Both Apple and Nokia have a large number of high performing teams. The success of these highly innovative companies is no doubt due to their teams and the way they connect not only among themselves as a team, but how they connect with the outside world. To be able to do this, they need to generate what I call “complex order.” When you face a tough competitive environment, you need to generate complex order in the way you interact both internally and externally. Otherwise you’ll be history sooner than you expected it.

When I look at the patterns generated by high performing teams, I find something quite revealing. Because they are able to balance other (external enviroment) with self (internal structure) as well as inquiry (asking questions) with advocacy (pushing their point of view), they are also able to create expansive emotional fields that open possibilities for action. Emotional fields are expanded by increasing the P/N ratio and keeping it within the Losada Zone (P/N greater or equal than about 3:1 but no more than about 11:1).

People often ask me, Why isn’t the P/N ratio 1:1 like the other variables in your model? Why does it have to be higher in favor of positivity?

If the P/N oscillation pattern is in a 1:1 ratio, you’ll have two equally opposing forces. The pattern would be strictly periodic. But when the P/N is within the Losada Zone, its pattern is not periodic (it cannot be decomposed with Fourier or harmonic analysis which is a linear technique). You need to use nonlinear dynamics. When we do this, we find that the pattern has complex order (“complexor dynamics” as I call it–mathematicians call it “chaos,” one of those words that says exactly the opposite of what it should mean). Low performing teams interaction patterns can be analyzed with Fourier analysis, their patterns are less complex. High performing teams require nonlinear dynamics to understand their pattern of interaction. Fourier is not enough for them. This was one of the most beautiful discoveries I made. It also has enormous implications for the training of teams. If you use linear models and linear thinking you are not going to be able to generate sustainable change; teams will go back to their old patterns.

The Nokia-Apple fight is one of those cases where the Meta Learning model (ML) model can help. It was actually incorporated in a recent NSF proposal to deal with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ML model says that until we change the “what is in for ME?” for “what is in for US?” we will be stuck in impasses, law suits and the like. We never truly find ourselves unless we find ourselves in others. That’s why one of the critical balances in my model is that between self and other: Dissolving the “I” in the WE. It is worth noting that the “I” is not lost in the WE. The WE is its natural container. I, Apple OR Nokia, has to be translated into WE, Apple AND Nokia. I, Israeli OR Palestinian, has to be translated into WE, Israeli AND Palestinian.

The ML model says that when I balance my self interest with the interest of others, I am able to ask generative questions that in turn generate stronger defense points (advocacy). These two balances will have a nonlinear effect in the P/N ratio thus generating emotional fields where we can see more possibilities for action than legal suits.

Let’s hope, Didier, that our two favorite companies don’t lose themselves in the I and find themselves in the WE.