Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social

Change

ISSN: 1477-9633 (Print) 2040-056X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yorg20

From systems thinking to systems being: The

embodiment of evolutionary leadership

Kathia Castro Laszlo

To cite this article: Kathia Castro Laszlo (2012) From systems thinking to systems being: The
embodiment of evolutionary leadership, Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change,
9:2, 95-108, DOI: 10.1386/jots.9.2.95_1

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1386/jots.9.2.95_1

Published online: 05 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1722

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yorg20
 OTASC 9 (2) pp. 95–108 Intellect Limited 2012

Journal of Organizational Transformation & Social Change

Volume 9 Number 2
© 2012 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jots.9.2.95_1

Kathia Castro Laszlo

Saybrook University
Syntony Quest

From systems thinking

to systems being: The
embodiment of evolutionary
leadership

Abstract Keywords
This article grew out of a personal reflection on the meaning of evolutionary lead- systems thinking
ership based on the learning derived from my experiences as an educator, consult- systems feeling
ant, coach, social entrepreneur and mother. Systems thinking has been a means for systems being
enabling critical and creative perspectives from which ideas for improving a difficult evolutionary leadership
situation or innovating a new possibility emerge. However, no matter how powerful evolutionary learning
this way of thinking is, there is more to the task of catalyzing evolutionary transfor- community
mation towards life-affirming, future creating and opportunity increasing realities. ecologies of innovation
Thus evolutionary leadership is a call for participation in the most important task higher purpose
of our time: to innovate a future of peace and abundance in partnership with all the abundance mental
living systems of our planet Earth. This is not a task for a few privileged, ‘enlight- model
ened’ ones, but a responsibility for every human being. If the insights from systems
thinking and practice will be of help in the transition to a viable future for all, they
should not be restricted to books and the halls of a few universities, but they need
to become part of the social fabric that informs our cultures: the narrative that gives
purpose and meaning to who we are, why we are here, and where we are going as
a global civilization.

95
Kathia Castro Laszlo

From systems thinking to systems being: The evolution of

our way OF SEEING and living in the world
Systems thinking, as a field of scientific research and practice, has gained
increasing recognition as a relevant and useful way of understanding and
acting in the world. The systems paradigm – as a coherent framework of
thought – came into existence when in the 1920s a handful of scientist from
different fields became aware of the potential to develop a general theory
of organized complexity (Laszlo 1975). Systems thinking has biological and
technical origins. On the one hand it was pioneered by organismic biologists,
and enriched by Gestalt psychologists and ecologists (Capra 1996: 17–18). On
the other, developments in engineering, management, cybernetics and infor-
mation theory contributed greatly to the consolidation of systems thinking
(Hammond 1997). Contemporary systems thinking includes a diverse array of
perspectives developed since then.
In the Germany of the 1920s, organismic biology and Gestalt psychology
were part of a larger cultural movement ‘against the increasing fragmentation
and alienation of human nature .... There was a hunger for wholeness’ (Capra
1996: 32). The philosopher Christian von Ehrenfels was the first in use the
word Gestalt (i.e. organic form) to indicate that ‘the whole is more than the
sum of its parts’ that would become a key maxim of systems thinking later on
(Capra 1996: 31). It was the organismic biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy who
formulated the fullest expression of the emerging systems ideas in a General
System Theory (GST). His main contribution was the concept of open system
(Hammond 1997: 21) and it was his work ‘that established systems thinking
as a major scientific movement’ (Capra 1996: 46). Bertalanffy introduced the
concept of GST in 1937 (Hammond 1997: 2), however, his first publication
on the subject appeared only after World War II. In 1954 Bertalanffy together
with Ralph Gerard, Anatol Rapoport, James Miller and Kenneth Boulding,
established the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory –
what today is the International Society of Systems Sciences (ISSS).
However, a systems way of perceiving and appreciating the world is much
older. Heraclitus had the conception that ‘everything flows’ – a process orienta-
tion fully embraced by systems thinking. Churchman identifies the I Ching as the
oldest systems approach (Hammond 1997: 12). Indigenous cultures have ‘other
ways of knowing’ that demonstrate a deep understanding of the interconnected
nature of our world and of the sacred relationships that sustain life.
If we look at the problems afflicting humanity, from economic collapse
and environmental degradation to poverty and increase in political conflicts,
we can see that many of them are the result from a narrow focus that left
out some important dimensions or considerations. In other words, they are
manifestations of a lack of systems thinking that fails to take into account
unintended effects. For example, nuclear energy can be seen as a low carbon
source of energy, however, it can never be considered a clean energy source
once nuclear waste enters the picture (Population and Development Program
2006: 2; SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2009: 40). So a more
systemic way of thinking and making decisions will eliminate ‘externalities’
artificially created by a narrow definition of a system’s boundaries and include
as many variables and perspectives as possible in order to appreciate the
complexity as well as the short and long term feedback dynamics.
So systems thinking can lead us on a critical and rational path of theories,
archetypes, methods and models as useful tools in describing and mapping

96
 From systems thinking to systems being

complex situations. This is very good indeed, however, it is not sufficient to

alleviate the deep global socio-ecological crisis that is putting into jeopardy
our future as human species. Systems thinking is the beginning of a trans-
formative learning process that could lead to an expansion of consciousness
and the emergence of new ways of being. Learning to listen to and harmonize
with the patterns of change of our environments, remembering how to be
curiously and playfully engaged in a lifelong creative enquiry, reconnecting to
practices that honour all our relations, are some examples of the manifestation
of a systemic competence that goes beyond thinking.

Systems thinking: A new way of seeing

As I reflect on my own learning journey, I see systems thinking as the gate
that has opened up opportunities for exploring how to become more fully me.
But systems thinking was only the first step.
A system is a set of interconnected elements that form a whole and show
properties that are properties of the whole rather than of the individual
elements. This definition is valid for a cell, an organism, a society or a galaxy.
Therefore, as Macy (1991) expresses it, a system is less a thing than a pattern –
a pattern of organization. It consists of a dynamic flow of interactions that
is non-summative, irreducible and integrated at a new level of organization
permitted by the interdependence of its parts. The word ‘system’ derives from
the Greek ‘synhistanai’, which means ‘to place together’ (Capra 1996: 27).
Systems thinking is thinking about the world through the concept ‘system’
(Checkland 1993: 3). It involves thinking in terms of processes rather than
structures, relationships rather than components, interconnections rather
than separation. The focus of the enquiry is on the organization and dynamics
generated by complex interaction of systems embedded in other systems and
composed by other systems (Morin 1977).
From a cognitive perspective, systems thinking integrates analysis
and synthesis. Natural science has been primarily reductionistic, studying
the components of systems and using quantitative empirical verification.
Human science, as a reaction to the use of positivistic methods for studying
human phenomena, has embraced more holistic approaches, studying social
phenomena through qualitative means to create meaning. Systems think-
ing bridges these two approaches by using both analysis and synthesis to
create knowledge and understanding and integrating an ethical perspective.
Analysis answers the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions while synthesis answers
the ‘why’ and ‘what for’ questions. By combining analysis and synthesis,
systems thinking creates a rich enquiring platform for approaches such
as social systems design (Banathy 1996) and evolutionary systems design
(Laszlo 2001a, 2001b) that uses the deeper understanding of a system in its
larger context and a vision of the future for co-creating ethical innovations,
both social and technical.
Evolutionary systems thinking is an extension of systems thinking. It
expands from thinking in terms of the ‘big picture’ to thinking in terms of the
‘big moving picture’ – placing the understanding of a complex system not only
in terms of its relations to a larger socio-ecological context but also in terms
of the way the system has changed and will continue to change over time. In
other words, while systems thinking focuses on the pattern of organization of a
system, evolutionary systems thinking focuses on the pattern of change of that
system over time. From an evolutionary leadership perspective, this diachronic

97
Kathia Castro Laszlo

appreciation of our history and future is very important for facilitating

transformation in a life-affirming direction.
The systems view, therefore, provides us with a rigorous way of looking
at reality from a different perspective, an expanded viewpoint that enables us
to see how nothing exists in isolation. Just like the first image of Earth from
outer space had a huge impact on our ability to see the unity of our planet,
systems thinking is a way of seeing ourselves as part of larger interconnected
systems. Most importantly, this new perception creates a new consciousness
from which the possibility of a new relationship emerge:

From the moon, the Earth is so small and so fragile, and such a precious
little spot in that Universe, that you can block it out with your thumb.
Then you realize that on that spot, that little blue and white thing, is
everything that means anything to you - all of history and music and
poetry and art and death and birth and love, tears, joy, games, all of it
right there on that little spot that you can cover with your thumb. And
you realize from that perspective that you’ve changed forever, that there
is something new there, that the relationship is no longer what it was.
(Rusty Schweickart, Apollo 17 astronaut quoted in Brand 1966)

Systems feeling: Connecting to our emotions and will

Systems thinking is a gateway to seeing interconnections. Once we see a
new reality, we cannot go back and ignore it. More importantly, that ‘seeing’
has an emotional connection, beautifully captured in the statement by Rusty
Schweickart after his experience of seeing his home planet from space.
Through my scholarly and professional activities, I have encounter two
types of systems thinkers: those who cognitively understand and can ‘talk the
systems talk’, and those who appreciate and can feel what it means to embrace
a systems view, even if they do not know (or care about) formal systems
concepts. Those individuals able to make the emotional connection between
an expanded and more comprehensive understanding of interconnectedness
are also more able to translate systems ideas into actions.
What are the emotions evoked by perceiving for the first time the
unity, interconnectedness, and relatedness of a system? What are the feel-
ings evoked by perceiving and experiencing disconnection and isolation?
Humberto Maturana says that ‘emotions are fundamental to what happens
in all our doings’ (Maturana and Bunnell 1999: 58) and yet, bringing up
emotions in a scientific or business conversation is in many cases considered
irrelevant, inappropriate or simply uncomfortable. Following Maturana’s
views, I would say that the simplified answer to my two questions on the
emotions evoked by unity and disconnection are love and fear, correspond-
ingly. Love is the only emotion that expands intelligence, creativity and
vision; it is the emotion that enables autonomy and responsibility (Maturana
and Bunnell 1999: 58–59). Maturana defines love as ‘relational behaviors
through which another (a person, being, or thing) arises as a legitimate
other in coexistence with oneself’ (Maturana and Bunnell 1999: 59). Only
in a context of safety, respect and freedom to be and create (i.e. a context
of love) can people be relaxed and find the conditions conducive to engage
in higher intelligent behaviours that uses their brain neo-cortex. Learning,
collaboration and creativity happen when we are able to function from a
consciousness capable of including a worldcentric awareness of ‘all of us’

98
 From systems thinking to systems being

(Wilber 2005: 21). On the contrary, in a situation of stress, insecurity, or any

other manifestation of fear, we are conditioned to react more instinctually
and to operate from our reptilian brain to fulfill more rudimentary needs
linked to survival.
The first image of our whole Earth from space created a sense of awe
and beauty. From space, we can see (and feel) its wholeness: there are no
political lines dividing our national territories, there is only one whole system.
However, from our terrestrial and regionally bounded experiences, we can
feel that the neighbour tribe is sufficiently different and threatening to be
considered an enemy.
Nowadays, we have many technological means to perceive and experience
multiple dimensions of our human experience: photographs from space, films
about cultures and situations that would be foreign to our daily experiences,
transportation means to reach remote places around the world and, of course,
Internet access to information and knowledge that expands our view of reality.
We are moving from conveying information on black and white and linear
language (e.g. print format) to multimedia and interactive means that convey
emotions and create experiences through sound, images, movement and
participation. Unfortunately, these technological tools can also play a discon-
necting role, keeping us distracted or numbed to the suffering in the world,
addicted to material consumption and to violence as a way of entertainment,
or lost in virtual realities and superficial relationships. We face the enormous
challenge to bridge the gap between our technological intelligence with our
socio-cultural and ethical intelligence in order to use our technologies for the
greater good (Banathy 1996). This gap or disconnection is well captured in
Vaclav Havel’s reflection:

We may know immeasurably more about the universe than our

ancestors did, and yet it increasingly seems that they knew something
more essential about it than we do, something that escapes us. The same
thing is true of nature and of ourselves. The more thoroughly all our
organs and their functions, their internal structure and the biochemical
reactions that take place within them are described, the more we seem
to fail to grasp the spirit, purpose, and meaning of the system that
they create together and that we experience as our unique self. Thus,
we enjoy all the achievements of modern civilization that have made
our physical existence easier in so many important ways. Yet we do not
know exactly what to do with ourselves, where to turn.
(Halev 1994)

While technically speaking, systems thinking can be formally taught in

academic contexts, the connection between systems thinking and systems
feeling happens through life experiences and reflection. Systems feeling
involves lifelong learning and a commitment to integrate cognition and
emotion; linking head with heart. As Gandhi put it, the means are the
ends: we need to find ways to engage our whole selves in processes that
incorporate the same values and aspirations we are trying to create. We need
to move from teaching systems to creating the conditions for experiencing
and living systems.
One relatively simple way of accomplishing this connection between
head and heart, transitioning from systems thinking to systems feeling,
is to learn the practice of conversation. When we are fully present in a

99
Kathia Castro Laszlo

conversation, we cannot interact only from our head: our tone of voice,
facial and body expression, and the physical space in which the conversation
takes place create a mood that becomes an integral part of the message. I
am talking of deep conversations: not ‘small talk’ such as casual exchanges
about the weather, but ‘big talk’ that involves learning, changing perspec-
tives and meaning creation. Banathy (1996) emphasized the role of conver-
sation in social systems design. He distinguished between two types of
dialogue: generative and strategic. Without a generative dialogue through
which participants could create a sense of community, the strategic dialogue
focused on creating their common future was vain: an intellectual exercise
that most likely will not embody the values and aspirations of the designers.
Without strategic dialogue, all the deep relationships and fantastic ideas
generated in our interpersonal encounters will become wonderful memories
rather than new realities.
Maturana (2002: 28) says that an organization can be understood as a
network of conversations. There is a flow of information that leads to coordi-
nation of actions that produce results and feeds back information to improve
the organization. He goes on to explain that as biological systems – as human
beings – we live in language and in emotions. Following this view of organ-
izations not as structures but as the flow of human interactions through
language, we can appreciate the importance of power of conversations to
facilitate change and create a desirable future.
Here is where what I refer as ‘systems willing’ becomes relevant. Systems
thinking and feeling can be useful approaches to describe and understand
complexity, to portray ‘what is’. However, the emotional and relational
nature of this systemic appreciation can lead to actions that create more of
what is good and to change what can be improved. Systems willing involves
embracing the responsibility (and opportunity) of creating what could be.
This is accomplished through systems design – a disciplined and collaborative
future creating enquiry.

Systems being: Living a new consciousness

We live in a privileged moment in which the amount and depth of infor-
mation available for decision making is incredible. Margaret Mead reflected
that it is the first time in human history that we are able to explain what is
happening while it is happening (in Montouri 1989: 27). Our understanding
of complex dynamic systems point out that, when social systems are in
chaotic conditions, actions taken by individuals or small groups of people
can effect society as a whole. These two aspects of our current capacities, the
metareflection and instant communication capabilities at a global level and
the power to influence change even from positions of no power, present us
with opportunity to look at everyday lives as the platform from which we can
contribute to creating a viable future.
‘Before we can change the way we live, before we have saved the rainforest
and the whales, we need to change ourselves. Humanity with all its different
races is one. We and all other living things are nourished and sustained
by the same earth’ (Rema, a 14 year old girl from New Zealand, quoted in
Gribble 2001: 51). This is the leading edge of the sustainability movement: the
realization that no matter how many solar panels we install, how many green
products we consume, how much CO2 we remove from the atmosphere, we
will not be living better lives if we do not transform ourselves, our lifestyles,

100
 From systems thinking to systems being

choices and priorities. Sustainability is an inside job, a learning journey to live

lightly, joyfully, peacefully, meaningfully.
Systems being involves embodying a new consciousness, an expanded
sense of self, a recognition that we cannot survive alone, that a future that
works for humanity needs also to work for other species and the planet.
‘Humanity with all its different races is one. We and all other living things
are nourished and sustained by the same earth’ (Rema, quoted in Gribble
2001: 51). It involves empathy and love for the greater human family and
for all our relationships – plants and animals, earth and sky, ancestors and
descendents, and the many peoples and beings that inhabit our Earth. This is
the wisdom of many indigenous cultures around the world, this is part of the
heritage that we have forgotten and we are in the process of recovering.
In the past, we have fragmented our understanding of reality. We have
suppressed intuitive knowledge and give validity only to external verifiable
knowledge.
For example, we considered science and spirituality as two incommensurable
meaning making systems. But today there are glimpses of their convergence.
Can we study nature and keep the sense of awe and reverence? Can we learn
to meditate as a form of enquiry to learn to intentionally use our consciousness
to create reality?
Systems being and systems living brings it all together: linking head, heart
and hands. The expression of systems being and systems living is an integra-
tion of our full human capacities, the expression of an evolving humanity.
It involves rationality with reverence to the mystery of life, listening beyond
words, sensing with our whole being, and expressing our authentic self in
every moment of our life. The journey from systems thinking to systems being
is a transformative learning process of expansion of consciousness – from
awareness to embodiment (Figure 1).

Figure 1: From systems thinking to systems being.

101
Kathia Castro Laszlo

Evolutionary leadership: The embodiment of systems being

The evolution of leadership
The most prevalent understanding of leadership is narrow and hierarchical: one
leader on top and many followers below; few with power and many power-
less. As members of society and organizations we have accepted a passive,
victim stance in the face of complex challenges while we point fingers hoping
that elected officials and business executives take care of our problems. Our
behaviour represents a relinquishing of our power. We suffer the problems
but we do not see ourselves as part of the solutions. And if we find ourselves
dissatisfied about our leaders, we act as if we cannot do anything about it.
This distorted concept of leadership needs to be revised and expanded,
because it is not very useful and it may be dangerous in today’s world.
By our mere participation in social structures through our daily lives, we
are creating our future. But we have not done so consciously. Peter Senge
(in Jaworsky 1996) shares the view that ‘ultimately, leadership is about
creating new realities’. He says:

Because of our obsession with how leaders behave and with the interac-
tions of leaders and followers, we forget that in its essence, leadership
is about learning how to shape the future … Leadership exists when
people are no longer victims of circumstances but participate in creating
new circumstances. Leadership is about creating a domain in which
human beings continually deepen their understanding of reality and
become more capable of participating in the unfolding of the world.

In our blindness to our own power as participants and co-creators – as leaders –

in ‘community’, we too often give up our right and responsibility to co-author
the narrative of our lives. Parker Palmer expresses this notion beautifully:

‘Leadership’ is a concept we often resist. It seems immodest, even self-

aggrandizing, to think of ourselves as leaders. But if it is true that we
are made for community, then leadership is everyone’s vocation, and it
can be an evasion to insist that it is not. When we live in the close-knit
ecosystem called community, everyone follows and everyone leads.
(2000)

This idea that ‘everyone follows and everyone leads’ is powerful, because it
captures the understanding that we are co-producers of our social realities. It
is a reflection of the systemic nature of human relations: fluid, dynamic, recip-
rocal. Leadership is not static. Evolutionary leadership is an ever-changing
flux of interconnections that seek to intentionally create the conditions for the
emergence of a better future – ‘for the good of the whole’ as Peter Merry’s
(2009) dedication of his book Evolutionary Leadership: Integral Leadership for an
Increasingly Complex World.
Evolutionary leadership is shared leadership that embraces the complex-
ity and interconnectedness of the world’s problems (the ‘problematique’) and
acknowledges the need to collaborate and create a synergic system of innova-
tive solutions (the ‘solutionatique’). Evolutionary leadership is a means for each
one of us to understand that we have a role to play in the creation of a better
world, no matter what our field, interests or expertise – whether we are improv-
ing educational systems, saving the rainforest, transforming organizational

102
 From systems thinking to systems being

Figure 2: The World Solutionatique.

cultures, selling responsible products and services, engaging youth in creative

expression, producing renewable energy or serving victims of abuse.
We are not used to thinking of all these dimensions as interconnected, but
they are, because they are important dimensions of a healthy and sustainable
world. We are contributing to a network of solutions, and our individual
genius is required (Figure 2).
The evolutionary perspective on leadership finds some resonance in leader-
ship models such as Rooke and Torbert’s (2005) action logics and Collins’s (2001)
Level 5 Leadership hierarchy. These developmental models speak of the trans-
formation process that leaders can go through to expand their capacities and
scope of influence. Collins describes the leader who is able to take an organiza-
tion from good to great (level 5 leader) as ‘a paradoxical combination of personal
humility plus professional will’ (2001: 140), which points out the importance of
personal mastery. Rooke and Torbert say that the most remarkable and encour-
aging finding from their research ‘is that leaders can transform from one action
logic to another’ (2005: 72); in other words, they can evolve as leaders. The final
action logic that they document – the alchemist – goes beyond generating organ-
izational and personal transformations to catalyzing social transformations.
In my view, evolutionary leadership is an expanded (and expanding)
notion of leadership. It goes beyond a leadership concern with narrowly
defined success, as in the corporate world, to a more systemic and inclusive
notion of success that takes into account the economy, society, ecosystems
and future generations (Bennis et al. 1997). I see two dimensions of
evolutionary leadership:

• First, evolutionary leadership calls for ongoing learning and personal devel-
opment, since it demands more capacities and skills to cope with increas-
ing complexity. Like the developmental leadership models of Collins and
Rooke and Tolbert, the evolution of the leader involves incorporating
previous stages and, therefore, expanding the repertoire of abilities.
• Second, evolutionary leadership involves an expansion of the boundaries
of the enquiry, seeking to contribute to the transformation of social and

103
Kathia Castro Laszlo

environmental systems in an increasingly inclusive way. The enquiry may

begin in a local community or organization, but it eventually becomes
connected with socio-ecological efforts.

An inclusive way of thinking and practicing leadership

A way to foster these two dimensions of evolutionary leadership is to put
situational leadership (Hershey 1985) to the service of a higher purpose,
one that is related to social transformation and systemic sustainability
(Laszlo and Laszlo 2011). Situational leadership proposes that leadership
be responsive to the level of maturity, the skills of the followers and the
context of the task. Similar to the behaviours or styles of situational leader-
ship (telling, selling, participating and delegating), evolutionary leadership
involves choosing to embody an authoritarian (controlling), directive
(coordinating), conversational (facilitating), collaborative (co-designing) or
shared (catalyzing) leadership style.
These different leadership styles, however, are not equally appropriate
within the context of building true evolutionary learning communities (Laszlo
2001b). Although a group may require a guide to set the direction, when the
intention is to develop the shared leadership capacities of the group in order to
achieve Palmer’s systemic view of a community in which ‘everyone follows
and everyone leads’, there is movement away from a more authoritative or
directive style of leadership. Through dialogue, co-designing and creating the
conditions for group self-empowerment, the organization or community itself
explores ways of manifesting systemic sustainability. Through collaboration,
they support the development of their system’s thinking abilities, their
emotional intelligence, and their understanding of the challenges and oppor-
tunities to create a sustainable and thriving future. It is through this dynamic
process that evolutionary leaders can foster the emergence of evolutionary
learning communities in a mutually reinforcing way.
Individuals, communities and organizations everywhere are under stress
and facing complex and unprecedented challenges – including unmet human
needs, economic disparity, cultural obliteration, ecosystem destruction and
climate change. How leaders in the private, public and social sectors respond
to these mega-trends will determine not only the future of their institutions,
but also of entire societies and Earth as a whole. While no clear roadmap for
navigating these challenges exists, one thing is certain – conducting ‘business
as usual’ is no longer a viable leadership strategy for the well-being of either
present or future generations. A new paradigm of leadership is required – one
that places a premium on creating human and environmental well-being.
Evolutionary leaders are multi-dimensional leaders who understand that
leadership is a way of thinking, feeling and being in the world. They under-
stand their crucial role in facilitating society’s evolution towards economic,
socio-cultural and environmental sustainability – acting from within any of
the three sectors, at all levels of organization, and fostering collaboration
among them.
Evolutionary leaders are stewards of people, organizations, communities
and ecosystems, seeking to facilitate the emergence of life-affirming,
future-oriented and opportunity-increasing possibilities. These leaders embody
the personal integrity needed to guide and support others in the collabora-
tive learning and design that are necessary for manifesting sustainability in all
spheres of our lives.

104
 From systems thinking to systems being

Evolutionary leaders focus on adaptive challenges rather than technical

ones. What this means is that evolutionary leadership is not about solving
problems for which solutions already exist – this could be a technical
challenge – but rather, it is the leadership necessary to respond to an unknown
situation that will require learning, knowledge creation and collaboration to
come up with possible solutions.

The mind-set, skill-set and heart-set of evolutionary leadership

The competencies of evolutionary leadership are organized in three sets
(Laszlo et al. 2006):

Mind-set – ‘Know-why’ competencies:

The mind-set of the evolutionary leader is grounded in a systems and
evolutionary view of the world. Evolutionary leaders are competent at:

• Practicing systems thinking

• Understanding the complexity and interdependencies of global dynamics
• Perceiving the patterns of change
• Considering the ethical and long term implications of their decisions
• Embracing a participatory and co-evolving emergence of new realities
• Declaring new possibilities for organizations, communities and society
• Living their talk by showing integrity between their world-view and
actions

Skill-set – ‘Know-how’ competencies:

Evolutionary leaders are able to translate visions into actions by bringing
people together. Their leadership style is flexible and adaptive, integrating
roles from that of a visionary guide pointing to new possibilities, to an enabler
empowering individuals and communities to make the vision a reality.
Evolutionary leaders are able to:

• Have and facilitate conversations that build trust and commitment towards
a common vision
• Create the conditions for effective collaboration
• Develop human systems based on how ecological systems work
• Include sustainability principles and practices in their vision and action
plans
• Develop sustainability strategies that embody a systemic understanding of
how human beings fit within the life cycles of nature.

Heart-set – ‘Care-why’ competencies:

While the mind-set and the skill-set are generally incorporated into most lead-
ership development programmes, the heart-set is usually ignored or taken for
granted. Clarity of values and the personal mastery of the leader are, however,
core aspects of effective evolutionary leadership. In this regard, evolutionary
leaders are competent at:

• Listening actively to others and to nature

• Engaging in difficult and missing conversations

105
Kathia Castro Laszlo

• Manifesting a syntony sense or an ability to creative and intentionally align

their actions with the dynamics of living systems (Laszlo and Laszlo 2011).
• Practicing systems feeling and systems being

Closing reflection

Above all we must realize that each of us makes a difference with our
life. Each of us impacts the world around us every single day. We have
a choice to use the gift of our life to make the world a better place – or
not to bother.
– Jane Goodall

Rather than a comprehensive review of the current thinking around the notion
of evolutionary leadership, this article is a collection of reflections, a kind of
grounded theory, with the main objective of shifting the attention from the
understanding of leadership to the embodiment of leadership as our way out
of the current global predicament. As human beings, we have the right and
responsibility to shape our reality, to participate in the creation of humanity’s
future. Systems thinking is an essential tool to help us perceive the risks and
limitations of our current ways of working, learning and living. However, it
is only through systems feeling and systems being that we will be able to
transform ourselves and the world.
Evolutionary leadership is an invitation to embrace paradox: blending the
old with the new, bridging the quantitative with the qualitative, connecting
the being with the doing. The limits of growth imposed by Earth’s carrying
capacity can be overcome if humanity learns to create unlimited abundance
by designing with the cycles of natural renewal. This is the challenge and
opportunity of evolutionary leadership: to gather the lessons from our
evolutionary history and recast them to create a future in which every human
institution creates and celebrates life.

References
Banathy, Bela H. (1996) Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York:
Plenum.
Bennis, W; Parikh, J; Lessem, J (1994). Beyond Leadership: Balancing economics,
ethics and ecology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.
Brand, Steward (1966), ‘Whole earth buttons’, http: //www.hohlwelt.com/en/
interact/context/sbrand.html. Retrieved September 13, 2012.
Capra, Fritjof (1996) The Web of Life: A new scientific understanding of living
systems. New York: Anchor books.
Checkland, P. (1993) Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.
Collins, J. (2001) Level 5 leadership. The triumph of humility over fierce
resolve. Harvard Business Review. Jan.
Gribble, David (2001), Children Don’t Start Wars, Agora Books Club. Available
online from: http: //www.davidgribble.co.uk/books/books-children-dont-
start-wars.htm
Hammond, D. R. (1997) Toward a science of synthesis: The heritage of General
Systems Theory. Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requi-
rements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History. Berkeley:
University of California.

106
 From systems thinking to systems being

Halev, Vaclav (1994), ‘The new measure of man’, The New York Times,
8 July, http: //www.nytimes.com/1994/07/08/opinion/the-new-measure-
of-man.html
Hershey, P. (1985). The situational leader. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Jaworski, Joseph (1996) Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Laszlo, A. (2001a), ‘The epistemological foundations of evolutionary systems
design’, Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 18, pp. 307–21.
Laszlo, E. (1975). The meaning and significance of General System Theory.
Behavioral Science, 20.
Laszlo, K. C. (2001b), ‘Learning, design, and action: Creating the conditions
for Evolutionary learning community’, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 18:5, pp. 379–91.
Laszlo, A., Laszlo, K. and Manga, M. (2006), Design of the public workshop
Evolutionary Leadership for Sustainability, personal communication,
Syntony Quest, San Francisco.
Laszlo, A. and Laszlo, K. C. (2011), ‘Systemic sustainability in OD practice:
Bottom line and top line reasoning’, OD Practitioner, 43: 4, pp. 10–16.
Macy, J. (1991) Mutual Causality in Buddhism & General System Theory.
New York: Sunny Press.
Maturana, Humberto (2002), ‘Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition:
A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition’, Cybernetics
& Human Knowing, 9: 3–4, pp. 5–34.
Maturana, Humberto and Bunnell, Pille (1999), ‘The biology of business: Love
expands intelligence’, Reflections, 1: 2, pp. 58–66.
Merry, P. (2009), Evolutionary Leadership: Integral Leadership for an Increasingly
Complex World, Pacific Grove: Integral Publishers.
Montuori, A. (1989) Evolutionary Competence: Creating the future. Amsterdam:
J.C. Gieben.
Morin, E. (1977) La Méthode: la nature de la nature. Translated by Sean
M. Kelly.
Palmer, P. J. (2000) Let your Life Speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Brass.
Population and Development Program (2006), ‘10 reasons to rethink
“Overpopulation”’, Different Takes: A Publication of the Population and
Development Program at the Hampshire College, 40, Fall, pp. 1–4.
Rooke, D. & Torbert, W. R. (2005) Seven transformations of leadership.
Harvard Business Review, April, 1–12.
SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment (2009), The Sustainability Yearbook
2009, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and SAM, Zurich.
Sanders, T. I. and McCabe, J. A. (2003), ‘The use of complexity science: A survey
of federal departments and agencies, private foundations, universities,
and independent education and research centers’, Washington Center for
Complexity and Public Policy, Washington, DC.
Wilber, Ken (2005), ‘Introduction to integral theory and practice’, AQAL:
Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1: 1, Spring, pp. 2–38.

Suggested citation
Laszlo, C. K. (2012), ‘From systems thinking to systems being: The embodiment
of evolutionary leadership’, Journal of Organizational Transformation &
Social Change, 9: 2, pp. 95–108, doi: 10.1386/otsc.9.2.95_1

107
Kathia Castro Laszlo

Contributor details
Kathia Laszlo is a professor at M.A. and Ph.D. level at various universities
internationally in the fields of systems thinking, leadership, strategy and organ-
izational development. She is at present Faculty Member and Director of the
Specialization in Leadership for Sustainable Systems at Saybrook University
and SIG Chair at the International Society for the Systems Sciences. She holds
the position of an Executive Director at Syntony Quest, which works with
sustainability projects in the United States and Mexico. She is actively engaged
in action-research with organizations and communities, bridging scholarly
understanding with practical application, in areas of organizational change,
leadership and development of human and social capital for sustainability.
Kathia Laszlo is an experienced facilitator, designer of learning systems, and
executive coach. She is a non-profit manager and social entrepreneur in the
process of launching a socio-ecological enterprise to address poverty in Latin
America and create economic and educational opportunities for marginalized
members of societies. She authored numerous peer reviewed publications on
topics ranging educational change, sustainable development, innovation and
knowledge management.
Contact: 7765 Washington Ave., Sebastopol, CA, USA 95472.
E-mail: kathia@syntonyquest.org
Web address: www.syntonyquest.org

Kathia Castro Laszlo has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

108