Excerpt from:

THEORY U: Leading from the Emerging Future

Presencing Profound Innovation and Change
in Business, Society, and the Self (forthcoming)1
Introduction

C. Otto Scharmer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.ottoscharmer.com

September 2005
SECOND DRAFT

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

Introduction

We live in an era of clashing conflicts and massive institutional failures, a time of

endings and of beginnings. A time that feels as if something profound was shifting and
dying while something else, as Vaclav Havel put it, wants to be born: I think there are
good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended. Today, many things
indicate that we are going through a transitional period, when it seems that something is
on the way out and something else is painfully being born. It is as if something were
crumbling, decaying, and exhausting itself while something else, still indistinct, were
rising from the rubble.2
Facing the Crisis of Our Time
The crisis of our time isnt just a crisis of a single leader, organization, country, or
conflict. The crisis of our time is about the dying of an old social structure, an old way
of institutionalizing and enacting collective social forms.
When talking with frontline practitionersmanagers, teachers, nurses, physicians,
laborers, mayors, entrepreneurs, farmers, and business and government leadersI feel
that they share a sense of the current reality: the heat of an ever-increasing workload
and pressure to do even more. Many describe this as running on a treadmill or spinning
in a hamster wheel.
Recently I attended a leadership workshop with the top one hundred leaders of a US
Fortune 500 company. The speaker before me had a great opening. He reminded us
that it was only 20 years ago that we had serious discussions about what we should do
with all of the extra free time that we would soon gain through the use of new
communication technologies. Laughter erupted around the room. Painful laughter
for the reality that has come to pass is very different.
As we perceive our pressures to rise and our freedoms to be diminished, our concerns
about the unintended side effects and consequences multiply. We all recognize the
growing dark side of our current way of operating:

We have created a thriving global economy that yet leaves 850 million people
suffering from hunger3 and 3 billion people living in poverty (on less than 2
dollars per day).4
We spend massive resources on health care systems that yet merely tinker on a
symptoms level and that are unable to address the root causes of health and
sickness in our societies, resulting in health outcomes that arent any better than
in societies that spend far less.
We spend significant resources on our agriculture and food systems and only to
create non-sustainable mass production of increasingly low-quality junk food
that pollutes both our bodies and our environment.

2005 Otto Scharmer

Introduction

We pour vast amounts of money into our educational systems but havent been
able to create schools and institutions of higher education that develop peoples
deep innate capacities to sense and actualize their future, what I view as the
single most important core capability for this centurys knowledge economy.
More than half of the worlds children today suffer conditions of deprivation
such as poverty, war, and HIV/AIDS.5

Across the board we collectively create outcomes (and side effects) that nobody wants.
But the key decisionmakers do not feel capable of redirecting this course of events in
any significant way. They feel just as trapped as the rest of us. The same problem
affects our massive institutional failure: we havent learned to mold, bend, decompose,
and transform our centuries-old collective patterns of thinking, organizing, and
institutionalizing to fit the realities of today.
The social structures that are decaying and crumblinglocally, regionally, globallyare
built on traditional or industrial (modern) ways of thinking and operating that were first
quite successful but are now hitting the wall.
The rise of fundamentalist movements in both Western and non-Western countries is a
symptom of the deeper transformation at issue. Fundamentalists say: look, this modern
Western materialism doesnt work. It takes away our dignity, our livelihood, and our
soul. So lets go back to the old order.
This reaction is understandable as it relates to two key defining characteristics of the
social decay today: the simultaneous loss of norms or values (anomie) and the
breakdown of social structure (atomie). These losses lead to eruptions of violence, hate,
terrorism, civil war, and so-called natural catastrophes in both southern and northern
countries. The riots in LA and the tragic consequences of the flooding of New Orleans
are but two examples close to home.6 These events remind us that the social order we
live with is fragile and can break down at any time. These circumstances will probably
intensify over the next decade or two.
So the question becomes how to cope with it, how to respond. As this conversation
gradually begins to take shape, proponents of three main positions can be heard:
1. The retro-movements: lets return to the order of the past. Retro movements
can but do not have to come with a fundamentalist coloring.
2. The defenders of the status quojust keep going. Focus on doing more of the
same by muddling through. Same old same old.
3. The advocates of transformational change: Go forth by letting go of the old self
and intentionally transforming the old body of collective behavior.
I personally believe that the current global situation calls for a shift of the third kind,
which in many ways is already in the making. We need to let go of an old body of
institutionalized collective behavior in order to allow a new quality of deeper social
presence to arise. The spontaneous rise of social fields that embody this heightened
collective awareness and action is one of most significant developments of our time.
2005 Otto Scharmer

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

The purpose of this investigation is to uncover the social grammar that illuminates this
subtle and profound shift. To do that, we have to become aware of a profound blind
spot in leadership and in everyday life. The blind spot concerns the structure of attention
that we use when approaching our work.
Illuminating the Blind Spot
How we pay attention to leadership and social reality creation can be likened to how we
look at the work of an artist. At least three perspectives are possible: We can focus on
the thing that results from the creative processsay a painting; we can focus on the
process of painting; or we can observe the artist standing in front of a blank canvas. In
other words, we can look at the work of art after it has been created (the thing), during its
creation (the process), or before creation begins (the blank canvas).
The same applies to leadership. We can look at what leaders do. We can look at the how,
the processes they use. And we can look at their work from the blank canvas perspective:
what sources are they operating from?

Figure 1: Three perspectives on the leaders work

I first began noticing this blind spot when talking with the former CEO of Hanover
Insurance, Bill OBrien. He told me that his greatest insight after years of conducting
organizational learning projects and facilitating corporate change was that the success
of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor. That
observation struck a chord. What counts, it dawned on me, is not only what leaders do
and how they do it, but that interior condition, the inner place from which they operate,
the source from which their action originates.
The blind spot at issue here is a fundamental factor in leadership and social sciences. It
also affects our everyday social experience. In the process of conducting our daily
2005 Otto Scharmer

Introduction

business and social lives, we are usually well aware of what we do and what others do; we
also have some understanding of how we do things, the processes we and others use
when we act. And yet there is a blind spot. If we were to ask the question, Where does
our action come from? most of us would be unable to provide an answer. The blind
spot concerns the (inner) source from which we operate when we do what we dowhere
the quality of attention resides.
In working with leadership teams across sectors and industries, I realized that leaders
could not meet their existing challenges by operating only on the basis of past
experiences. I wondered whether there could be a deeper learning cycle based on ones
sensing of an emerging future, rather than on ones past experiences.7 I began to
conceive of a learning process that tunes in to and pulls us into future possibilities
rather than simply reflecting and reacting to past experiences.
I began to call this learning from the future as it emerges presencing.8 Presencing is a new
term that blends the two words presence and sensing. It means to sense and bring
into the present ones highest future potentialthe future that depends on us to bring it
into being.
A number of people to whom I proposed this idea considered it wrongheaded. The
only way to learn, they argued, is from the past. Learning from the future is neither
possible nor a useful avenue to pursue, they said. Only the support, inspiration and
collaboration with colleagues like Joseph Jaworski, Beth Jandernoa, Katrin Kufer, Seija
Kulkki, Ikujiro Nonaka, Ed Schein, Peter Senge and Ursula Versteegen allowed me to
forge ahead despite those warnings and admonitions. This study describes the process
and the result of this journey.9 The existence of this deeper source and cycle of learning,
its uncovering and articulation, is the main thread of this investigation
Entering the Field
A field is, as every farmer knows, a living systemjust as the earth is a living organism.
I grew up on a farm near Hamburg, Germany. One of the first things my father, one of
the pioneers of biodynamic farming in Germany, taught me was that the living quality
of the soil is the most important thing in organic agriculture. Each field, he explained to
me, has two aspects: the visible, what we see above the surface; and the invisible, what is
below the surface. The quality of the yieldthe visible resultis a function of the
quality of the soil, of those elements of the field that are mostly invisible to the eye.
My thinking about social fields starts exactly at that point: that fields are the grounding
condition, the living soil from which grows that which only later becomes visible to the
eye. And just as every good farmer focuses all his attention on sustaining and enhancing
the quality of the soil, every good organizational leader focuses all her attention on
sustaining and enhancing the quality of the social field that she is responsible for.
Each Sunday my parents took me and my brothers and sister on a Feldganga field
walkacross all the fields of our farm. Once in a while my father would stop and pick
2005 Otto Scharmer

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

up a clump of soil from a furrow so that we could investigate and learn to see its
different types and structures. The living quality of the soil, he explained, depended on a
whole host of living entitiesmillions of living organisms living in every cubic
centimeter of soilwhose work is necessary for the earth to breathe and to evolve as a
living system.
Very much in the same spirit, this study is a about a field walk across the social fields of
our contemporary global society. And just as we did during the Feldgang, once in a while
we will stop at a furrow and pick up a little piece of data that we investigate in order to
better understand the subtle territory of social fields. As every business leader and
experienced management consultant knows, it is this invisible territory that is the most
important in creating the conditions for high performance in teams, organizations, and
larger institutional ecologies. As McKinseys Jonathan Day once noted about his
experience helping global corporations through the process of fundamental change:
Whats most important is invisible to the eye.10
The question is how to access this hidden dimension of leadership more consciously
and reliably?
The Archimedean Point: Collectively Seeing the Field Structures of Attention
What is the strategic leverage point for intentionally shifting the structure of a social
field? What could function as the Archimedean pointthe enabling conditionthat
allowed the global social field to evolve and shift?
For my father, it was quite clear what he considered the answer to this question to be in
his case, the case of agriculture. Where do you put your lever? On the soil. On
improving the quality of your soil. That has been his mantra. The fertile soil is a very
thin layer of living substance that evolves through the intertwined connection of two
worlds: the visible above the surface and the invisible below. The words culture and
cultivation originate from this very activityto cultivate the soil by deepening and intensifying
the intertwined connection between both worlds (e.g., by ploughing).
So where is the leverage point in the case of a social field? At precisely the same place:
right at the interface where the two worlds meet, connect, and intertwine. What then, in
the case of social fields, is the visible matter? Its the content of our perception of social
reality. And what is the invisible realm? Its the blind spotthe source from which our
perception operates. And whats in between? The realm in between is where the visible
world (what we see) and the invisible world (from whatever relative position we
perceive it) meet and connect.
I call that intermediary sphere the field structure of attention. The term designates the quality
of relationship between observer and observed. It describes the relational structure
between observed (content) and observer (source).

2005 Otto Scharmer

Introduction

Collectively seeing the field structure of attention is the single most important leverage
point in shifting the social field. For it represents the only content in our social
consciousness that we have entire control of (because we did it ourselves and cant
possibly blame it on others). Seeing the field structure of attention means that we see
both the actual structure of attention and some potential other ways of operating. If
focused on, this capacity allows us to shift the structure of attention from one mode to
another.
Four Field Structures of Attention Four Streams of Social Emergence
The key insight that has emerged from my explorations and investigations is that there
are four fundamentally different field structures of attention that manifest in four levels
of perception (from shallow to deep). The four field structures differ in the place from
which attention (and intention) originates. Every action by a person, a group, an
organization, or a community can be enacted in four different waysfrom four
different places (relative to ones personal or organizational boundary).
Let us take the example of listening. In my years of working with groups and
organizations I have identified four basic types of listening.
The first type of listening is downloading: listening by reconfirming habitual judgments.
Whenever you are in a situation where everything that happens confirms what you
already know, then you are listening by downloading.
The second type of listening is objective or attentive listening: listening by paying attention to
disconfirming data. In this type of listening you pay attention to what differs. You
attend to those aspects of reality that differ from your own concepts rather than
denying them (as you do in the case of downloading). Objective or attentive listening is
the basic mode of good science. You ask questions and you carefully observe the
responses that nature (data) gives to you.
The third and deeper level of listening is empathic listening. Whenever we enter into a real
dialogue a profound shift can be observed. This is a shift in the place from which our
listening originates. As long as we operate from the first two types of listening, our
listening originates from within the boundaries of our own mental-cognitive
organization. But in empathic listening, our perception shifts from our own
organization into the field, to the other, to the place from which the other person is
speaking. When moving into that mode of listening we have to activate our empathy
our loveconnecting directly, heart to heart, to the other person. If that happens, we
feel a profound switch; we forget about our own agenda and begin to see the world
through someone elses eyes. When operating in this mode, we usually feel what another
person wants to say before the words take form. And then we may recognize whether a
person chooses the right word or the wrong one to express something, That judgment
is only possible when we have a direct sense of what someone wants to say before we
analyze what she actually says. Empathic listening is a skill that can be cultivated and

2005 Otto Scharmer

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

developed just like any other skills in human affairs. Its a skill that resides in activating a
different source of intelligencethe intelligence of the heart.
And finally there is a fourth level of listening. That fourth level moves beyond the current
field and connects to a still deeper realm of emergence. I call this level of listening
generative listening, or listening from the emerging field of the future. This level of listening
requires us to access our open heart and open willour capacity to connect to the highest
future possibility that wants to emerge. When operating on this level our work focuses on
getting our self out of the way in order to open a space, a clearing that allows for a
different sense of presence to manifest. We no longer look for something outside. We no
longer empathize with someone in front of us. We are in an altered statemaybe grace is
the word that comes closest to the texture of this experience that refuses to be dragged
onto the surface of words.
This fourth level of listening differs in texture and outcomes from the earlier ones. You
know that you have been operating on the fourth level when you realize that, at the end
of the conversation, you are no longer the same person you were when you started the
conversation. You have gone through a profound change. You have connected to the
deepest sourceto the source of who you are and to a sense of why you are hereand
that connection has put you in touch with you emerging authentic Self.
Most people are familiar with these four types of listening. At first people usually think:
well, I only know the first two types. Then, on consideration, they realize that they
recognize a few examples of empathic listening. And then, if you ask people to consider
the deeper layers of their lifes journey, most can find the hidden gold of their level 4
experience right there. It has always been there. But it wasnt attended to and hadnt been
cultivated. It had been socialized out of us for most of our lives because it didnt fit the
culture of downloading and the habits of thought that dominate our mainstream
institutions today.
And yet, in my conversations with master practitioners across the professionsartists,
scientists, performers, inventors, educators, coachesI have found that they all do the
same thing. All have found a way to operate from that fourth field. Violinist Miha
Pogacnik explained this level of operating to me with the following example:
When I gave my first concert in Chartres, I felt that the cathedral almost kicked me out.
Get out with you! she said. For I was young and I tried to perform as I always did: just
playing my violin. But then I came to realize that in Chartres you actually cannot play your
small violin, but you have to play the macro-violin. The small violin is the instrument that
is in your hands. The macro-violin is the whole cathedral that surrounds you. The
cathedral of Chartres is built entirely according to musical principles. Playing the macroviolin requires you to listen and to play from another place. You have to move your
listening and playing from within to beyond yourself.11

2005 Otto Scharmer

Introduction

Crystallizing Theory U
The essence of the theory I introduce in this study is a simple distinction among four
different streams of social emergence. With this theory I propose that every action by
any human being or social entity (regardless of its scale) can be performed from four
different sources or levels of emergencethat is, from four different fields of attention
(or four different levels of consciousness). The point of the theory is that the same
action results in radically different outcomes in a given social context depending on the
structure of attention from which this activity is performed.
By explicating these four levels, Theory U illuminates a hitherto hidden dimension of
the social process: the source from which social action comes into being.
Let me crystallize some essential points of the Theory U approach by addressing the
core question that underlies this book: What is required in order to learn from the
future as it emerges?
What is required from the viewpoint of Theory U can be summarized in eight
propositions or core points:
[1] To cope with the challenges of our time, organizations and social systems need to deepen their
learning cycle from levels 1 and 2 to levels 3 and 4.

The global challenges of our time will force most institutions to reinvent themselves: who
are we, what are we here for, what do we want to create, how do we get there?
Organization and institutions need the capability to operate on all four levels of learning
and change, not just on the upper two. There is no bigger source of frustration and waste
of resources than trying to solve level 4 problems (which require an identity shift) with
level 1 and 2 methods (technical problem-solving).

2005 Otto Scharmer

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

[2] The process of activating the deeper levels of leading and learning involves three movements: (1) observe,
observe, observe: open up and connect to what is going on outside; (2) allow the inner knowing to emerge:
open up and connect to what is emerging from within; (3) act in an instant: bring the new into reality as it
desires.12

The three movements can be thought of as a prerequisite infrastructure for charging a

generative social field. To charge a social field, we first have to put into place three
types of connectors, which can be thought of as the hardwired infrastructure. The
first connector links a given system with its external context (co-sensing). The second
connector links ones current and future self (co-presencing). The third connector
links the intelligence of the hand with the embedded wisdom in local contexts (rapidcycle prototyping).
While this process sounds simple and resonates with many peoples best creative
experiences, the dominant pattern in institutions doesnt work like that at all. The
dominant pattern is governed by downloading or by operating on the upper two
levels. Its like living in a house with seven rooms, but using only half of them or less.
You know that these other rooms exist. You may even try to enter them. But you
dont succeed. These attempts to enter the deeper levels often are referred to as forms
of reorganization, such as restructuring or reengineeringwhatever the mantra is. But
all they do is amplify the collective felt sense of hitting the wall. Why?
Because we are lacking a critical piece a social technology: a collective leadership
technology that allows us to access the deeper levels of learning and change.
[3] In order to access the deeper levels of learning and collective intelligence, leaders need a new social
technology that actives and tunes three instruments: the open mind, the open heart, and the open will.
The new social technology at issue here deals with the tuning of three inner
instruments: the open mind, open heart, and open will. Just as the open mind relates
to IQ and the open heart relates to EQ (emotional intelligence), the open will can be
2005 Otto Scharmer

10

Introduction

thought of as relating to what recently has been discussed as SQ (spiritual

intelligence).

To access these three deeper levels (below downloading) requires the inner work of
transforming our habitual patterns of thoughts, emotions, and will by going through a
process of suspending, redirecting, letting-go, letting-come, enacting, and embodying.
[4] The most important tool of this leadership technology is your Self.

At the heart (or the bottom) of Theory U lies the following assumption: that each of us
isnt one but two. Each and every human being or social entity is two. One is the person
that we have become through the journey of the past. Thats the one we know well. The
other one is the person that we could become through our journey toward the future
its our highest future possibility. That one isnt as apparent as the first person is. Its a
dormant possibility that is waiting for us. Stanford Universitys Michael Ray refers to the
2005 Otto Scharmer

11

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

first person as the self with a small s and the second personour highest future
possibilityas the Self with a capital S. The essence of presencing is that these two selves
begin to talk to another. This connection establishes a subtle but very real link to our
highest future possibility that can then begin to help and guide us.
[5] The leaders interior work deals with meeting and mastering three enemies.

Why is the journey to the deeper levels of the U the road less traveled? Because it requires
difficult inner work. It requires facing and overcoming three enemies that block the
entrance to the deeper territories. The first enemy blocks the gate to the open mind.
Michael Ray calls that enemy the VOJ (voice of judgment). Unless we succeed in shutting
down our voice of judgment, we will be unable to make progress in accessing our real
creativity and presence.
The second enemy blocks the gate to the open heart. This enemy is often referred to as
cynicism, that is, the emotional act of distancing. What is at stake when we begin to access
the open heart? First we have to put ourselves in a position of vulnerability, which
distancing usually prevents. I am not saying you should not use emotions of distance. I am
saying that if you want to get to the bottom of the Uto your authentic selfthen
emotional separation, like cynicism, is dysfunctional. It blocks your progress on that
journey.
The third enemy blocks the gate to the open will. The name of that enemy is fear. Fear of
letting go of what we have and who we are. Fear of loosing economic security. Fear of
being ostracized. Fear of being ridiculed. Fear of death. And yet, meeting that fear is the
very essence of leadership: letting go of the old (self) and letting the new (Self) come.

2005 Otto Scharmer

12

Introduction

The Indo-European root of the word leadership, *leith, means to go forth, to cross the
threshold, or to die.13 That root meaning suggests the experience of leading change by
dying and then going forward, by crossing the threshold to another world that only begins to
take shape once we overcome the fear of stepping into the unknown.
[6] The leaders exterior work deals with putting in place three types of infrastructures.

The three infrastructures create the places and rhythms that provide the three connectors
(hardwiring) for charging the field:

places that facilitate a shared sensing and seeing of what is actually

going on (co-sensing)

places of deep reflection and silence that facilitate a connection to

the authentic source of presence and creativityboth individually
and collectively (co-presencing)

places that facilitate the fast-cycle prototyping of microcosms of

strategic future opportunities , in other words, places that
promote discovery by doing (co-creating)

[7] The future of any social system is a function of the level of emergence that its collective leadership
operates from.
The real battle in the world today is over our own evolution as human beings and
societies. What is at stake is nothing less than the choice of who we are, who we want to
be, and where we want to take the world we live in. What are we here for? The answers to
these questions differ according to the structure of attention (level of emergence) that we
use to respond to them. They can be given from a purely materialistic-deterministic point
2005 Otto Scharmer

13

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

of view (when operating from levels 1 and 2), or they can be given from a more holistic
perspective that includes the subtle (spiritual) sources of reality creation (including levels 3
and 4).
And just as the outcome of a given conversation differs according to the level of listening
that you use (resulting in downloading, debate, dialogue, or deep presence), or the
outcome of institutional change differs according to the level of emergence on which the
change leaders operate (resulting in reacting, redesigning, reframing, or presencing), the
outcome of the human evolutionary projectthe trajectory of the evolutionary
pathwaydiffers radically according to the level on which the collective leadership
operates.
Note that I dont refer to individual leaders but to collective leadership, which includes all
people effecting change regardless of their formal position.
[8] Leadership in this century means shifting the structure of collective attention at all levels.
Leadership in this century is global leadership and means shifting the structure of
collective attention from the individual (micro) and group (meso) to the institutional
(macro) and global system level (mundo). The good news is that the turning points for
transforming the field structure of attention are the same across levels. These turning or
inflection points, which I discuss throughout this study, apply to all system levels. The
more challenging news is that there is a price to be paid. Operating from the fourth field
of emergence requires a commitment: a commitment to letting go of everything that isnt
essential and to living according to the letting go/letting come principle that Goethe
described as the essence of the human journey:
And if you dont know this dying and birth!--You are merely a dreary guest on earth.14
Crafting a Social Technology of Freedom: 24 Principles of Presencing
My purpose with this book is to do two things: to outline a social grammar of
emergence that illuminates the blind spot (Theory U), and to outline a social technology
of freedom that puts that approach into practice (through the principles of presencing).
The method and social technology are summarized in 24 principles and practices at the
end of the book. The 24 principles work as a matrix and constitute a whole. That said,
they can also be presented at individual process stages that follow the path of the U.
The stages are:

Co-initiating: listen to what life calls you to do, connect with people and contexts
related to that call, and convene constellations of core players that spark and
inspire common intention.

2005 Otto Scharmer

14

Introduction

Co-sensing: form a core team that takes a deep-dive learning journey that brings
you to the places of most potentialobserve, listen, and share with your mind,
heart, and will wide open.

Co-presencing: go to the place of individual and collective stillness, open up to the

source of creativity and presence, and link to the future that wants to emerge
through you.

Co-create landing strips of the future by quickly prototyping living microcosms in

order to learn by doing and by linking head, heart, and hand.

Co-evolving: co-develop a larger innovation ecosystem that connects and

coordinates through seeing from the whole and that grows through differentiating
and interweaving its functional spheres across organizational boundaries.

Rising from the Rubble

We all know enough about what isnt working todayabout the dying of the old social
body of collective behavior. We also know that we live on a thin crust of order and
stability (as a society or civilization) that could blow up at any time.
But where are the sources of the new? What is rising from the rubble?
Whats rising from the rubble is a new form of connection among small spheres or
networked communities of people. Its a different social field of thinking, conversing, and
acting together that starts happening when people begin to connect to their source. When
that shift happens, people enter into an experience of presencing by noticing some
tangible changes in their social space (a decentering of the spatial experience), social time
(a slowing down of the temporal experience to stillness), and the self (a collapsing of the
boundaries of the ego, experiencing a different quality or state of self).
A group that has entered into this stage of operating once usually finds it easier to do so a
second time. It is as if an unseen, but permanent, communal connection or bond has
been created. It even stays on if new members are added to the group.
That form of deepened presence in groups gives access to another whole dimension of
power. The outcomes of such a field shift include a heightened level of individual energy
and awareness, a greater level of authentic presence, a clearer direction, and usually
profound long-term personal and organizational changes and innovations.
This study is based on ten years of research and field work in leading innovation and
change, from1995 through 2005. It integrates 150 interviews with eminent thinkers and
practitioners in strategy, knowledge, innovation, and leadership around the world,
numerous reflection workshops with colleagues and co-researchers, as well as the results
of consulting and action research projects with leaders of companies such as Fujitsu,
2005 Otto Scharmer

15

Theory U: Leading from the Emerging Future

Daimler-Chrysler, GlaxoSmithkline, Hewlett-Packard, Federal Express, McKinsey &

Company, Nissan, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Shell Oil, and with grass-roots movements
in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
In taking us on this field walk, I refer to and use three methods: phenomenology,
dialogue, and collaborative action research. All three address the same key issue: the
intertwined constitution of knowledge, reality, and self. All of them follow the dictum of
Kurt Lewin, the founder of action research, who observed that You cannot understand a
system unless you change it. But each method has a different emphasis: phenomenology
in the first-person point of view (individual consciousness); dialogue in the second-person
point of view (fields of conversation); and action research in the third-person point of
view (enactment of institutional patterns and structures).
The first part of this field walk deals with different aspects of the blind spot. The second
part of the field walk explores the deeper grammar of this territoryTheory Uthat
deals with effecting social change by shifting the source of a collective field. The third part
of the field walk focuses on the principles of presencing, a new social field theory and
leadership technology. The book concludes with ideas and a broad plan for a global
action research university that puts the above principles into practice.

This paper is the introduction to a forthcoming book with the same title. See www.ottoscharmer.com

2 President Vaclav Havel, speech in Philadelphia, July 4, 1994. I am indebted to Goran Carstadt for
calling this speech to my attention.
3. World Hunger Fact Sheet published by the World Hunger Education Service:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm.
4. Working Out of Poverty: Making Jobs the Objective, World of Work Magazine
(http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/magazine/48/poverty.htm).
5. The State of the World's Children 2005: Childhood under Threat
http://www.unicefusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=duLRI8O0H&b=262152
6 I owe this point to the peace researcher Johan Galtung. See (get reference).
7. Claus Otto Scharmer, Organizing around Not-yet Embodied Knowledge, in Knowledge Creation: A
New Source of Value, ed. G. V. Krogh, I. Nonaka, and T. Nishiguchi (New York: Macmillan, 1999).
8

Scharmer, 2000, Senge, et al, 2004

9 A detailed account of this journey as well as a first introduction into the territory that this book
continues to deepen and to explore can be found in Senge, et al, 2004.
10. See the full interview with Jonathan Day conducted by Claus Otto Scharmer, July 14, 1999, at Dialog
on Leadership (www.dialogonleadership.org/interviewDay.html).
11. Personal conversation with Miha Pogacnik in New York, 1999.
12. http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Arthur-1999.html
13. Pokorny, 2002, 672.
14 Und kennst du nicht dies stirb und werde, so bist du nur ein trber Gast auf Erden.

2005 Otto Scharmer

16