Community & Communication

These states are available not just to music groups but also to non-musical groups too. In music all four states are present in plain sight. Other parts of our lives can be confusing and we often find it difficult to make sense of changing circumstances. The two states which seem to be behind the confusion seem to be 'Curious/Challenging' and 'Playful/Spontaneous'. 

 

In adult life many people find it hard to challenge others (to speak truth to power).   We also feel incredibly uncomfortable when we are forced to dramatically change what we do and do something we've never done before and just hope for the best, to improvise or act spontaneously. We'd rather be in the safety of formality or instruction. 

​

For many musicians this is also true. Many musicians need the safety of the printed notes. However given the confidence the printed notes provides they will respond magnificently to inspiring fellow performers, leaders and conductors.  In many ways this kind of musician reflects the position many people find themselves in the non-musical world.

 

However jazz musicians will venture off the beaten tracks so-to-speak and are prepared to challenge convention. More will be explained later about they do that's different and why we should be prepared to develop our ability to take their kind of risks.

 

Many musicians enjoy performing the really freaky, far out stuff that in some people's ears sounds chaotic. What is so encouraging about free improvisation is just much it stimulates the creativity within us.

 

In non-musical circles we tend to be familiar with the STRUCTURED and the INSPIRATIONAL. Many of us, however, find being CHALLENGING uncomfortable. Being SPONTANEOUS is frequently unavailable to us at work or even in the home. CHALLENGING and SPONTANOUS are states in which we tend to have little experience.  During childhood we play and experience everything but over time we lose some of this facility. We are told to 'grow up' and to 'act our age' which in some senses might be advisable, but over time we run the risk of losing our ability to be completely ourselves.

 

It is important to be aware that the states are not completely separate and distinct; they have a relationship with each other.  Knowledge and experience of each of the states is strengthened by familiarity with the other three.

 

Remaining in one state is therefore usually an unhelpful strategy. Moving flexibly between each as required is far more effective. For example, you might intuitively sense something feels right but you sensibly flip over to check you have the data (the rational state) to support your position. Although to some this is obvious you might be surprised how few humans actually do this.

​

In addition to having flexibility across the states, it is necessary to be aware of which state might be more appropriate for any given set of circumstances. Examining what might 'trigger' you into a negative state is a good place to begin. Knowing your triggers is helpful but knowing what state to replace it with is essential. 'Triggers' materialise from a pattern of responses you have repeated over time. Any of the four states described in the model could be the most appropriate response. Experience in the four states will tell you which one is best. It is worth finding the time to explore these states to see what effect they have on your psyche. One of the safest spaces is in music, both listening to different types and also playing music of different kinds especially ones outside your comfort zone. 

​

Structured

Some groups or teams are often required to follow instructions for example car manufacturers, fast-food providers, and even symphony orchestras. Assuming that the process produces the required result this is the domain of the rational. You might also notice that without the inclusion of some elements of the other states the music doesn't work. Beyond the domain of music there is a certain sense of something missing from the process being employed which doesn't allow for motivation, challenge and a little spontaneity.  

 

Then of coourse it is quite possible to take reason and structure too far.  This produces systems of human experience that are progressively ever more restrictive. This is the territory of the autocratic. Limits are placed on individual expression and there is a strong emphasis on conformity. 

​

Passionate

Feeling energised by a highly motivated leader is inspirational for everyone involved (some political party leaders, social media influencers, and in the musical field orchestral conductors). At appropriate levels teams and organisations can benefit from such individuals by their ability to raise the group's performance. On the other hand the power of the leader can be taken too far.  Organisations can be dominated by their leaders. This is the realm of the dictator and the abuser, where power is given over to the leader, and an individual's existence is dependent on the will of and the belief in the leader. 

 

Challenging

Other groups have guidelines or a sense of structure but might need to be flexible in what they do and the way they do it. It goes without saying that jazz bands.are in this space. It might seem surprising to include teachers and the medical profession in this state, but this is because whilst what they do is highly structured and clearly based on reason they can often find themselves in challenging situations.  Whilst they have systems and processes in place which they have to abide by they will often find themselves needing to think outside the box, so-to-speak. 

 

Sometimes professional decisions run the risk of being seen as too challenging or even non-conformist. Organisational safety is therefore paramount in these circumstances.   In jazz terms, the new riff might initially 'jar' somewhat but it would not be blocked. It might feel as if it isn't conforming to what's already been established, but it would nevertheless be absorbed as valid and responded to appropriately. The Challenging State can stray into very uncomfortable territory. Whistle-blowers are by definition, challengers or non-conformists. Organisations must have the flexibility to allow concerns to be raised in order to be handled effectively. A kind of organisational blindness can result initially, in the individual not being heard, and possibly eventually experiencing denial, by those in authority. Damaging possibilities can then, in extremis, emerge. A move by the organisation into extreme autocratic results in threats to the whistle-blower. On the other hand the organisation might shift into extreme chaos where it is itself damaged by not heeding the dangers uncovered by the 'challenging' whistle-blower.  

 

Spontaneous

There is within humans a strong desire to be free, perhaps even a little bit wild. This is the territory of the spontaneous (for example creatives, inventors, and in music group free improvisation). Sometimes organisations need to think the unthinkable. There are times where reason, process and formality don't work. At other times the inspirational leader, despite all the promises he might have made to put things right, doesn't have the answers.  Challenging might be enough if all you can see is the problem but not have any answers. 

 

Being spontaneous can feel unsafe. In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs the need for safety is a prime concern. Without it teams and individuals daren't take risks. Great ideas come from this space. Fear kills creativity.  However allowing a completely open mindset can result in a completely new perspective, a totally original solution, or possibly even an advanced new product. If reason and structure are the organisation's only drivers then none of this is possible.  

​

Again stray too far to the extremes leads to chaos and anarchy. This means that even being Spontanous needs the support of the Rational. They are opposite ends of the spectrum but both need each other. Complete loss of structure is unnerving. People feel unsafe. Lawlessness encroaches into the neighbourhood and then community runs a risk of breaking down.   

​

One of the most powerful conclusions one can draw from this is that groups, teams and organisations that can incorporate the behaviour of all four states are likely to be more successful. Tendencies to adopt only one or two states leads to inflexibility and eventual organisational demise. On the outer fringes you can see various examples of where extreme positions have been held which are self-evidently to the detriment of human development. In these situations it the toxicity in its various is the outcome of an ongoing inappropriate response to a problem, situation or context where a leader, team or organisation persists in operating in the wrong ‘state’ and fails to draw on the wider collective wisdom.

​

Want to deepen your understanding? - Take a look at The Mastering Chaos Blogs.