By Salvador Nocetti Vilchis

Versión en español aquí

April 30, “Children’s Day”, and in this 2017 a day to culminate a learning cycle that was much larger than I had imagined.

It all started more than a year ago when I started a program called “Visión Sistémica” (Systemic Vision) that offered tools for the leader and the “systemic” coach. Enough reason to explore and complete my personal toolbox.

The offer was attractive and challenging. In my case it seemed, from my own understanding, that a communicologist knew all the secrets and hides of communication… even from theory.

The first weekend session my judgments began to do their job. A nurtured group, a well-known and reputable teacher and a German teacher who did not speak Spanish. Ah! and a translator. I must confess that my first judgment was “this is going to be in Chinese, how can they do it?, we are going to progress extremely slow!

And the truth was not in Chinese, it was in German, to English, to Spanish.

My reality constructions

Step by step I discovered these thoughts and judgments come from my way of building the world. My “construction of reality” and that way of responding to any comment is not necessarily what is happening, it is simply the construction of behavior that I decide facing the reality that I build. Does it seem complicated? Well yes, communicating is complicated and to get a good result of a data exchange between two people is required only one thing… to take care of the common purpose through the care of the form.

Understanding this through the modules led me to realize that I decide before life if I am a victim or protagonist, others call it “being the driver or passenger of the bus of life”.

Now I realize that throughout all my years I have had conversations in which what I wanted to say or shut up was not guaranteed. That even with the people I love the most in life, the conversation can easily go right to the cliff. I understood that communication is a miracle.

I also realized that many of the tools I learned over the years, such as different negotiation techniques, positive negotiation, look for win-win, difficult conversations or whatever! Are just ways man has sought to give tips, checklists, guides and tips to reduce the complexity of life.

Today, looking at what I learned in these months with Katia del Rivero and Michael Blumenstein, I know that this is the best way to explain what goes on inside the brain when I exchange data with another person.

My business venture

In the last three years, I ventured into the challenge of a family business, 100% Mexican, one of the so-called “micro-enterprises”. When I arrived at the organization I had my toolbox developed in international corporations and “Premium” brands. In addition to my ego (again, “construction of reality”) ensuring that having pass through four international mergers — one of them where as Latin American Director — I was left ready for anything.

My surprise is that even with these new tools if the common purpose is not shared, nothing works. So the theory is good, but it is better when you feel, live, sweat and breathe through their approaches: what do we want to do together?, and where do we go?

Learning without “acknowledgment”

A year ago my mother passed away and brought me the feeling of orphanhood… yes, at my age. A few months later a great friend died of a cancer that finish him in few years. Finally, the third person who left was my teacher Michael Blumenstein, fulfilling that tale we invented that people are passing away “three by three”.

It is obvious that all these losses hurt in the soul, from different places. It is as if they have their own territory in the heart.

In the case of Michael’s departure, it hurts me that in order to continue to learn from the teacher, we must investigate and discuss what I understood and what others understood. And that there will not be that “acknowledgment” from the author of the theory. The truth is that this program called “Visión Sistémica”, today “Blumenstein Theory” offers ways to live a good life, that is, enjoy, thank and build to live in peace. In peace because from a conversation, if I take care of the purpose and I realize what it is necessary to make you want to understand us then, perhaps, I will do it with more care and more love.

Finally, I spent the Children’s Day closing a cycle that enabled me to open a new cycle with a broader look and seeking that my contributions are of greater value, mutual understanding, service and love.

Happy Children’s Day!

Versión en español aquí

Imagine you are driving on the highway. You wear the seat belt, the seat is snug and the distance to the steering wheel is adequate for maneuvering easily. On the way there is a sign that tells you that a curve will come to the right. Before you get to it you slow it down a bit, you turn the wheel and you keep your foot on the accelerator to keep the speed constant and the course fixed. End the curve and adjust the steering wheel to follow the path to your destination. You decide where, how fast and where you are going. You control what and how.

Now imagine that suddenly, as by magic, you become a passenger. You do not know where you are, everything is dark around you. You do not know who is driving, you just know that you do not feel the wheel in front of you. You know you’re in a car, you feel the speed, but you do not know where you’re headed. You can not control the vehicle, nor its speed, nor its handling, nor the destination to which it is directed. You do not control what or how.

Who or what is it that takes you away (rather, to whom you give) control of the steering wheel?

Michael Blumenstein called him “drivers.” He defined them as the structure learned for survival within each of our families. When we are born, each one of us develops our main driver (some of us may have a mixture of two or three, more would be schizophrenic) as a method of adaptation and survival within our family system.

Therefore, the driver is a kind of autopilot that activates normally, when we enter into helplessness or feel threatened (Look out, this “threat” may not be “real”, as long as we perceive the situation is “real” for us). Its function is to help survival at any cost. For the driver, nothing matter but victory. He steals us the wheel of our actions, decides for us and takes us as passengers. What he does not do is face the consequences of his actions, that is up to us. Once we manage to regain our sufficiency and take control back, we have to deal with whatever our driver has done through us, because usually the rest of the world, can not identify who is driving us, if we are or it is the driver.

Which are the drivers?

The drivers are five. All people have a predominant one. Each develops differently. They are as follows.

Be kind

It is characterized by the intention of keeping the comfort of others above our own. It is feeling responsible for the well-being of others and uncomfortable when fails.

Be strong

It refers to a dissociation of oneself with our feelings. It is not that you are strong, although that is what you try to show, it is a highly dissociated you from your own emotions that you do not allow yourself to feel them. If you felt them, perhaps you would collapse before them because you do not know how to handle them, you do not know to feel.

Hurry up

In this everything happens too slow. People do not move fast enough, things do not happen soon enough. Everything is needed for yesterday and there is always something else to do to feel pressured. You do not enjoy the present, always thinking about the moment that comes after this.

Push yourself

Here we do not enjoy what has already been achieved, because there is always a new peak to conquer. It is not worth it if it was easy to get it and if you could already find a way, you have to complicate the process to keep working. It is to be in the continuous search for the black thread.

Be perfect

If you read the above and you identified with all, maybe it is because this is your driver. Do not end things ever because they are not good enough, have impossible standards (how to have all drivers as principal) and always feel frustrated, because nothing is ever as perfect as it should be.

Within Blumenstein Theory® and its vocabulary, there is no “good” or “bad”, so I do not mean that drivers are “bad”. What I mean is that they are incompatible for a good life. To have a good life, we need to stay within our sufficiency, so we can decide what is “good” for us and what we want and what not. Drivers do not show up as long as we stay within our sufficiency. That is why I say drivers are incompatible with a good life. They do not contribute, they only control. They do not build, they only advance without direction or purpose. Do not co-create, just run. They do not open possibilities, there is only one, them.

How to get out of them?

Going back to our sufficiency. Whatever that means for each of us.

Katia Ibáñez

By Emilio Arconada

Versión en español aquí

One of the best friendships I’ve ever cultivated in my life, started while thinking: “That dude looks like an idiot and I can not stand him with his image alone”, “The other day he gave me a extrange look and I hate him for that” “What is so special about Mauricio? If he is shorter than me, I bet I can beat him in a fight, and I will call the attention of the girl I like! “

The truth as the great gentleman I was when I has 8 years old, I decided to face the situation and go to speak with him. He had better odds since he was “The Charisma Guy” and his mates weighed twice as much as my friends, so I was between the sword of my desire and the wall literally represented by his friends. After talking during recess and the time of departure, the next day went to my salon to greet me without my expecting it.

A week later our moms were friends. A month ago, Mauricio married. The girl I wanted to impress at the time was sitting next to me, during the wedding, chatting with my girlfriend.

This story illustrates how I get human beings are not good or bad, it is the interactions between individuals that co-create people. It turns out at some point, the girl whom I wanted to impress was my girlfriend, and I cheated her with who today is my girlfriend! The most wonderful thing is that we managed to overcome that and remain friends. We are the same human beings that failed as a couple, but as friends, (another social system) we interact wonderfully !! And this is just a sample of how much I learned just by being close to Michael Blumenstein.

The truth is you can admire many things about Michael, i.g.: talking in front of an auditorium at his service, his style to talk as a man and lead a conversation without sexism, that only I know that “I” that dwells within me and is intensely immensely mine, which is my task if I make myself known and how I do it to that “I”.

Above all, he taught me not only his theory, but to follow it and live by actions. In fact, I saw him follow his words even in the most challenging situations of the human condition. He showed me through his behaviors the difference between the Human Being and the Person and understood his ideas in situations of daily life.

He also taught me that even when a guy stops me from crossing the street and curse me profusely, behaving like an idiot with me, it is not necessarily so. He can be the most kind and exemplary man 99% of the time and I had the bad luck to meet him during that 1% that he is not. It may even be that the reason for his behavior is that I shut myself to him first without even realizing it or maybe, he really is a professional jerk 100% of the time, I do not know. The only thing I can see is that the person I “met” at that time is not nice to me. And if I get angry then I have the additional task of not being angry because in fact he did not make me angry, it was me who decided to get angry. Nothing more.

The importance of clarity

Probably what I applied the most of what I learned from Michael in the classroom, group sessions, one-on-one sessions, and work meetings (no matter how heated it became) is the importance of clarity in speaking. No matter that I believe that I conveyed a clear and concrete idea, that does not mean that the person in front of me will have exactly the same understanding and concept of what I said.

E.g., if I say “Think about a chair” (and please do so) I can guarantee that the chair I am thinking about is different from yours. It may be that mine is red and yours is yellow, mine is casters and yours is four-legged. The concept “chair” is clear and concrete, a piece of furniture in which you can sit. However, the first chair that comes to my mind is one from the dining room of my house, which even if I describe it, (brown, wood, four legs) which you imagine will remain different from mine.

And this is exactly what happens when a boss tells his employee “The presentation should be perfect” and the employee makes 50 super detailed sheets, but the boss only has 5 minutes and expected a concrete presentation, that’s when the: “I told you I wanted it perfect, you’re not doing your job well!” Or, when an aunt tells her nephew “Behave well” that in her house means “Do not put your feet on the couch” but the aunt scolds him for painting the walls …

So I learned to ask myself “How clear are we when we talk? How much do we assume we give ourselves to understand?” And these questions changed my way of fighting with my girlfriend. Whenever we fought it was horrible, for things as simple as “keep the shoes” that meant for her in the closet and for me on the side of the bed.

The importance of purpose

Someday I heard Michael saying that it did not have to be this way. What he proposed then, that today makes my relationship go on and that even our friends ask us for help and advice, is to always be clear about the purpose of the conversation. That we always make it clear that what we are discussing is for the well-being of us and our relationship, that if I do not care how I say what I do not like, the other may feel attacked and answer from there, and then I return and that is how it is very easy things explode.

When we make it clear from the beginning that the intention is to stay together, there is affection and all we are looking for is a behavior modification, (in my case, that she accepts my shoes on the side of the bed and in exchange I’ll hang my jacket on the coat rack), then things become clearer and easier to solve. I define it as Michael’s “basic economics,” in other words, when you say “yes” to something you actually say “no” to something else.

It is not about you or about me anymore, we do not hurt and talk about us anymore, and we learned to talk about our behaviors and what we want to change.

Understanding Michael’s theory has taught me that the situation with Mauricio, in addition to be a unique friendship, is not an isolated phenomenon. That if I change my way of relating to the same human being, I can have a different relationship with a new person. This has definitely improved not only my life but also made it easier for these people to have, just like me, a good life.

Por Katia del Rivero

English version here

Cuando hablamos de constelaciones, regularmente se hace referencia a las constelaciones basadas en el trabajo de Bert Hellinger. De hecho, son las constelaciones desarrolladas por Jan Jacob Stam en el marco organizacional y prácticamente las que todo el mundo conoce.

Se dice que la base del trabajo de esas constelaciones es un trabajo fenomenológico. Pero ¿qué carambas significa esto?

Entonces lo primero que podemos analizar es ¿qué significa fenomenología?

Qué es la fenomenología

Si nos vamos al origen etimológico de la palabra, “fenomenología” significa el estudio del fenómeno. Si nos vamos al origen etimológico de la palabra “fenómeno”, encontramos que viene del latín phaenomënon, que significa apariencia. Y si nos vamos un poquito más atrás, viene de un vocablo del griego antiguo phaineim, que se refiere a mostrar o brillar. Por lo tanto, cuando hablamos de un fenómeno es algo que aparece, que emerge, que se muestra, y que es posible ser visto, considerado, influído y experimentado por todos aquellos que lo notan.

En el marco de la fenomenología ha habido diferentes orientaciones y corrientes, algunas filosóficas, otras más científicas.

La palabra “apariencia” proviene del latín aparientia se traduce como aparición y lo que significa es que se vuelve visible en cualquiera de las diferentes formas en que esto puede suceder. Puede ser visible ocularmente, es decir, puedo mirarlo con mis ojos, también puede ser visible en cuanto a la sensación que percibo al tener este fenómeno al frente, puede ser auditiva e incluso, puede ser kinestésica en el marco de que el fenómeno ejerce presión sobre mi piel.

La pregunta interesante que emerge, al menos desde mis ojos es ¿para todo el mundo, todos los fenómenos emergen de manera similar y significan lo mismo?

Los supuestos fenómenos universales

Desde la mirada de las constelaciones fenomenológicas, según Bert Hellinger y Stam, pareciera ser que surgen fenómenos universales y que son similares para todos.

Por ejemplo, si alguien está mirando al piso, significa que está mirando un muerto, si una persona se coloca (dentro de la conformación de la constelación), en el lugar que corresponde al padre o la madre, quiere decir que está usurpando el lugar del padre o la madre. Lo interesante para mi es preguntarnos si esto realmente es así en la totalidad de los casos.

En la historia de la fenomenología hemos pasado por muchos autores que han explorado diferentes perspectivas del tema. Así, hemos visto una evolución desde fenómenos universales que son independientemente de que alguien los mire o no. También nos hemos movido al fenómeno que solo tiene sentido a los ojos de quien lo observa y cuyo valor de experimentación tiene que ver con el observador, con quien está referenciada la aparición o fenómeno.

El fenómeno desde la perspectiva Blumenstein

Si analizamos este tema desde la Teoría Blumenstein, el fenómeno no necesariamente está vinculado con una construcción de la realidad única.

Así es que vamos por pasos. La primera pregunta que podríamos hacernos es ¿todos vemos el mismo fenómeno en una constelación?

Y mi respuesta contundente sería no. Cada quien ve el fenómeno que quiere observar y observamos el fenómeno que queremos observar en función de nuestra historia, lo cual quiere decir que el facilitador tiene un impacto importante en el marco de qué fenómeno se observa en una constelación, especialmente si se trabaja en el marco de la fenomenología, en la que se considera que el objeto observable es observable para todo mundo. Desde mi perspectiva, el facilitador puede asumir erróneamente, que lo que él observa es lo que hay.

De hecho esa es la frase que usan la mayor parte de los consteladores hellingerianos, lo que se ve es lo que hay.

La otra posibilidad es que supongamos que todos vemos un fenómeno similar en una constelación, este fenómeno común a todos los observadores ¿tiene el mismo significado para todos? Y la respuesta una vez más sería no.

Este fenómeno, suponiendo que en verdad fuera común a todos los presentes, puede tener significados completamente diferentes para cada una de las personas que observe el fenómeno. Esto quiere decir que en una constelación, esta idea de que “lo que ves es lo que hay”, (que en la propuesta hellingeriana y obviamente, desde su marco de valor en la interpretación de los fenómenos), dista mucho de la posibilidad real de acompañar al cliente, desde su necesidad en términos de lo que él quiere ver y construir. En este sentido, tú puedes mostrarle al cliente algo que no ve y la pregunta es ¿de qué le va a servir?

No hay una fenomenología pura

El cliente necesita descubrir por sí mismo lo que no ha visto antes y solo va a poder mirar lo que no ha visto antes, cuando el fenómeno que sucede en la constelación represente realmente un fenómeno para él mismo. De otro modo, su cerebro va a responder con el mecanismo natural de todos nuestros cerebros que es buscar lo que le es conocido, aquello en lo que se siente seguro y en lo que se siente hábil y capaz de sobrevivir.

Desde mi perspectiva y la de varios autores, la fenomenología pura no existe y tampoco es una herramienta aplicable puramente al espacio de una constelación. En realidad es una parte del proceso que se puede utilizar como referencia para invitar al cliente a compartir construcciones de realidad, es decir, observaciones de fenómenos en el proceso, con la intención de ir acompañándolo a que pueda mirar alternativas que no ha visto antes y que pueden serle útiles al servicio del propósito que quiere lograr con ese trabajo.

Desde esta mirada el facilitador no es un observador fenomenológico, es solamente un facilitador de la forma, es decir, de la estructura que le facilite al cliente poder observar estos fenómenos con sus propios ojos y significarlos para él mismo.

Si quieres saber más al respecto te invito a que participes con nosotros en nuestra siguiente formación de consteladores. Puede sorprenderte la distinción de cómo se miran los fenómenos desde la perspectiva Blumenstein en una constelación.

Si hubiera alguna palabra que describiera a Michael Blumenstein, su teoría, método, marco ético y su vivir, sería consistencia.

A él le encantaba la palabra, siempre decía que su teoría era “consistente”. Le pedía a cada persona que estudiaba con él, que por favor no le creyeran, que probaran lo que habían aprendido y que si encontraban que en algo no funcionaba, regresaran y se lo comentaran porque entonces la teoría debía ser revisada. Pues su teoría era consistente con la vida.

Cuando entramos a explorar su propuesta, encontramos distinciones y límites entre lo que es un sistema biológico y un sistema social. Y al mismo tiempo formas consistentes entre ambos como sistemas vivos.

Teoría, método y marco ético

Encontramos claras distinciones entre la teoría, el método y el marco ético. No mezcla un campo con el otro, distingue y al mismo tiempo ofrece posibilidad de integración de forma que haga sentido a cada persona, acorde a su propia construcción interna y al propósito que quiere alcanzar.

Claridad

Era un hombre claro. Aún recuerdo la noche que me dijo que me amaba y quería pasar el resto de su vida a mi lado. No titubeó. Después requirió encontrar cómo lograrlo, pero no le tomó mucho tiempo ¡en 30 días estaba en México!

Recuerdo el día que le dijo al CEO de una transnacional “pobre puerquito” haciendo referencia a una frase alemana y describiendo cómo podría sentirse ante la situación que compartió. Yo quería meterme debajo de la mesa, pero este CEO río a carcajadas y dijo: “nada pudo haberlo descrito más claramente”.

Consideraba que la claridad era la base de la consistencia y no le tenía miedo a la claridad.

Vivía lo que enseñaba

Michael vivía día a día lo que predicaba. Yo estaba profundamente “rejega” a su teoría en función de mi experiencia con constelaciones y sus maestros, y reté su modelo como jamás había retado algo y lo que me convenció no fue su discurso, fue su conducta cotidiana.

Recuerdo que en los momentos más duros, su consistencia me dio claridad, nos dio claridad. En los momentos de alegría, disfrute. En los momentos de duda, posibilidades. Y al final, cualquiera haya sido el estado: suficiencia.

Finalmente, aunque consideraba que el marco ético es el acuerdo de cómo queremos construir entre los seres humanos. Su marco de contribución fue consistente. Jamás le vi, ya no digamos hacer, pensar algo que pudiera representar un mal para alguien.

Desde esta ética, incluso cuando personas no respondieron a los compromisos que ofrecieron, o se comportaron de forma no consistente con los acuerdos, él fue consistente y mantuvo su suficiencia y su claridad.

Hace poco alguien me preguntó si era perfecto. No, no lo era, era un ser humano, un ser humano consistente. Y me doy cuenta que al serlo y eso es parte de lo que amo, no es un modelo a seguir, no se coloca sobre nadie, sólo hace una contribución al mundo para que cada uno desde su propia fuerza de vida, pueda contribuir al mundo desde un lugar de construcción. Es decir, de forma consistente.

¿Qué es consistencia? Acorde con sus raíces etimológicas se refiere a lo que se basa o fundamenta en algo, y me parece que Michael era un hombre fundamentado en teorías de sistemas, métodos probados y una ética única.

Su legado

Un hombre de amor que dejó un legado de paz al mundo y que nosotros sabremos honrar como Visión Sistémica con consistencia.

En su momento cuando concebimos a este “hijo nuestro”. El con su teoría, su método, su semilla, su fuerza de vida y yo, como él decía, ofreciendo el espacio (el útero) para que creciera y se gestara con amor, elegimos llamarlo ViSi en honor a nuestra compañía y en una hermosa decisión de él de honrar que yo fundé Visión Sistémica en una primera etapa.

Hoy, en honor a él, a su legado y a esta nueva etapa que comenzamos sin su presencia física y con su guía a través de lo que nos dejó, hemos decidido tomar la propuesta que vino del corazón de Katia Ibañez, cofundadora conmigo de esa primera etapa, y cambiar el nombre a “Teoría Blumenstein®”.

De esta forma quienes hoy conformamos el Equipo de Visión Sistémica (Katia, Isaías, Angie, Steph, Mandy, Rolo, Icela, Ute, Elmar) queremos ser consistentes y hacer lo mejor que podemos con lo que tenemos hoy ante su partida.

Descanse en paz nuestro amigo, nuestro socio, nuestro maestro y viva en cada uno a través de su legado a una buena vida.

Descansa en paz esposo amado, mi más profundo y grande amor, que vives y vivirás consistentemente en mi corazón y en mi trabajo al servicio de una vida plena.

Por Katia.

By Sergio Loyo

Versión en español aquí

I lost a lot of business. Surely if I had the knowledge I have now, things would have been different.

E.g., I never imagined the importance of Social Roles, let alone the relevance they have when we confuse them.

I agree with people who believe that “people do not change”. To a great extent I have reason to believe: as long as we have problems and we try to solve them in the same way, we will get the same results.

Months ago I had the opportunity to attend a module of “Social Roles” taught by Michael Blumenstein and Katia del Rivero as part of the “Master VISI Coach” training. Knowing this theory I thought things did not have to follow in the same way, especially if it allowed me to distinguish my shares with the appropriate Social Role in every situation.

I began to be aware of the speed with which my interlocutors and I are able to change the social role in a daily conversation. Suddenly speaking as an adult and in the next speech talking like a child. Imagine how the partner of a company would look like a child to a collaborator or an executive talking to a subordinate as a mother? This was a way to begin to distinguish them.

In my family it was said: “when in Rome, do as romans do” and in that same tenor it is necessary to put the social roles.

Days before the training I felt bad because at a business meeting I had lost control of the negotiation and I allowed my companion (much to my regret) to take over the direction of the project.

I realized that it was not the first time this happened to me, in fact, I identified the same clumsiness throughout my life: “release the steering wheel.” The events arising after that, have always direct me to leave the company and the subsequent closure.

During all this time I did not realize that I was summoning to negotiate my inner child. It was too much responsibility for an infant! And his fear made me abandon the business and / or yield it with my consequent frustration.

Social Roles — from my perspective — are the interactions of personalities and others in a given situation. It seems easy to say it that way, however the situation becomes complex and problematic when such personalities appear in situations that do not correspond to them

I want to share with you that when I am in an unsustainable situation, I immediately ask myself if it is the right role in that situation. That is the way in which I have been able to regain ground in this business world.

If you do not want to have difficulties in your company or in your personal relationships, it might be helpful to ask yourself: Am I in the right Social Role?

By Katia del Rivero

Versión en español aquí

What is a constellation? Why do you recommend them so much for entrepreneurs? Are they really so magical?

These questions have completely different answers depending on who answers and is worth analyzing to know what can generate a constellation in your company.

If you consult a follower of Bert Hellinger (who is mistakenly given the creation of the constellations), he will surely tell you it is a process by which you can solve your business problems “magically”.

Different Perspectives on Organizational Constellations

Visión Sistémica -ViSi- (the firm I founded ten years ago and which Michael Blumenstein revolutionized with his perspective) brought the organizational constellations to our country and boosted them into Latin America.

After 15 years constellating and being pioneer of the subject in Mexico I can assure that the organizational constellations do not do magic.

During all this time we have seen people who have transformed their lives constellating, but not in all cases it has been to live a good life. Many of them as a result of what they “saw” or, even worse, “of what they showed them in a constellation” divorced, distanced themselves from their parents, broke up with their partner or closed their businesses.

From the Hellingerian perspective, the process is mystical, the more spiritual the better and the less understood, the more “you will be accommodated later.”

Even when I have nothing against spiritualisms, mysticisms or esoterisms, I prefer to adopt a sustainable perspective. I have adopted a vision where what others call “magic” is something I understand, where the structure of the “miracle” is something I can replicate.

How is a systemic organizational constellation?

The type of constellations for entrepreneurs I like are those based on a sustainable theory, some would call it “systemic”.

I would like to briefly address the ViSi Constellations, based on the theory developed by Michael Blumenstein and distinguished by having:

· consistent basis in the “social systems theory” which is the most avant-garde perspective on the systemic approach,

· an ethical framework,

· an orientation into the future, towards a good life, and

· its practical application.

The systemic constellations and the German glasses

From this look a constellation is a form. Let me explain it through a metaphor:

According to the magazine Wine Spectator in 2016 the world’s best wine was the Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 2013 from the Lewis Cellar. Imagine that you give me a bottle and I pour it in plastic cups. If I had had German Spiegelau glasses on hand, the clarity and purity of the glass would have enhanced the quality of the wine and our experience of drinking it as well.

The constellation is then a form that, like a good German glass, potentiates the quality of the content.

In the process of a ViSi constellation, the facilitator and the entrepreneurial client co-create together, are equal, contribute and add from different perspectives, as is often the case in social systems. The customer can, through the form, find new alternatives, options not previously seen for his business and contribute in a different way to a better life as an entrepreneur.

The ViSi Constellations accompany each individual to find his own framework in function of his own business. Therefore, we recognize that, from their autonomy, each one is responsible for what contributes to their organization.

So the constellations are not magic, however, assuming your business life with full sufficiency is a different and very effective construction way.

By Katia Del Rivero

Versión en Español

Michael Blumenstein used to say that we see what “we want to see”. In its time, this phrase caused a lot of controversy in the group. A lot of the training participants where he said it for the first time, said that this wasn’t like this, that “we see what we can see”.

What do you think? Do you see what you “can” see on behalf of your beliefs, learning, experience? Or do you see what you “want” to see on behalf of what you consider useful for your survival?

A little more than 29 nine years ago I had a wonderful daughter, who not only had one but four fatherly figures. My dad –her grandfather- loved her and contributed to those things that grandparents do: complicity, spoiling, love and infinite patience.

My brothers, all of them single back then, co-created with her through their contributions, a father-daughter social system that surrounded her with love, security, and leading.

Each of them in their own way contributed with something enriching, different and unique. From my point of view, and as I’ve heard from her –a little bit seriously, a little bit of a joke-, she would never go to therapy for “a lack of fatherhood”, in any case “for excess of it”.

Uncle O offered stability: the calm within the storm, the sane voice, wise and calm when every body else lost their minds. Uncle Fer offered fun, roguery, complicity, and self-care. And Uncle Betito contributed with teaching her love of one’s neighour, structure, and boundaries in a frame full of love, something fundamental that every child needs in other to turn into a skillful adult to live its own life.

Even though I noticed the phenomenon I’m about to share from time ago, it increased when my brother Fer died and his passing away swept our feet from the rug as a family.

In a very notorious way my daughter questioned everything and everyone, except her Uncle Betito. Every behavior he could have that was questionable for everyone else, she would simply explain it, using the logic that offered sense to the behavior.

This situation was so uncomfortable for me, that I ended up terribly upset with Uncle Betito and with her. I was so upset that in order to maintain “peace” I agreed with her that she wouldn’t talk to me about Uncle Betito and his ideas, and I took distance from him.

Later, Michael arrived into my life and he observed that I felt pain with this situation. One day he invited me to talk about the subject and after some questions and walking me through a reflection process I realized everything I’ve shared as an introduction to this article.

Nor did I only realize about all of this, I also realized that after Fer’s death, Beto –my brother- fivefold his presence, love and support with my daughter in an effort to soften the emptiness left by Uncle Fer in her heart.

And if that was not enough, I realized through the many dialogues I had with Michael about this subject, that the uneasiness that I felt belonged to me, because I had meant all of this in not very nice way, as a competition, instead of a contribution to the life and plenitude of my daughter.

I still remember with deep love the night that, talking about this, I roughed out my last and very emaciated arguments (once more) and Michael asked me looking me in the eyes: Sweetie, what do you choose to see in Uncle Beto? Whatever you choose, you must know is your choice, you can change it and that could or not contribute for you to live a good life. What do you want? Being upset, argue with your daughter, get away from your brother, or enjoy your family?

I didn’t answer that night, I just hugged him and cried almost all night long. Maybe, as he used to say, I was only saying goodbye through my tears to a form that was useful to me sometimes but that wasn’t useful for me anymore. So I started looking Uncle Beto in a way similar way my daughter looked at him, thanking his love for my daughter, his presence, his purpose of accompanying and taking care of her, despite dealing with me.

And it’s not that “I couldn’t see” this before, it’s that “I didn’t want to see it before” because that meant looking at some inner and personal situations I didn’t want to see, especially after Fer passing away: for example, I was really angry with life.

And I could stay like that or look differently. Always my choice. It was then I understood Michael’s choice with me and my daughter’s choice with Uncle Beto and I chose to see what I didn’t want to see.

Life can put in our way situations that we don’t understand, that we don’t experience fondly, that hurt us, and we have no control over this, but we can control what we see in this situations and the reality we build from them.

And we do the same with people. One day I asked Steph –my daughter- don’t you realize Uncle Betito isn’t perfect? And her answer was gorgeous: I know that he isn’t, and I’ve chosen to love him as he is and focus on what I like and what he builds.

The day I heard her, I thought Michael chose to love me in that way, with consciousness. That I chose to love him in that same way, that I love my close ones in that way, that I’ve chosen to love my parents, brothers, and friends in that way.

From the Choice to the Learning

This is not a learning process, but a choice that can lead to a learning. Is the possibility of choosing what I want to see in others, what I want to take from others, with what do I want to create a bond from others, in a total clearness based on what I want to build. And then, learning how to do it –everyday-, it’s a try and fail process as Michael used to say.

Days ago I was talking with Aye Ramírez about this when she suddenly said I also have my own “Uncle Betito”. I laughed a lot and said: yes, I think you do.

In that moment I understood something Michael said and couldn’t understand before: right when we choose to see everybody else the way my daughter sees “Uncle Betito” we are preparing the path toward peace.

It doesn’t mean that we don’t notice differences, neither that we see each other as perfect beings, actually, it means that we choose we want to see the good in our life.

What would happen if we discovered that this isn’t only about those who we love and who love us, but with everyone on this planet? Maybe we would stop killing each other because of our differences and we would see as Michael said that “when a member of humankind has a problem, the whole humankind has a problem”.

Author’s note:

A syndrome is a group of phenomena that concur between them and distinguish a determined situation. And as happened with the situation that helped me understand everything I share in this article, every phenomenon is related with “Uncle Betito” that’s why I’ve called it like this.

Versión en español aquí

In addition to the post published few days ago, I finish today de subject, analyzing the complex issue of social systems explaining other concepts mentioned in a post with the same topic whose authorship is Michael Blumenstein.

Social Systems’ construction

The way the Blumenstein Theory deals with the complexity of social systems and makes it manageable, is describing the way in wich social systems are developed. Not that can not be done otherwise, is that following these steps we can handle complexity in a simple way.

Conversation

The first level of interaction that occurs in social systems is called “conversation” and consists of two or more persons willing to contribute in order to build a social system, or in other words, maintaining a sequence of communications.

A set of communications, do build a conversation. In the conversation we going building purpose and creating a social system.

From Blumenstein Theory, in order for a conversation build in benefit of all whom contribute, some parameters are important:

– All participants in the conversation have the same value and the same right to be heard

– All participants do contribute to build and clarify the purpose purpose of the conversation (which we want to achieve, decide, agree, and so on, in this conversation)

– All participants have the same time and number of speaking opportunities (this is the most common way)

– Everyone speaks from the heart

– “Is not allowed to talk about someone else’s tomatoes”, in other words, it is made an invitation to not make value judgments about what is said

– The conversation does not ends until an agreement is reached (it can be segmented in all the necessary sessions) or until it comes a termination agreement, whatever this will be.

Organization

Just as a series of communications produce a conversation, the organization is a network of conversations. Be careful with this, organization should not be understood as synonymous of “company” but as organization (order or structure) within social systems. The organization is how to take, prioritize and carry out the outcome of the conversations in a way that fulfills the purpose of the social system in the best possible way. This organization is usually based on ways and these ways are carried out by a leader. (Forms and content, and leader are other concepts that we will develop in this space)

Society

Society is a social system made up of smaller social systems, where each has its own organization and purpose. The interaction at this level is not between persons who belong to a social system, but between a social system and another, belonging to the same major social system, society. The social systems that interact at this level, not only have a purpose, but also a function, that is, they cover needs.

The Blumenstein Theory explains and segments the world in terms of social systems, persons and contributions to make them manageable for us, the human beings living in this era and in this world.

It offers a look that invariably awakens in ourselves a series of ideas, thoughts and questions about choosing our contributions expressed through the many persons through whom we belong and have a place in the different social systems of our life. Thus, something as complex as living, something as ethereal as a good life, has a logic and an order, a way back to me and my reality, a clear path to a world of possibilities.

By Katia.

Por Katia Del Rivero

English Version

· 3 tazas de ¡Quéjate!

· Una pizca de “Escuchas quejas”, no le pongas más, ¡te podría caer pesado!

· 2 cucharaditas de “Quéjense juntos”.

Y si además le pones un poco de “sabor añejo”, mirando a “los tiempos que fueron mejores”, no solo contribuirás a que la organización se quede estática, sino que añore lo que muy probablemente no le hará bien.

Existen dos propuestas del origen etimológico de la palabra queja.

La primera procede del verbo latino “coaxare”, que quiere decir croar. Parece ser que el sustento de esta propuesta es que el sonido que los humanos emitimos cuando expresamos dolor, molestia, pesadumbre es fonéticamente similar.

La segunda coloca su origen etimológico en el latín “quassare” que significa “golpear violentamente, quebrantar”, referido a la expresión de cuando algo nos aflige, nos aqueja.

En ambos casos el origen refiere a una expresión pasiva respecto a algo que me molesta, incómoda, donde la onomatopeya expresa y no invita a la acción, al movimiento ni al cambio de la situación.

Curiosamente parece que eso suele suceder en el sistema social llamado organización también.

Cuando el cambio ya no es suficiente

En las organizaciones actuales, el cambio ya no es suficiente. De acuerdo con las nuevas tendencias, ahora hablamos no de organizaciones que cambian, sino de organizaciones que se transforman.

¿Cuál es la distinción? Si bien en ambos procesos hablamos de movimiento, cuando hablamos de cambio damos algo por otro aspecto nuevo. Hacemos un truque de lo que teníamos por lo que queremos tener.

En el caso de la palabra transformación, no se hace trueque se modifica la forma, tomando lo útil de la forma anterior para generar una nueva forma.

En este sentido, algunos sostienen que en el cambio se puede perder lo positivo de lo anterior, en lugar de sumarle los ajustes necesarios para minimizar lo negativo y que en la transformación el proceso está más orientado a modificar o corregir considerando, valorando lo positivo de lo anterior.

Lo que parece cierto, es que ambos son procesos, movimientos y no se logran desde la pasividad.

Si la queja es la expresión pasiva de algo que nos aflige, entonces parece ser opuesta a la necesidad de movimiento, de cambio, de transformación que requiere el salir de aquello que nos “golpea violentamente” o simplemente “nos aflige”.

¿Cómo es que la queja nos mantiene pasivos?

Porque nos confundimos. Creemos que al expresar aquello que no nos gusta, nos molesta, nos conflictúa “estamos haciendo algo” y no nos damos cuenta qué sólo estamos emitiendo onomatopeyas sin acción.

Para un cambio o transformación ¡se requiere acción!

Como ya hemos conversado, desde la perspectiva de la Teoría Blumenstein la organización es un sistema social y los sistemas sociales se forman de nuestras contribuciones. Si lo que hay hoy, no nos gusta, es el resultado de nuestras contribuciones. Si queremos algo diferente necesitamos cambiar nuestras contribuciones.

Y la contribución es comportamiento, por lo tanto, lo que hay que cambiar son nuestros comportamientos, nuestros acuerdos, nuestras decisiones, nuestro hacer.

Finalmente, la queja se refiere a algo que ya sucedió, no a lo que queremos que suceda. Y como bien hemos explorado en otros artículos, entender o hablar de lo que ya sucedió no significa que sepamos “qué necesitamos que suceda” para lograr el propósito que queremos alcanzar.

Así que menos queja y más acción, menos pasado y más futuro, menos recetas mágicas y más proceso de construcción social corresponsable, compartida y desde nuestra autonomía.