Overview:
Argyris (1976) proposes double loop learning theory which pertains to learning to change underlying values and assumptions. The focus of the theory is on solving problems that are complex and ill-structured and which change as problem-solving advances.
Double loop theory is based upon a "theory of action" perspective outlined by Argyris &
Schon (1974). This perspective examines reality from the point of view of human beings as actors. Changes in values, behavior, leadership, and helping others, are all part of, and informed by, the actors' theory of action. An important aspect of the theory is the distinction between an individual's espoused theory and their "theory-in-use" (what they actually do); bringing these two into congruence is a primary concern of double loop learning. Typically, interaction with others is necessary to identify the conflict.
There are four basic steps in the action theory learning process: (1) discovery of espoused and theory-in-use, (2) invention of new meanings, (3) production of new actions, and (4) generalization of results. Double loop learning involves applying each of these steps to itself.
In double loop learning, assumptions underlying current views are questioned and hypotheses about behavior tested publically. The end result of double loop learning should be increased effectiveness in decision-making and better acceptance of failures and mistakes.
In recent years, Argyris has focused on a methodology for implementing action theory on a broad scale called "action science" (see Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985) and the role of learning at the organizational level (e.g., Argyris, 1993; Schon & Argyris, 1996).
Scope/Application:
Double loop learning is a theory of personal change that is oriented towards professional education, especially leadership in organizations. It has been applied in the context of management development .
Example :
Here are two examples from Argyris (1976, p16). A teacher who believes that she has a class of "stupid" students will communicate expectations such that the children behave stupidly.
She confirms her theory by asking them questions and eliciting stupid answers or puts them in situations where they behave stupidly. The theory-in-use is self-fulfilling. Similarly, a manager who believes his subordinates are passive, dependent and require authoritarian guidance rewards dependent and submissive behavior. He tests his theory by posing challenges for employees and eliciting dependent outcomes. In order to break this congruency, the teacher or manager would need to engage in open loop learning in which they delibrately disconfirm their theory-in-use.
Principles:
1. Effective problem-solving about interpersonal or technical issues requires frequent public testing of theories-in-use.

2. Double loop learning requires learning situations in which participants can examine and experiment with their theories of action.
Related web sites:
While not directly about Argyris or his theory, there are many web sites that focus on management development and organization learning which are related to his work. Relevant resources are the Society for Organizational Learning or the web pages of Yogesh Malhotra .
References:
Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
Argyris, C. (1993). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action. Individual and Organizational. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith, D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
A bibliography of Argyris’ work can be found at http://www.actionscience.com/argbib.htm
Systems thinking puts a heavy cognitive and psychological load on us. We are asked to consider the big picture; think holistically; be aware of non-linear, dynamic processes; explore hidden forces and multiple perspectives; recognize relationships that may be obscured by time, distance and structure; and remain cognitively flexible so as not to make decisions prematurely. Discussed below are three forms of thinking and communication skills that are most helpful in learning to think and act effectively with others in complex environments: positive conflict , critical reflection , and dialogue .
Conflict is Natural
Conflict is a fact of life. It is inevitable and it is normal. Whenever there are differing perspectives and alternative choices it is natural that people will have conflicting ideas about the best course of action. The same diversity of experience and perspective that increases the flexibility, strength and potential options of an organization is also the prime source of

conflict. We spend a lot of time and energy avoiding conflict because it is so uncomfortable and we are afraid that it might escalate into uncontrolled anger. Conflict avoidance
— reducing risks, withdrawing, evading differences, and "settling"—is one type of negative conflict which leads to feelings of powerlessness and produces less than optimal results.
The other form of negative conflict, competitive conflict , may produce feelings of personal power in the winner, but just like conflict avoidance, it cannot produce the best outcomes.
When people or their ideas are demeaned, or when blame, suspicion, coercion and manipulation are present, these are signs of competitive conflict. It is impossible for people to do their best work in such an atmosphere.
Positive Conflict
Conflict avoidance and competitive conflict are both forms of negative conflict. It is not necessary for conflict to be negative, however, as Dean Tjosvold illustrates in his two books,
The Conflict-Positive Organization (1991) and Learning to Manage Conflict: Getting People to Work Together Productively (1993). Positive conflict requires that you deal with conflict cooperatively. We know that any individual perspective is limited by that person’s past thinking and experience. We also know that individually we are limited in our capacity to generate and consider alternatives. "By engaging in constructive controversy, individuals help each other cope with the biases of closed-mindedness, simplistic thinking, inadequate evaluation of information, and unwarranted commitment to their position (Tjosvold, 1991, p.104 )."
Embracing the mindset and methods of positive conflict requires:
 openness —being willing to talk about feelings that you’re reluctant to reveal, as well as remaining open to alternative perspectives and new and opposing information
 maintaining positive regard for others
—treating others as colleagues who have valuable contributions, insights and ideas
 valuing diversity —being committed to the notion that people with different backgrounds and experiences can synergistically work together to increase options and raise the quality of outcomes
 seeking mutual benefit
 listening actively
—asking for clarification, seeking to understand, withholding criticism, validating the logic of the other person’s position
 balancing inquiry and advocacy
—researching, presenting and defending the various alternative positions, then dropping defensive positions while you listen open mindedly; critically examine the facts, arguments and hidden assumptions; integrate ideas; and collectively create a high-quality solution which is responsive to several points of view
You can read more about developing good communication skills and the art of discussing the undiscussable by clicking on these links.

Lower- and Higher-Order Thinking
Educators and psychologists universally recognize higher and lower levels of thinking. One division of cognitive skills, Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), has become almost generic. Bloom and his colleagues articulated six levels of thinking:
1.
knowledge— knowing about something; being able to recall (from memory) specific facts or figures
2.
comprehension—understanding the literal meaning of something
3.
application—taking a concept or process and applying it to a new situation
4.
analysis—breaking something into its separate components; using deductive logic; seeing cause and effect; comparing and contrasting; recognizing patterns
5.
synthesis—putting elements together to form a new whole; seeing patterns across different systems; using inductive logic; formulating theories and ways to test them
6.
evaluation—making value judgments about particular ideas, methods or solutions as to how well they meet criteria or how appropriate they might be
Each level encompasses the skills of the previous level so thinking becomes increasingly complicated as you move from Level 1 to Level 6; however, knowing, comprehending and applying are generally regarded as lower-order skills, while analysis, and particularly synthesis and evaluation are identified as higher-order cognitive skills.
Critical Reflection
A crucial element in applying higher-order thinking skills is the use of reflection on what’s being learned—how it matches previous experience, what’s unique or unusual, how it fits into the bigger picture, and why it’s important. The development of the ability to ask not just the what questions, but also the how and why and why-does-it-matter questions is the purpose of critical reflection. Instructors who regularly make their thinking visible (by providing a running narrative of their own metacognition), consistently ask the how , why and so what questions, and then challenge their students to generate these questions themselves are providing the scaffolding to aid students in developing their critical reflection abilities.
Critical reflection is also a core element in significant individual and organizational learning, and plays a crucial role in personal or professional change and growth.
Model I Organizational Behavior
Harvard’s Chris Argyris (1990, 1993) says that both individuals and organizations tend to espouse certain values or actions (espoused theories) but actually behave in fairly common defensive ways (theories-in-use), and this behavior then reinforces the same non-productive

habits. He labels the theories-in-use that abound in most organizations as Model I . This model is essentially an authoritarian one—with top-down control, an emphasis on winning and looking good, and the use of debate and discussion to convince others of the logic and rightness of our positions—all of which is couched in polite, professional language that sounds caring and concerned, but often uses ambiguous language to avoid conflict. If real intentions are questioned, people use face-saving routines to cover up embarrassment.
Argyris calls this type of behavior skilled incompetence and says its defensive routines are self-reinforcing and often unconsciously practiced.
Model II: Inquiring Minds
Getting from Model I to Model II is not easy; it takes a true paradigm shift: a strong commitment to a new mental model and set of behaviors; the generous use of reflection and metacognition; a higher level of trust of all members that is shown in daily interactions; and a willingness on the part of all to continually question assumptions and guard against hidden agendas and cover-ups. Model II requires that we NOT play politics.
Double- and Triple-loop Learning
The concept of double-loop learning was developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon. If regular or simple learning is single-loop, then double-loop learning asks us to not settle on the first and obvious solution to a problem, but to continue to look for alternative ways of seeing the situation that could lead to a better decision or more effective action. William
Isaacs (1993), Director of the Dialogue Project at MIT, suggests that in order to effect true organizational change, we need to move beyond double-loop learning to triple-loop learning.
Triple-loop learning investigates the context and nature of learning itself: it asks why we behave and think the way we do, and inquires into hidden habits of thinking and acting in order to learn to think and act together in mutually productive ways. Triple-loop learning asks us to be present and mindful of how our language, assumptions, tacit thoughts, reactions and mental models affect our interactions. Thus, the purpose of triple-loop learning and dialogue (as described below) are the same: "to create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness can be maintained (Isaacs, 1993, p.31)."
A brief discussion of double-loop learning is available at this George Washington University website.
Small groups of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

Dialogue is not Discussion
Dialogue is different from discussion and debate. We use discussion and debate to put forth positions and opinions and try to convince others of the logic and rightness of our ideas. A crucial element of dialogue, however, is the deliberate inclusion of critical reflection and inquiry into assumptions. Dialogue allows a space to examine how our individual and collective cultures, genders, habits, and histories are both influencing and constraining our very thought processes. Senge (1990) points out that the purpose of discussion is to produce decisions and is a converging process, while dialogue is a way to explore the many facets of complex issues and is diverging. Dialogic inquiry does not seek "the correct answer."
Dialogue appears to be a core process of true learning communities.
Dialogue in Community-Making
In his 1987 book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace , M. Scott Peck describes four stages of community-making:
1.
pseudocommunity , when people avoid conflict and minimize differences
2.
chaos , when differences are now in the open and well-intentioned but misguided attempts to convert or coerce others to your own point of view abound
3.
emptiness , which Peck describes as a time in which people empty themselves of barriers to communication, a time to acknowledge and let go of expectations, preconceptions, prejudices, "solutions", the need to fix, and the need to control
4.
community , when there is respectful silence, time for reflection, and genuine sharing, listening and learning within the group.
Peck acknowledges that most groups never progress beyond stage 1 or 2 and the integration and ability to act with integrity and shared purpose that can be found in true community are never achieved. Peck’s third and fourth stages are similar to the definition and description of dialogue put forth by the late physicist David Bohm and his colleagues in the MIT Dialogue
Project.
The MIT Dialogue Project
The Kellogg-sponsored Dialogue Project at MIT has been studying the nature and power of dialogic inquiry and the influence it might have on social change. A 1991 proposal by Bohm and his colleagues describes dialogue as a means of understanding how thought functions by intentionally examining hidden assumptions; power structures; unexpressed fears and hopes, and seeking to understand how our thinking and interactions are influenced and limited by the language we use, our cultures, our history and our genders. Dialogue involves deep listening (to others as well as ourselves) and is a way of intentionally slowing down and exposing reactions, feelings, and judgments so that they can be explored to see how they are influencing our thinking. In dialogue, people practice thinking and inquiring together, rather than defending positions.
Dialogue at OSU

Just a few of the people here at OSU who have worked at fostering the dialogue process in various citizen and stakeholder groups are: Steve Daniels , Forestry; Gregg Walker , Speech
Communication; Ray William , Horticulture; and Gwil Evans and Janice McMurray ,
Directors of the Kellogg-sponsored project Inter ACTION!
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals . NY: Longman.
Isaacs, W.N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (3), 24-39.
Peck, M.S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace . NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action . NY: Basic
Books.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization .
NY: Doubleday-Currency.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity .
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D. (1993). Learning to manage conflict: Getting people to work together productively . NY: Macmillan.
Hannah Nathans
In this article, I will present the three levels of learning with the Enneagram and how these three levels of learning relate to three levels of consciousness. Both business management literature and many spiritual traditions point to these three levels.
This article summarizes part of my book, Working with the Enneagram, Towards Personal
Mastership and Social Intelligence , recently published in Dutch. I'll briefly summarize the spiritual tradition of the Kabbalah which was more extensively described in my article in the
February issue of Enneagram Monthly ( The enneagram and the tree of life, states of consciousness ). Then I'll proceed with the levels of learning in management literature, and

then discuss the practical implications for learning with the Enneagram on different levels of consciousness and provide examples of exercises on the different levels.
In the kabbalistic tree of life, we see a number of levels of consciousness. Malchut represents the physical level, the body. Yesod corresponds to the fixations within the Enneagram of fixations, often referred to as the false self. Tifereth can be seen as the inner observer, the real individual self, the inner guide, the transfer point to the spiritual realm.
In an earlier [Feb., '00] EM article, I described Jacobs ladder, the overlapping four trees of life, representing the four worlds. From top to bottom, these are the divine, the spiritual, the psychological, and the physical world. The upper three worlds correspond with the three
Buddhist worlds: the formless world, the world of pure form, and the world of senses and desires. The spiritual world and the world of pure form correspond with Plato's world of ideas. The higher virtues and ideas belong to the spiritual world, not to the psychological world. So it is clear that they represent another state of consciousness.

Different levels of will are associated with the different levels of consciousness. The vital will to ensure one's physical survival belongs to Malchut, the body level. The ego will-the skillful will to survive psychologically-aligns with the Enneagram of fixations, or the level of
Yesod. If our human experience comprised only these two levels, real altruism would be impossible, and real personal growth could not happen. Our capacity to learn would be limited to the learning of tricks only, similar to an ape's ability to learn.
Tifereth, however, corresponds to the higher personal will. This will is concerned about matters of the soul, for example, "What is this soul learning in this lifetime? What important steps does this particular person have to make in life which will enable him to learn?" Then in the part of the psychological tree that overlaps with the spiritual tree, we find the ethical will: "Is what I want good for myself and others? In the long term, what is the right thing to do?", the transcendent will: "Not my own personal will but a larger will governs my deeds", and above that, the divine will.
When we grow to a higher level, it doesn't mean that we lose the lower level. For example, when a toddler undergoes the process of potty training, it does not mean that the child looses its body nor does it let go of it. On the contrary, it means the child brings the body under the rule of the next higher will, the psychological will. Kids like to be accepted in the family; they like to be approved of; they want rewards and don't want punishment; they want to be like their older siblings; and so they become potty-trained.
Thus, the will at the level of Yesod, the psychological level-the level of type-is able to rule the body in many ways. Similarly, we don't lose our type when we grow, nor do we let go of

it, but we bring it under the rule of the real self, the level of Tifereth. When this occurs, the type is not running us any more; we're running our type.
In the same way, the real self can come under the rule of the transcendent level, and the transcendent level under divine guidance. We don't lose any of these levels; we don't let go of them. They remain in tact, fully functioning at all times.
In management literature, R. Hargrove ( Masterful Coaching ) discusses the theory of single loop, double loop, and triple loop learning. Single loop learning means receiving instructions how to do things and following these instructions, like learning how to solve problems, how to handle conflicts, or how to repair things that break down. Double loop learning implies studying underlying patterns, like "Why do so many of my employees experience burn out?"
"Why do I always have the same kind of conflicts with my superiors?" or "Why is it that we always have the same kind of breakdowns in the production process?"
This level of learning implies "reframing." For instance, when a business executive is complaining that he does not know what kind of a next step he should take in managing his career, a management consultant might help to clarify that this is a very normal stage in a change process and that becoming conscious of this is a very positive step. It means the person is learning. So "I don't know what to do" is reframed as "I am in a normal learning process".
Triple loop learning is transformational learning. According to Peter Senge ( The Fifth
Discipline ), this is the only real organizational learning. It requires changing the underlying mental model. Senge speaks of metanoia, the Greek word for fundamental change or transcendence (meta, meaning above or beyond, and noia from nous, mind). This is essentially different from survival learning or adaptive learning, says Senge. Survival learning limits the capacity to learn, transformational learning enhances the capacity to learn.
In working with the Enneagram, we can discern three levels of learning that look remarkably like the spiritual levels and the management levels of learning: First order learning behavioral change, skills training; Second order learning -observation of type patterns, reframing, disidentifying; and Third order learning -transformation.
If we recognize the levels of learning in management literature, we can easily connect these learning levels with the spiritual tradition of the Kabbalah's tree of life. First order learning is the level of Yesod. Second order learning is the level of the inner observer, Tifereth; and third order learning is the shift from the psychological to the spiritual world.
Keep in mind, however, that there are no sharp distinctions between the three levels of learning. Rather, the division is fuzzy. It is difficult to change one's behavior without reflecting on oneself. Self-observation implies no longer being completely identified with one's type-or else, there would be no one to observe.
Transformation, of course, is impossible without disidentification. Second and third order changes will cause changes in behavior. So the levels are interrelated. Lower level changes are not completely possible without higher levels. Higher levels influence lower levels, albeit not completely. We all know people who are great meditators and often have wonderful

experiences of unity, but when they return to everyday life, they have difficulty just tying their shoelaces, let alone operating effectively in the world of matter and relationships.
Likewise, we all know people who are very effective in the world of matter and relationships but who consider the spiritual realm to be a fairy tale for primitives, woollies, and people who are out of touch with reality.
With every level of learning, there are specific kinds of exercises (or practices) that can aid one's learning. I'm not exaggerating when I say there are thousands of such exercises. In this article, I give just a few examples; many more are contained in my book.
On this level we learn skills that compensate for the pitfalls and weaknesses of our type, and learn to exploit the strong points of our type. As a Nine, one of my weak points used to be the ability to assert myself. The first time I gave a workshop I was so afraid that I fainted.
But when I came to the group was still there. I only got myself into this situation because I didn't dare say no to my boss, although it scared me to death to speak in public. I understood that I could only survive if I learned some new skills.
So I took workshops on assertiveness training, discussion techniques, group training, conflict resolution, negotiation skills, personal effectiveness, speaking in public, etc. I also made it my profession to teach these subjects. I mastered these skills to a reasonable extent, and so I had built a whole new kit of survival tools. To be sure, learning such skills enhanced my quality of life and was very useful to me. But my type, my "Nine-ness," remained rather unchanged. All the new skills just helped to keep my type in place, in a more effective way. I still could not bear the stress of conflict, but now I tried to deal with this by resolving the conflict with the new techniques I had learned as soon as possible in stead of avoiding it or negating it. My behavior had changed, but the underlying motivation was unchanged.
People who have done first order learning often don't show the behaviors that are associated with their type, and so they cannot be typed at first glance. A Nine who has achieved first order learning has learned to confront others and state his own viewpoint (and sometimes does so excessively). Similarly, a Five may have learned comfortable social behaviors and shows interest in other people's feelings; or a Two may have learned to create private time and to ask for help.
My new assertive skills did not always lead to the desired results, however. Other people did not always want to solve the conflicts I wanted to solve. Some people even thought conflict was something constructive. So I had to learn more.
First order learning means strengthening an effective use of the strong sides of the type, and of skills that compensate the weaker parts. To be able to do this, one has to know both sides of oneself, not from Enneagram books but as the "real me." Several exercises can help to accomplish this, for instance making a list of one's own characteristics-both the light side and the dark side of these characteristics. There are no characteristics that don't have both sides.
Role playing is also a good intervention to change behavior. Imagining other behavior can help enormously.
It is important to realize that on this level of learning, people with the same type can have completely different learning goals. Possible learning goals for an Eight on this level might

be making more space for others, learning negotiating skills, developing more nuances in judgment, accepting one's own physical or other limits, or developing better discernment between objective truth and self-interest in discussions.
On this level we try to see through our habitual patterns of attention, motivation, lens of perception, etc. Reframing is possible. It can be a wonderful experience to look at the world through the glasses of all the other types and compare the 9 different interpretations of a situation.
In my case, I started to ponder what was so terrible about conflicts. What would happen if I had a conflict? Would I have no friends at all? Would I be ostracized, outlawed? Would I disappear completely from the surface of this earth? How bad would that be? And was this realistic? Did I really want a relationship with everybody? or with people who had nothing in common with me? And what was a conflict, really? Apparently other people called my socalled conflicts by other names, such as deep discussion, creative competition, or expressing emotion. It seemed I missed some parts of life. But how did they manage to stand this?
As I began to reflect on this, I noticed that not having conflicts results in poor relationships.
What an enormous discovery it was when I experienced for the first time that one could have a conflict and work happily together ever after! But why was it that nobody took me seriously unless I got really angry?
Thus, second order learning means we study our basic patterns, put our basic assumptions under critical dispute, and gradually disidentify from type. We discover that we aren't our type; rather we have a type. Our reactions become less automatic.
In this stage of development, gradually the real self takes the lead over the false self. We don't lose our type, nor do we let go of it. A well-developed ego-the positive face of the typeis a condition which is quite effective in the world. What we do let go of is enabling the type to rule us. Seen from the level of the real self, the type becomes an instrument that can be used to its best effect and must be governed wisely.
Several exercises for self-observation, varying from daily journaling to dialoguing can help with learning to reframe our experiences. For example, typical basic assumptions can be traced by questions like "What makes me feel really angry, irritated, unhappy? or "When do I feel really satisfied" One such exercise is to formulate absolute statements such as "People should always, under all circumstances, say what they think." Or, "There is absolutely nobody in this world who cares even a teeny little bit about me, nor has there ever been."
This exercise can help to loosen the grip of the basic assumptions of the person. Doing so helps to put things in perspective.
The automatic behavior of the type can also be interrupted by doing the reverse of one's own pattern. For example, a Three could practice doing nothing, or a Seven might choose to give attention to painful events. Automatic behavior can also be interrupted by reversing the focus of attention, like having a Four place his attention on the positive things in the here and now.
Affirmations, positive statements that contradict the type automatism, can also be effective.

For a One, this might be " I am perfect as I am." The affirmation has to fit the type but must also fit the individual; not every type affirmation will fit everyone with the same type.
Disidentifying can be achieved by imagining "What if I did not have these type qualities?
Who would I be without them?"
Third order learning has to do with learning to invoke one's higher ideas and virtues as identified in the Enneagram. A transformative change for myself, as a Nine, would be to develop the conviction that I have value as a person. Even as I write this, my heart beats stronger and I feel as though my temperature is rising, so decidedly I am still learning this one.
Real transformation is not about changing behavior. It is about coming to rest in another state of consciousness, a transcendent or spiritual state. This spiritual state, the higher idea and virtue, influences the psychological level.
There are several kinds of transformational exercises. One is training of the moral will, which means placing everything one does in the light of ethics-higher ethics, not the norms of the ego level. Intuition training can bring one in contact with the transcendent. Not all intuition training will do so; however, certain kinds are merely a horizontal extension. As a result, one develops psychic abilities without growing spiritually. Meditation on the higher ideas and virtues of one's own type is another kind of exercise for which there are several possible approaches.
When working with clients, it is very important to verify that the person understands your intervention on the level you are intending it. A young Three once told me he had major difficulties in getting his new business started because his Enneagram coach had told him he should not market himself. Now surely his coach did not mean to imply that the young man should not market his enterprise! The coach probably had meant to communicate a level two intervention of interrupting habitual patterns. However, the young Three had understood it as a level one instruction: don't do marketing.
Also, keep in mind that people with the same type differ in their stage of development, and/or in the degree to which they are able to access different levels of consciousness. These people need different levels of transformation or learning exercises. Especially in a business management culture, it is very important to assess where people are, what they need, and precisely what they want from the consultant.
In my practice as management consultant, a number of people ask for and can make good use of level one exercises. I can stretch it a bit into the direction of level two, but rather quickly they comment that they want more action. "We should do more exercises," they say. For these people, level two exercises should not be used; it is better to engage in talking, not doing or working.
With many clients, I can do work on level two. Many times they get interested in level two after level one has yielded some results but not enough. Only a few clients are interested in

level three or even understand what that level is about. In which case, it makes no sense at all to do level three exercises with people who are not ready for this kind of work in their personal development, because they will likely translate them into lower levels.
Perhaps you're familiar with the story of the two-dimensional Flatlanders. The Flatlanders are flat; their country is flat; their houses, cars, and utensils are flat; and they can only experience two dimensions. One might imagine their landscape as moving drawings. They live in a flat plane. When a three-dimensional ball passes through their plane, they see a point growing into a circle, into a larger circle, into a smaller circle, becoming a point and then disappearing again. The concept of a round ball is outside their scope of perception.
So, it is for people who are not conscious of this third level of transformation. An exercise such as meditating on the higher virtues is translated into an exercise about how to act differently, rather than an exercise in pursuit of moving to a transcendent state of consciousness. This does not in any way mean that these people have less access to the third level. Everybody has all levels. However, not everyone is conscious of this third level.
__________
Hanna Nathans is director of Nathans Adviesbureau voor Organisatie en Opleiding BV,
Netherlands . She certified with Helen Palmer and David Daniels and uses the Enneagram in her work as a consultant and in training consultants. She graduated in intuitive development and studied Kabbalah with Halevi and Nieuwenhuizen-Gerzon. She is a bestselling author and writes on a diversity of topics that all have to do with development of human potential.
Her book, Working With the Enneagram: Towards Personal Mastery and Social Intelligence , was published (in Dutch) in Spring, 2000.
© Copyright Hannah Nathans and Enneagram Monthly , 2000. All rights reserv