In the previous article, we explored the overlap between Laloux’s model of organizational development and Scharmer’s model of economic development. By combining insights from both models, we revealed how the “breakthroughs” of each new developmental stage emerge in response to a “primary societal challenge” that is created (in part) by the limitations and excesses of the previous stage.

I love maps! I find them super-helpful for making sense of the world and for skillfully navigating my own experience. But, as we know, “the map is not the territory,” so let’s take a closer look at the territory of our current societal challenges, and at some practices that support the breakthroughs of the next stage.

The Conditions for the Emergence of 4.0/Teal

According to Scharmer, the 4.0/Teal stage is currently emerging in response to the primary societal challenge of “global disruptive externalities and resilience.” In business and leadership circles this is commonly referred to as “VUCA” – Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity.

My guess is that everyone can relate to this in their own experience. Symptoms include feeling overwhelmed by the immense amount of information constantly bombarding us, anxiety/excitement about the exponential rate of technological advancement, and grief over climate change (to name a few).

Organizations must learn to adapt quickly in order to thrive in this new environment, which is paradoxically characterized by accelerating change while approaching the limits to growth.

The traditional power hierarchies (breakthroughs of the 1.0/Amber stage) no longer provide the stability they did in a time of slower technological and social change. The “predict and control” paradigm (associated with the 1.0/Traditional/Military and 2.0/Ego-centric/Machine organizations) has proven ineffective in the highly complex environment of an increasingly interconnected global society.

Therefore these older structures are gradually being replaced by the “sense and respond” paradigm of the 4.0/Eco-centric/Organism types of organizations. Variations of this emerging form of organizing include “Lean,” “Agile,” “Anti-fragile,” and “Responsive.” They all reflect the principles and behaviors of living systems: open, self-organizing systems that adapt to internal and external changes through feedback mechanisms that allow new information to be rapidly and reliably processed into meaningful change.

Learning about the dynamics of living systems has been catalytic for my understanding of our current societal challenges, and for my approach to thinking about how to address them.

Responsive Organizations and Response-ability

So how can we learn to function more like/as a healthy ecosystem at the individual, organizational, and societal level? What does it take to thrive in this new “VUCA” world?

In his presentation “The Future of Organizations is Responsive”, Mike Arauz (president of  August and co-founder of says what separates successful companies from everybody else is “optimizing for certainty versus optimizing for uncertainty.” When optimized for uncertainty, an organization functions as an “open learning network”—clearly a concept coherent with the characteristics of living systems.


Arauz also points out that computers excel at the functions associated with certainty, while humans are much better at “the least routine, most complex, most collaborative, most creative work.” When I let that sink in, I feel excited, empowered, and relieved.

This feeling is amplified by what Holacracy founder Brian Robertson says, “We humans have an incredible capacity to sense tensions, but we usually don’t have a forum to go to where we can reliably process those tensions into something useful. So the organization loses one of its most powerful forces for evolution.”

We can conclude that one primary function of 4.0/Teal organizations would be to liberate and empower our natural “response-ability”—our capacity to notice tensions (“a person’s felt sense that there is a gap between the current reality and a potential future”) and to act creatively and collaboratively to close that gap. The living system of the organization both nourishes and is nourished by the living system which is each human being in the organization.

Which brings us to another question: How do we optimize this essential and uniquely human capacity, individually and collectively?

Generative Listening & Transparent Communication

I like to think of our ability to sense tensions as a kind of “listening”—to ourselves, to others, and to the world around us.

Scharmer says, “One of the core ideas of Ego to Eco—and of Theory U—is that form follows attention or consciousness. We can change reality by changing the inner place [—or the quality of awareness —] from which we operate. The Matrix of Social Evolution (below) spells out what this looks like… At [the level of the individual]…the quality of listening is crucial.”

He goes on: “Level 4 is ‘generative listening.’ We often use the example of a jazz ensemble ‘in the flow’ to illustrate this capacity. When individual players can listen to their own instrument and to the whole at the same time, they are able to co-create something new together. In an organizational context this quality of listening allows people to innovate and act from the whole.”

Now that we have entered the territory of consciousness/awareness, we’ll turn our attention to the teachings and practices developed by Thomas Hübl, which he calls “Transparent Communication” —a deceptively simple name.

On one level of understanding, it refers to people communicating with authenticity, honesty, and vulnerability. The term is already being used in that sense within a business context. On a deeper level, it points to radical intimacy and directness with life and a profound ability to respond skillfully in every moment.

I’ve been studying and practicing with Thomas since 2011, and I consider him my spiritual teacher. My practice of Transparent Communication has granted me access to subtle fields of information which previously did not register in my conscious awareness.

I am also refining my ability to sense directly into the essence of a particular situation or dynamic, rather than getting caught up in the level of “symptoms.” Finally, I have enhanced sensitivity to the “intersubjective” dimension of life, the field of energy and information that exists in the relational space between individuals.

These capacities mirror the crucial functions of Scharmer’s 4.0 Eco-System Awareness. Shifting to 4.0 requires self-reflective awareness of ourselves, others, the larger system(s) in which we are embedded, and the relational space between parts of the system.

Through practices such as Generative Listening and Transparent Communication, we become able to more clearly see and feel the whole, to notice the emerging potential of the system/field, and to act from impulses that arise from that shared awareness.

Both Scharmer and Laloux base their work on the idea that the evolution of organizations, economics, and society, correlates with the evolution of consciousness.

As we transition into this next stage of human development, one of the most important (perhaps the most important) contributions we can make is to intentionally evolve our own consciousness through practice. It also seems to be a missing piece in many of the conversations about next stage organizations. (More on that in a future post.)

In Part 3 of this series, I will look more closely at Hübl’s teachings and how they contribute to understanding and participating in the evolutionary process at the individual, relational, organizational, and societal levels.