System´s circularity is as valuable as system change. In modern era, the circle has got bad press compared to arrow: the circle has been associated to middle age and religion (ex. religious rituals), while the arrow has been associated to modernity, progress and development (ex: incremental change). Emerging circular economy ties both archetypes together. This conjunction of both archetypes may give birth to an era shift.
The two organizational learning models I´m authoring – whole identity and six pillars – take into account anthropological circularity as well as change. This is the reason why they are genuinely systemic. Dropping one anthropological dimension is reductionist.
Any learning system acts out circularity. Any failing system also acts out circularity, at least for a period of time until the system goes into systemic crisis:
- In mediocrity behaviour, we act out the same resistances again and again; we encounter the same problems; we repeat the same errors and we cannot cross over the same threshold. Although there is not consciousness among system members about sharing the same model, individuals and teams show synchronicity.
- In excellence behaviour, we dialog from a shared model, we do with the purpose of sharing same vision, which require us self-control. As a consequence of this dialog, individuals and teams learn and transfer this learning into the large system, enabling system improvement.
Learning generates openness enabling the circle to become a spiral.