I spend a lot of time working in organisations – from small, to very large – whose focus is on organisational change, on change management programs, team development and the like.
One of the things that fascinates me is the interplay between the people with a clear sense of the change in organisations that is required in the organisation, and the responses and reactions to that change.
Some get on board quickly and ‘sign up’, so to speak; some get on board and then drop off; some only become interested in organisational change when enough other people are involved; some fight tooth and nail for what they feel they will lose; some try to ignore the need for change altogether (comfortable that ‘they are doing okay’ and/or ‘it doesn’t apply to them’).
Regardless of the starting positions, a person’s level of willingness to sit with discomfort appears to be the critical attribute. It’s interesting to observe that those who have no interest in any discomfort can cause extreme discomfort in others, all so they can avoid looking at their own way of working, while others see the discomfort as a growth opportunity and find a way to develop from the process.
Of course, there are also the cynics who – after seeing so many failed changes in organisations, or changes that move from one way of working back to another – are soundly (and at times rightly), sceptical of anything new.
When you look at the literature about organisational change, peoples’ varied responses seem to apply regardless of whether you are dealing with a multi-national or small organisation. It was this fact that led me to the possibility that humanity could be the biggest ‘organisation’ on earth.
If you look at humanity as an organisation, it is possible to see all of these same responses and reactions to change in organisations at play.
Like an organisation, the only way we, as humanity, truly develop, is by working together.
The only way we stay viable is by adapting as the external circumstances shift and move – whilst still staying true to what is central and core (organisations would call these values).
Like an organisation, some divisions can form, and different departments can start to think they are more important than the next. Like organisations, humanity sometimes requires a visionary – able to offer an alternative to how life might be.
And like organisations, for every visionary there are those that defend, reject, ignore, challenge, blindly follow, wait for others to join, or just watch cynically from the sidelines hoping for it to pass.
It is fair to say that Serge Benhayon is one such visionary: someone bold enough to present an alternative to the way life is at the moment. However, from the view of someone who has tested the practicality of that vision, it is so very, very normal.
The biggest difference I find with the presentation of ‘The Way of the Livingness’, is that while it presents a possible future for humanity, what is presented is done so in very real and practical terms.
It also doesn’t ask me to ‘believe’ or ‘have faith’ in anything other than the evidence provided by my choices in life.
In that way, ‘The Way of the Livingness’ is not a faith in what might be, but very practical and simple ‘potential’ for how our lives can be right now.
… A life that is more interested in self-responsibility than it is about a grand vision for the future by making a difference in other peoples’ lives. A life that, through self-responsibility, builds a level of vitality that can be of true value to society; a life that understands true change begins with self; a life that reflects true organisational change, and true working together for all…
Starting with self-responsibility allows us to understand what affects us, and what supports us in truth. It also brings awareness and consideration for how we impact others.
コメント