Conscious Leadership

The “Black Line Paradigm”

Garry Brackett

Abstract

The topic of Conscious Leadership focuses upon a model called The “Black Line Paradigm.” This model originated in the field of Psychology by Solomon Asch in the 1950’s.  A series of cards with black lines on them were used to evaluate perception. One card was considered normal and another card had several lines that were different. The challenge was to articulate perception of the standard versus options. Thought Leaders and are beginning to use Solomon Asch’s paradigm as a filter to enhance leadership capability. The Black Line Paradigm is used to discuss “above the line” vs. “below the line” consideration of conscious leadership. Below is a list for consideration in this series.

ABOVE: Openness – Curious – Committed to Learning

 

 

 

 

 

BELOW: Closed – Defensive – Committed to Being Right

 

Conscious Leadership – Introduction

 

The “Black Line” paradigm is binary – meaning that you are either above the line or below the line.

 

Read: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked – Revelation 3:15-17 ESV

 

Make It Clear

Christ’s announcement of judgment on the church at Laodicea is an either/or; Hot/Cold pronouncement. The end result of the judgment was expulsion.  Looking deeper into the passage you realize that Laodicea lacked consciousness of knowing their state of existence in Christ.

Verse seventeen represents a perception from the worshipper versus Christ’s perception. Notice the contrast; wealth, prosperity, and lacking nothing/self sufficiency and satisfaction Vs. pitiful, blind, naked, and poor.

Perception is reality, but the real challenge is by what or whom are we referencing as the measurement?

 

Make It Count

The “Black Line” paradigm is but a tool to challenge our personal state of consciousness. The fact of something being above vs. below evokes an emotional response that declares it is better to be above than below. However, this preferred thinking could lead to distortion of seeing ourselves as above the line, the preferred state even if we are not above the line.

Dan Coleman’s work Emotional Intelligence states that we are constantly scanning our environment looking for threats. The amygdala, an almond shaped part of the limbic system of the brain is standing guard like an emotional sentinel challenging perceptions with one kind of question in mind; is it something I hate, will it hurt me, or I fear it. If there is a “YES” response, the body goes into motion to protect.

Understanding the “Black Line” paradigm we begin with this assumption: below the line consists of being more closed-minded, defensiveness that leads to “being right.” Above the line consists of being open-minded, curiosity driven that leads to a “commitment of learning.”

 

Leadership Paradox

If consciousness as a spiritual leader is the goal, then which is to be preferred; close-mindedness that leads to being right or open-mindedness that leads to a commitment of learning? In your view were the Laodicea leaders above or below the line in their leadership perception?

 

 

ABOVE: Laodicea

Openness – Curious – Committed to Learning: Pitiful, Blind, Naked, Poor

 

BELOW: Laodicea

Closed – Defensive – Committed to Being Right: Wealth, Prosperity, Lacking Nothing/Self Sufficiency, Satisfaction

 

 

 

Make It Yours – Unpacking The Insights

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Do I spend more time thinking about being right or more time being open for learning?
2. When was the last time that I learned something for the first and how did that impact my perceptions?

 

Questions to ask your team

1. Using Laodicea as a backdrop, what should be our modern day leadership style and why?
2. Since the “Black Line” paradigm is binary, what are the spiritual outcomes of being right or being open to learning?