a manager can help his employees let go of a victim story, a mother can help her son. The same way a colleague can help another claim her power, a spouse can help her partner stop feeling sorry for himself and take control of a situation. The important thing to remember is that when you issue a loving challenge, love —in the form of empathy and compassion for the other's pain —comes first, and challenge —in the form of poignant

inquin to invite the other to own his power and accountability—comes second. I will explain how to receive another person's pain lovingly in Chapter 5, "Authentic Communication."

A CULTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY

When I present the victim/player material to my clients, they commit to becoming players, but they raise a revealing objection: "I can change my attitude, but that won't really change things, because I'm surrounded by a bunch of victims." Furthermore, they argue that their organizations reward those who claim innocence and punish those who take responsibility. These explanations may be accurate, but they are topical victim hedges. I understand that other people can be stuck in victimhood, or that organizational systems and cultures can discourage responsibilit}-, but waiting for other people or systems to change is a weak strategy. You can act like a player in the face of others' choosing to act like victims, and in the face of a system that rewards innocence and punishes responsibilit)^. Ultimately, you don't take the player role because it is convenient or because others will appreciate you; you take it because it is the wa\' you choose to live.