From Project manager to transformational leader, key challenges for sustainable development within the UN. (*)

Gratitude. I want to thank Edinson Castaño, for creatively supporting this programme in the social arts, with his specific talents in Social Presencing Theater; my gratitude to Marcela Gavaldón Vela for holding the space in mindfulness, hatha yoga and wellness; and Isaac Santana, for his reliable facilitation skills. You held an inspiring holding space for learning. Thank you.

  1. Introduction.

In the winter of 2019, UNODC[1] for Mexico and Central America decided to explore ways to strengthen its implementation scheme, through social innovation strategies.

The purpose was to align social innovation tools to the complexity of current global projects, in order to a higher level of efficiency in their execution. In the context of the “theory of change” frameworks, UNODC selected Theory U[2] given its holistic approach to change management, its innovative paradigm, robust method and concrete tools.

It was agreed that during a four month trial, a social prototype [3]would be designed and validated in order to research the role that “theory of change”[4] could play in making UNODC´s project cycle, more innovative, flexible and effective.

In the context of Theory U, focus fell on the development of five capacities: forge new strategic alliances; include system´s thinking; embrace innovation; test social prototypes; and generate an evolutionary cycle that could travel from “progress” to sustainability.

For this purpose a Theory U, “change laboratory”[5] was convened; it was composed of five “learning immersions”: a) an induction motivational process to Theory U; b) a three day workshop on the Theory U methodology for social change; c) small group sessions to link method with tools; d) a one day workshop to connect the theory U method to ongoing UNODC projects; and e) a certification process.[6]

In order to validate the theory-practice challenges, it was agreed that U methods and tools would be applied to concrete ongoing projects. For this purpose, UNODC selected the following projects: 1. Gender, violence and institutional response; 2. Institutional transparency and anti-corruption through a Budget Results methodologies and 3. UNAPS, Prisons in Mexico and the Mandela Human Right rules.

We will now proceed to present the full design and implementation of the “change laboratory”, as well as the lessons learned derived from the process.

2. Intention.

The intention of this intervention was to migrate from the practice of a “project manager” to that of a “transformational leader”. A manager administrates a project; he/she is responsible for delivering the outcomes and outputs. A transformational leader applies theory of change, and takes the project to its maximum potential. A project manager honors the limits of a project; a leader goes beyond boarders. One way of visualizing this can be through the following matrix.

Authorship: Otto Scharmer and Kelby Bird

Starting from the bottom on up, a “technical leader” or traditional leader, focuses on team building and organizational change; the “reflective leader” learns to listen in deeper ways [7]; the more he/she listens the more she understands the needs of participant social actors, and the more capable she is towards tending to them; in the third level, of “unknown discovery”, the transformational leader, connects mind, heart and will, and is able to change the relational dynamic of the project

The general objective of this intervention was to train “transformational leader for action”, with an emphasis on the development of five (8) capacities, i.e. forging a) strategic alliances, b) system´s thinking, c) creativity and innovation, d) connecting theory with action through social prototypes, and d) evolution schemes through quantum leaps from the ego to the eco paradigm and vision.

Like all rivers that land in one sea, ego trends dissolve into eco vision for action. In the ego vision, nature and social systems serve man. In the eco vision, man´s purpose is to serve the natural and social systems. This paradigmatic shift is at the core of the U journey. From ego to eco can be visualized in the following way.

Now we can move into Theory U, its purpose, five movements, dynamics, as we transit from ego to eco.

4. The U method for the development of transformational leaders within UNODC.

The Theory U method [1] sways through five movements.

· Movement One.- Co initiation. In this movement we chose the change agents, the selected participants that will create the “core team” to carry “the desirable change” forward. Adam Kahane[9] claims that this is probably one of the most strategic moments of the U journey. During a workshop in Ohio University, he shared that he probably spent about 50% of this time, selecting, interviewing, and knowing the participants before starting on a U journey or “change laboratory”.[10] During this movement we construct the basis for the “trust container” which shifts the type of relationships from a “working” to“collaboration” dynamic.

· Movement Two.- Co sensing. During this movement we forge a systemic view of the intervention, a holistic panoramic view. We invite the system to see itself. We identify the difference between symptoms and causes. We work with structural, thought and source provoked causes. In order to understand the social phenomenon holistically, we identify blind spots and welcome them. We include learning journeys which allow us to touch the frontiers of the system. This second movement refers to deep knowledge management that unites the mind, heart and will. We learn to understand that “we” are part of the system.

· Movement Three- Co-inspiration. This movement focuses on connecting to silent creative thought; the development of new angles in the understanding of the system or social field. Mindfulness,[11] Social Presencing Theater [12] are used as tools, to enter this space of silent creativity. In this movement we understand ourselves and the social field in the space of its highest potential, that which we can become, the arrival point of transformational change, the emerging future.

· Movement Four — Co-action . This movement links theory with practice; it is designed to help us transition beyond analysis-paralysis. It works through the design and implementation of “social prototypes”, towards the construction of emerging futures. It is important to differentiate social prototypes from pilots. A pilot is a mini-project, with all the shortfalls of a project itself; a social prototype is creative thinking put into action. They have to be relevant, right, revolutionary, replicable, rapid, rough and relationally effective.[6] They connect head, heart and will, in terms of functions, curiosity, compassion and courage. Social prototypes are learning spaces, where we receive feedback from the social field, where we learn fast how to fail, and drive action forward into the future.

· Movement Five- Co evolution. This capacity represents the final stage from ego to eco, it goes from the fragmented to the holistic view, from debate to dialogue, from control to flow, from competition to collaboration, We are not talking about progress in a linear ways, but evolution as a exponential leap into the future.

These movements are not designed to follow a sequence. As they sway with a programme, project, intervention, or process, the facilitator can chose the most dynamic movement according to the requirement of the social field and social historical moment. What is recommended is to complete the cycle of five, regardless of it creative sequences.

Going deeper. One of the truly revealing aspects of the Theory U method is that it functions in three dimensions. The first one refers to the five movements that have been explained in the previous pages; the second dimension refers to the flow that each movement invites in the integration of mind, heart and will. Each movement is not implemented in a vertical manner but in conversation with the stakeholders of the social field. Mind refers to the cognocitive spheres; heart to the emotional significant realms; and will, to the courage, conviction and consistency of closing the theory-praxis gap.

One third dimension which allows going even deeper has to do with the individual-collective connection. Everything we do at an individual level has a profound effect at the collective field. The individual mind projected to the collective becomes “science”; the individual heart projected to the all, becomes “consciousness”; and individual will connected to the collective will becomes social “transformation”. Thus we link a) science, b) consciousness, with c) social transformation. We can visualize the interaction between these three dimensions in the following image:

5. The U pedagogy.

The Theory U method can be used as a full U pedagogy. There are three pedagogical moments to it: the first one, refers to the five movements of the U transformed into learning spaces; the second one to “awareness based technologies” that link mind, heart and will; and the third referred to building the “holding space for learning” or HSL, put into action, in order to generate the “trust” that is necessary for assimilation and learning. Without trust in the facilitator, language, concepts, peers, environment, in the social field, there is no learning.


The first dimension refers to the five U movements, converted into learning spaces.

· Co-initiation as a learning gateway defines the “framework” for the topic under study; initiates the construction of the “holding space for learning”, and builds a common intention.

· Co-sensing as a learning exercise has to do with systemic knowledge management. In order to do this, we invite the system to see itself, welcome blind spots, include us, the individual, as part of the system, change the lense around, travel to the boarders of the system, see from all angles.

· In the third movement, Presencing, the purpose is to bring the mind to a moment of stillness and creative silence, in order to look at and explore new angles. This moment can be carried out with mindfulness practice and/or Social Presencing Theater tools.

· During this fourth movement, of co-creation, we go directly into the praxis sphere. Theory U does not allow us to stay in the “theory”, but compels us into finding relationships with practice, the reality of the social field.

· In the co-evolution moment we can harvest and journal in order to reflect, how have we learned? What allows us to claim that through the U journey people, process and project and more sustainable, more connected to the Source, in a better position to benefit the collectivity?


The second pedagogical moment has to do with the utilization of “awareness based technologies” which allow us to link head, heart and will. We learn from the wisdom of all three dimensions, and through them explore the interconnections between individual soul and the collective social field.

Accompanying each substantial topic, we combined group dynamics such as Phillips 66, fishbowls, debates,[13] and also from the Theory U reservoir of tools, we plunged into the art of listening, empathy walks, learning journey, the use of mindfulness for creativity purposes, and case clinics to link theory with practice. [14] All of them are available for exploration in the Presensing Institute web page. At the core of these learning technologies is the usage of participation techniques that link head, heart and will.

Key to this participatory process is the Social Presencing Theater or STP[15] The UNODC project of gender and violence was analyzed through this lens.[4] STP, aside from being highly participatory and motivational, allows participants to witness the present condition, the desired change, and forces moving towards change, through the practice of embodiment.[5] From this witnessing decisions can be made to move the system forward. STP was also used as a tool to access creative silence and mindfulness. [6]

When working on-line, U participation was fostered in the following ways: proactively using the “chat” function in the zoom platform to generate participation; selectively using some of the chat pieces and sharing them at a collective level; systemic usage of “break up groups” ; inducing the group to share its “vulnerability”. It is amazing, when vulnerability is shared, the alchemy of learning takes place; continual usage of harvesting and journaling techniques so participants can reflect; participating in “collective resonance exercise, by responding to the “I see, I feel, I sense” upon study of an object.[16]

An absolutely essential part of this moment is the “fundamental nature and spirit” of the facilitator. The facilitator is an “equal” participant, relationships are horizontal, she is part of the “holding space for learning”, she is ready to listen, she applies generative listening, is always aware of what the “social field” is expressing, she is willing to shift into the unexpected, she plunges into the “unknown”. Holding this open spirit is key. Content and facilitation are offered in a horizontal open way, so the group may grow into a deeper connection between head, heart and will.


The third dimension of the U pedagogy has to do with building the “holding space for learning” (hsl). This “hsl” allows students to develop the trust to take risks, accept not knowing, nurture courage and self-esteem, get through the uncomfortable moments of now knowing; in essence it allows the alchemy of learning. For this purpose we follow Kelby´s Bird recommendations for building “container” [8] in the following way:

· As facilitators, we held short “mindfulness” exercise, every day before starting the workshop. The purpose is to connect with the Source, and establish a ring of energy around the learning group. Mindfulness also generates focus and attention. This mindfulness practice lasted 5 minutes.

· We repeating this ritual in every “learning immersion”. Purpose was to nurture the ring of energy among facilitators, become stronger as a group, and keep this energy up during the whole workshops. This ring of energy became highly useful when we faced challenging moments, either, resistance to learning mechanism, or even conflict .

· The ring of energy aligned to the Source was highly useful when the learning group disconnected, either because of tiredness, natural tensions, doubts, or unwanted protagonist. When these episodes occurred, as a facilitation group, we had an agreement to breathe deep, go back to the Source, generate a collective silence, hold it, and from there, come back to the learning group. To give one example, this became necessary, when the learning group started using their cell phones to take care of office business. We stopped all action, held silence, and then visualized the phenomenon. Even though reaction was bumpy, it brought back the group to a high level of attention.

The main hypothesis and it turned out to be true, was that the Source has the natural power to hold both, the facilitation and learning groups together. The fundamental challenge is for the group of facilitators keep connected to the Source, and the facilitator group. When there was dispersion, connecting to silence and the Source, allowed for a safe return.

6. Design of the UNODC intervention– Five learning immersions.

In order to reach the desired objectives, a “Theory U change laboratory” was designed; it included five learning immersions, to be implemented during a four month span, from January to April of 2020.

· The first one was an “induction” familiarizing participants with the essence of the Theory U paradigm, method and tools.[24] The journey travelled through the Theory U five movements (co-initiation, co-sensing, presencing, co-creation, and co-evolution), the purpose of each movement, the connection with its tools, and the theory-practice dilemma. The purpose was to create an overview of the journey and to make connections to the UNODC project. This induction took place in January 2020

· The second, was a three day workshop that focused on the theory and practice of Theory U. During these days we worked on the “essential components” of each movement. We travelled through the mind, heart, will connection. Theory U is not an intellectual exercise; it is more of a holistic existential experience that generates change. Participants break the subject-object relationship, becoming change agents themselves. This workshop occurred on February 2020

· The third immersion consisted of small group encounters that linked the U method and specific tools.[25]. An intrinsic part of Theory U is the existence of its awareness based social technologies [18] created to accompany each movement. The application of each awareness based social technologies generates change, and also produces social consciousness to member participants. During these sessions, we explained the nature and purpose of each tool, where it could be found in the Presensing Institute web page, and what was necessary in terms of skills and times in order to master it.[19] These sessions took place in March 2020

· The fourth immersion included a one day on line workshop. The purpose was to link the U method with selected UNODC projects. Each project travelled through each of the five movements and generated new understanding, novel angles and unexpected action options. From this systemic assessment, diverse change options made available to the project manager. This workshop took place in April 2020-

· The fifth moment comprised an invitation to take the ULAB 0X y ULAB 1X[28] MIT courses for certification purposes. This was a voluntary invitation. This happened during the month of April 2020. We can visualize the design in the following way.

7. UNODC selected projects

UNODC staff participants selected three projects to be used as landing strips where the Theory U method could be learned, seen, applied, and projected into the future. These were:

1.Gender, Violence and Institutional capacities;

2. Anticorruption, through Budget based Outcomes;

3. UNAPS, Prisons in Mexico, and the Mandela Rules.[20]

Each project went through the five Theory U movements, generating: possible new alliances and trust containers; systemic knowledge and identification of blind spots; new perspectives; social prototypes; and evolution strategies for the training of transformational leaders.

Next we will present the three projects- with a description of their starting point, main challenges, resistance points, change management strategies and possible lines for future work, generated by the U process.

7.1 Project 1. Gender, Violence and Institutional Capacities.

Intention for change. This is an institutional capacity development project that aspires to increase the quality of the Mexican government when dealing with crimes against women at a national, state and municipal local level. The mobile behind the crime is carefully examined, including gender as one of the key consideration.

Current situation.- main challenges- Three main challenges were identified: a) the need for a new identity for the project; b) scarce budgetary issues: and c) need to activate a political lobbying strategy to maintain the relevance of the project, in the context of changing priorities at a national and local levels.

Challenges and Theory U. Using the U language, we could say the project is suspended in an analysis paralysis [21] Main causes: structural institutional weakness in the Mexican government to tend to gender and violence issues; weak recognition by al relevant actors; and insufficient budget.

Lessons Learned. We need to recognize and study “cultural resistances” all across the way, both internally and externally; we want to find stronger partners; we simply need to solve the budgetary constraint. If we can tie together these three elements we can establish a renewed platform of hope for the project.

Where are we going? After going through the U exercise, we proposed exploring the following arenas:, a) to construct a new identity for the programme, more concrete, specific, based on gender research, which includes cultural factors; b) to engage in an aggressive identification of new partners, at the international, national and local levels; c) to find increased budgets, make this a requirement, explore new ways to mobilize resources, and move forward; d) to strengthen our relationship with UNODC HQ, we need their commitment and stronger presence, in order to move forward with added muscle.

7.2 Project 2. Anti-corruption through Results Based Budgets and Competency Assessments.

Intention for change. — This is also an organizational capacity development project, geared towards building stronger institutions in the fields of anti-corruption, financial transparence, and ethical use of public resources; the implementation tool is to execute programmes by strengthening capacities in Results Based Budgets (RBB)[22] and Competency Assessments[23].

Current situation. — main challenges — The main challenge is to overcome resistances in a cultural institutional change. The current culture is based in “validity” of a political bureaucracy[24] operated through hierarchies and pre-defined rules; this way of operation is based on a “black box” principle that hides the interest of diverse groups in power. The blinds spots of bureaucracy can be found in the protection of interest by power groups. The purpose of this project is to move into a new culture of open government.[25] All participating social actors have an issue with cultural change. Achieving the shift in the theory and practice of transparency required effective training, professionalization, and the implementation of a holistic capacity development strategy.

Challenges and Theory U. — Understanding theory of change as a companion to the logframe is probably a very good beginning. Applying the five movements of the U can probably take us to the understanding of a new identity and a different counterpart. From there, learning to listen can probably be the main ingredient towards a new beginning. A highly important lesson learned is found in the need to overcome the contractual” relationship of a client-service provider (payments delivered in exchange for products) à vrs — — the understanding of technical cooperation and development goals (agreed funds towards a common good).

Where are we going? a) forge a new identity for the project, that knows how to deal with resistances; b) open the radar and look for counterparts that are committed to this project and believe in social change; c) make and “vertical prototype” assessment in order to discover whether land is fertile for a project of this kind; d) with the new partners, develop “the capacity to listen”; e) research lessons learned from the application of RBB in developing countries, learn from them, think out strategies could work for Mexico; and e) develop social prototypes though small “innovation laboratories” that will provide the project with landing strips where they can validate methods, language, tools as they work with and against cultural resistance.

7.3 Prisons in México. The application of the Mandela Statutes, the UNAPS model. [26]

Intention for change. — To improve the quality of life of people living in the prisons of Mexico, through the design, validation and application of a standardized model that will improve the quality of those in prison. One of the hopes is that this model application will be used at a national level. The objective of this project is to offer technical assistance to prisons in the State of Mexico to validate the UNAPS Module, also known at the Mandela Statutes in the Penitentiary of Tenancingo Sur.

Current situation.- main challenges. The current challenges exist in three planes, in the structural, political and operative arenas. At a structural level issues exist in the weak security systems, high population, auto government, fragile health systems, and generalized breach of human rights, In the political level, the project aspires that for the Mexican government to l adopt the model and define a certification structure and mechanism, which will carry out the assessments and based on the results, will define the course for action. At the operative level, the main challenges are: a) resistance to change coming from hired personnel within the prisons; b) the lack of a pedagogy that allows for the effective communication, assimilation and application of the Mandela rules; and c) la lack of political will among participating social actors, including the agreed upon counterpart.

Challenges and Theory U. The project has worked for three years to integrate the model in terms of policy, 91 standards, design of the assessment tools and indicators. Not until the Government stablishes ownership of the model, through an assessment mechanism, it is hard to think of how the model will be implemented and what the required changes might be.

Lessons learned- all would benefit from access to lessons learned in the application of the Mandela rules in developing countries, at a global level. .

Where are we going?- Once the certifying mechanism is set, it will be posible to work in the following areas: a) training of personnel in the certifying mechanism, b) validation of the model in X number of prisons, c) design and validation of the UNAPS pedagogy, and d) understanding of lessons learned at a global level of UNAPS mandates being applying in other countries in the development world.

8. Recommendations. The emerging future within UN agencies. Technical cooperation for the next century.

From the theory of change perspective and the implementation of the “UNODC change laboratory” the following recommendations were generated, in three levels: for UNODC, for the UN system, for the construction of the emerging future of the UN system.

8.1. Theory of change, innovation within UNODC.

· After the “change laboratory” UNODC is in a position to put together a “Core Group”, the group of five,[27] for the implementation of theory of change strategies. UNODC has access to personnel trained in the Theory U method and tools, who can coordinate the implementation of the following recommendations. Of the total of participants, maybe a 25% showed deep interest and capacity in the inherent power and potential application of the method, in order to generate added change, invigorate reflective and transformational leadership, embrace and vitalize implementation strategies. Although this point might seem a bit trivial, in practice it is central, given it puts together the capacity, in practice, to get things going.

· From technical to transformational leadership. Participants recognized that they practiced a technical type leadership in the application of projects, by focusing their attention in the outcomes and outputs. Significant progress can take place by applying the five movements of Theory U, by imbibing the capacities generated. Mastering them can take the project manager into the realm of a “reflective leader”. But we also spent time going through Professor Sharmer tools for listening; we understood that individual and group listening can make or break a project, and that applying it to the five U movements can carry the manager into the realm of transformational leadership. Within a development agency, it is highly desirable for this to happen, given transformational leaders, take projects to their maximum potential, they welcome blind spots, identify desirable change, and prototype and test change. Transformational leaders have the tools to go from analysis paralysis into deep change.

· Balancing the theory-practice gap. The change laboratory identifies trapped areas within the project and has the tools to loosen them, change and energy is released. Through this a major balance between planning and execution can be achieved. In this sense, during the workshop we started to explore the potential relationship between LogFrame and as a planning tool, with Theory U as and implementation strategy.

8.2 Theory of change, innovation within the UN system.

· UNODC has functioned like a pilot for the validation of the U within UN agencies in Mexico. It can lobby for the replication of the “change laboratory as a living example of innovation within the UN family.

· Can UNODC function as “fertile soil” for the unfoldment of innovation within the UN system in Mexico and Central America? Is UNODC wiling to activate the “core group” to begin systemic implementation of the above mentioned recommendations? If so, does it have the capacity to become a living example of the relevance of linking innovation / transformative leadership/planning/with a vigorous implementation?.

· Agencies that conform the UN system in Mexico, can benefit from UNODC¨s novel experience by plunging into the “Theory U change laboratory”, training its personnel, applying it to projects, and experiencing a rebalancing between theory and practice.

· Transformational leadership, in action, could very well be the missing link that helps us design and build the UN of the future, with new operational schemes that link planning with theory of change, stronger implementation strategies, and the validation of sustainable truths,

8.3 How to design the emerging future for the UN system?

During the Ecosystem Leadership Programme, ELP[28] training in Berlin 2019, el Prof Scharmer presented the paradigm of “vertical prototyping”.[29] Aligned with the horizontal logic of social prototyping, it complements it by bringing in the vertical elements of causality that determine the sustainability of a process, project, and programme. Complementing the five movements of the U, it plunges vertically into three vertical components: source, soil and seed. The main hypothesis or raison the etre claims that if source, soil and seed are aligned and fertile they provide the alchemy for sustainability. By complementing the horizontal U with the vertical root, integrating them as a whole system, one could claim that together they provide the platform to start the era of “vertical prototyping assessments” in the appraisal and determination of visible sustainability. We can observe this model in the following way:

Prof. Otto Scharmer. (30)

After U training at UNODC, it could be wise to go into the next step, a “vertical prototyping assessments”. In order to guide a prospective exercise the sequence, components, and questions are presented in this section. The sequence builds from bottom to top. It starts with the base, on how the source, soil and seed of the UNODC social field are constructed. As they are discovered to be fertile, from the innovation perspective, we could proceed with the clarification of intention (metaphored as the Sun). Once in place, then the horizontal U begins its journey going through shifts, co sensing, presensing, stewards, and strategic action. As the horizontal and vertical processes merge, this gives birth to sustainable living microcosms. With the intention of mainstreaming change management and innovation methods into UN agencies, the sequence and main questions could look like this.

o Step 1. Source. This refers to the nature and composition of origin. What is at the ultimate cause of introducing change initiatives within the UN? Why does the UN system want to better its implementation scheme? Why does it need to be more responsible with its budgets, outcomes and output? Why is it committed the UN committed to sustainability?

o Step 2. Fertile soil. This refers to the composition of the social field. What are the UN agencies doing in terms of mainstreaming and applying change methods and tools? What innovation programmes are being run? Who holds the leadership? What are the most relevant lessons learned? How can ongoing efforts be aligned?

o Step 3. Seeds. Genesis of a social prototype. Which UN agencies have identified the theory-practice conundrum as a challenge? Which one wants to improve the planning/execution continuum?

If fertility is found in the vertical dynamic of the U, then we can proceed with the horizontal journey, as follows,

o Step 4. The Sun. Clarification of the intention. Intention is connected to the source. Why begin a systemic innovative change process within the UN?

o Step 5. Shifts. This step implies moving from intention to concrete objectives. Which are the objectives that run the initiative? What are the new priorities?

o Step 6. Co sensing, harnessing the knowledge needed to successfully implement this initiative. How is innovation understood in the field of technical cooperation? ¿What change management paradigms, methods and tools are being applied? What change laboratories have been implemented? Can we put together a menu of change management methods for innovation, in operation? What are the lessons learned?

o Step 7. Live microorganisms. This refers to social prototypes in operation. Can we put together an inventory of existing prototypes in action? Can we capture success stories in prototype implementation? What at the lessons learned that allow for replicability?

o Step 8. Stewards, Social Actors. Which are the UN agencies committed to change management and innovation? How do we identify the social agents that can push the work forward? Who are the best partners for implementation purposes?

o Step 9. Strategic action and evolution. Can we complete a “vertical prototyping assessment”? Can we hold and cross information in all nine fields? How does this take us to the next step of building integrated implementation strategies?

The road has been traced. Within UNODC staff has been trained in the theory and practice of Theory U; projects in operation have been assessed, passed through the U, and enriched from the change management and innovation perspective. This could be the right moment to launch a “vertical prototyping assessment” as the basis for the construction of an emerging future. We have travelled a long way. In the context of these changing times, we are in the crossroad that could allow us to build the future we need, a new, more flexible and reliable technical cooperation, based on innovation methods, propelled by transformational leadership, and more rigorous implementation strategies, capable of contributing to the new world order we all want and need.

  1. Introduction.

[1] UNODC, stands for United Nations Office for Drug and Crime.

[2] Otto Scharmer, Theory U, Leading from the Future as it Emerges. The Social Technology of Presencing. BK, 2009.

[3] DFID, Review of the use of Theory of Change’ in International development, 2012.

[4] Adam Kahane, Power and Love, BK, 2008.

[5] A social prototype connects head, heart and will, in terms of functions, curiosity, compassion and courage. Social prototypes are learning spaces, where we receive feedback from the social field, where we learn fast how to fail, and drive action forward into the future. prototypes are small steps forward that allow us to go into the future.

[6] An invitation was made to take the ULAB 0X de MIT-EDX, on line course, for certification purposes.

2. Intention.

[7] Otto Scharmer, Listening, Presencing Institute,

3. Objectives.

[8] Prof. Otto Scharmer,

[9] Adam Kahane, Power and Love, BK, Reos Partners Publications, 2009.

[10] Adam Kahane, ALIA workshop, Ohio State University, June 2011

[11] Jon Kabat Zinn, Mindfulness for Beginners: reclaiming the present moment — and your life. Sounds True, Inc., 2012. ISBN 978–1–60407–753–7.

[12] Arawana Hayashi, what is social presensing theater,

[13] Cirigliano y Villavrde, Dinámicas de Grupos y Educación, Edición 21, Humanitas, Argentina 1997.

[14] Presencing Institute, Tools

[15] Social Presensing Theater,

[16] Otto Scharmer,

[17] Kelby Bird, Containers, Medium, March 5, 2020

[18] Otto Sharmer, Theory U. leading from the Future as it Emerges. The Social Technology of Presencing, BK, 2009

[19] Presencing Institute,


[21] Within the U paradigm “stuck” means paralyzed, statue one, no movement, trapped in the pangs of habits. At the same time, and from a fresh perspective “stuck” also means GOLD, having Access to all necessary information that allows you to break the paralysis. STUCK is GOLD is the motto.

[22] RBB is a methodology where budgets can be sanctioned and appropriately resourced to each intended result of a programme. In implementation, RBB can provide greater focus on financial flexibility and auditing, which can assist in achieving an adaptive approach to budgeting and results.

[23] What is a competency or skills assessment? A competency assessment focuses on how well an employee is performing the required job skills in relation to specified performance standards. This approach identifies existing competencies and skills gaps of your current and potential employees.

[24] Bureaucracy is the structure and set of rules that control the activities of people that work for large organizations and government. It is characterized by standardized procedure (rule-following), formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships.

[25] In general terms, an open government is one with high levels of transparency and mechanisms for public scrutiny and oversight in place, with an emphasis on government accountability.

[26] UNAPS stands for, United Nations Advanced Prison Standards, in Spanish, Estándares Avanzado de Naciones Unidas para Prisiones.

[27] Margaret Mead, has been known to claim, “one individual can easily lose himself/herself in the solitude of effort; a group of five can change the world. There are few existing transcendental changes achieved by individuals, but a group of five can achieve almost anything.”. in Otto Scharmer, Theory U. BK 2009.

[28] ELP stands for Ecosystem Leadership Programme.

[29] Presencing Institute, ELP, Ecosystem Leadership Programme. Berlin, March, June and November 2019.

[30] From bottom to top, is the source, the window to the soul; the soil is composed by sand and gravel, silts and clays, dead organic material, fauna and flora, water and air; seeds are an embryo capable of germination to produce a new life; a living microcosm flourishes when nourished; the sun is the intention, in synchronicity with the source; the U journey is love in action.

capacity development. He currently applies Theory U for transformational leadership in UN agencies.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store