All elements in an Agreements Field are always active. Always. This is the picture of Homo lumens interacting with the self, other, group, nature, and spirit. All five relationships are always there, whether consciously included or not. The three levels of perceived reality are always there, whether they are perceived or not. People are having an experience of less or greater vibrancy. The interactions are resulting in outcomes, of lesser or greater impact and resilience. The agreements, whether consciously chosen or unconsciously accepted, are there.
This means that the whole experience of Homo lumens is always present. The whole agreements map is active. That only part of it is seen by the people interacting means that the other part is active and not seen.
In their latest book, An Everyone Culture, Harvard professors Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, suggest that most people are actually engaged in two jobs at work: (1) the contribution they are hired to make; and (2) protecting themselves. “Imagine you’re paying a full-time wage for part-time work to every employee, every day” (p.2).
“In businesses large and small; in government agencies, schools, and hospitals; in for-profits and nonprofits, and in any country in the world, most people are spending time and energy covering up their weaknesses, managing other people’s impressions of them, showing themselves to their best advantage, playing politics, hiding their inadequacies, hiding their uncertainties, hiding their limitations. Hiding.
We regard this as the single biggest loss of resources that organizations suffer every day” (p.1).
In measuring the impact resilience of a set of agreements, we have identified the “costs of scarcity,” the costs of not engaging the full human being. The costs of Kegan and Lahey’s “second job” are just the start.
Another way of understanding this is to realize that the agreements that are seen and in the group’s awareness might be aligned with the group’s deeper purpose. Often they are not, but they might be. Our recent research suggests that those agreements that remain unseen, that are not part of the group’s awareness, where Homo lumens is not fully engaged, are usually not aligned with the group’s deeper purpose. While unconscious competence might generate temporary alignment sometimes, it is not resilient to perturbations in the system, which always appear. This lack of alignment has huge costs, much greater than the costs of the second job Kegan and Lahey highlight. People are expending energy towards a purpose other than the group’s–vast amounts of energy.
If all elements of the agreements field are always active, they are doing something. The question is whether this activity is aligned with the intended purpose or not. Whether it is moving the group towards the purpose or away from it. Most, if not all, of the elements that are not consciously part of the agreements exact a huge cost.
This changes the question, from whether it would be nice to incorporate more of the learning and possibility experiences, to whether it is highly ineffective and inefficient, when interacting with human beings, to not consciously choose to incorporate all three levels of perceived reality. The first assumes an outcomes-only reality is more real and the development and potential levels of perceived reality are nice add ons. The second assumes that humans are always in the process of being in potential and development and tangibilization. For the first, engaging people requires a huge investment. For the second, not engaging people has a huge cost. Our recent research, and that of Kegan and Lahey, suggests that the second better explains why some groups have much better experiences and impact resilience than most. Which do you choose?