IX Coach

Torbert’s Action Inquiry: Practicing Timely Leadership

A way of leading in which you test what you see while you are still acting, and what the method does and does not yet show

How do you practice Torbert’s action inquiry?

Action inquiry is William R. Torbert’s method for inquiring while you act, rather than studying a situation after it is over. Practitioners notice the four territories of their experience at once, test their readings of others while the conversation is still going, study their own present action as it unfolds, and keep feedback in the words people actually use. The method rests mainly on Torbert’s own theory and case work, not on randomized trials of these individual practices, so treat it as a disciplined way of paying attention rather than a proven intervention.

Most inquiry into leadership happens after the fact: a review, a debrief, a retrospective. William R. Torbert’s action inquiry starts from the other end. It asks what it would take to inquire while acting, in the middle of a meeting, a decision or a difficult conversation, and still learn something that changes the next move. Torbert and his associates published Action Inquiry in 2004. In his 2013 Integral Review essay, Torbert develops first-, second- and third-person research: research on one’s own experience, research in dialogue with others, and research on things at a distance from both, the way conventional social science works. Each practice below takes one part of that method: the territories of experience you attend to, the attention doing the attending, the test you run in conversation, the study of your own present action, the kind of question you are asking, and the feedback you keep in people’s own words. The method is Torbert’s own, and it is tested mostly by his own studies; the honest limits are on this page too.

Práticas

Como estas práticas se conectam

On this page’s reading (a synthesis made here, not a claim Torbert states in these words), every practice works on one lever: the quality of attention you bring to action while it is still happening. Checking which territories of experience you hold, noticing the attention that does the noticing, testing a reading while the conversation goes on, studying your own present action, sorting what kind of question you are asking, and keeping feedback in people’s own words each change what you can see at the moment you act, rather than only once the action is over.

What are the four territories of experience in Torbert’s action inquiry?

Torbert (2013) lists four territories of experience in his first-person theory: the outside world, your own sensations as you know them from within, your own thoughts and feelings, and the dynamics of your attention itself. Starr and Torbert (2005) give a different four: the outside world, one’s own behavior, one’s own feelings and thoughts, and a kind of witnessing of all of these, which they call triple-loop awareness. Using either list as a check means asking, at a decision, which of its parts you were attending to and which you left out. The sources read do not test the check on its own.

How can I test my reading of someone while we are still talking?

Say your reading out loud as a question, rather than as a conclusion, and watch whether the other person’s response fits it. If it does not fit, say so and ask again instead of defending the first reading. Torbert (2013) presents on-the-spot, during-the-act validity testing as part of his method, with validity sitting in the exchange between people. It is a method he proposes and illustrates, not an outcome study of this practice.

How is researching my own action while I am doing it different from reviewing it afterward?

Torbert (2013) says first-person research is most at home as research on one’s present activity, because it can feed back instantly on one’s actions. On this page’s reading, a review afterward looks back at an action that has already finished, so it does not change the next move in the same way. Torbert illustrates the difference with a practitioner’s own written account, which is an example of the method rather than a study of outcomes.

Why does averaging team feedback into one score hide what matters?

In Torbert’s (2013) COO case, the comments came from other members of a seven-person senior team, and the COO, Jack, is the seventh. They contradicted one another, and an average would have hidden the range they describe. Torbert says the quotes communicate the actual divergent effects of Jack’s actions on the people around him, and he presents the actual phrases rather than summaries of them. This is one illustrative case, and the author notes that anonymous statements can be untrue or later revised.

Como escolher entre elas?

Choose by the moment, not by the person. If you are about to act on a reading of someone else, start with the mid-conversation test. If you feel stuck inside a feeling or a story you cannot yet name, start with the territories check or with noticing the attention itself. If you are mid-action and want to change the next move, the as-it-happens research fits. If you cannot tell whether your question is about yourself, the people around you or the facts, sort the question first. If team feedback contradicts itself, keep the actual words before you decide what it means.

O que estas abordagens não resolvem

The evidence under these practices comes mostly from the method’s developer and collaborators. Torbert’s 2013 essay tests the theory in its own terms and reports statistical results, but the sources read here do not test these six practices one at a time, and none of them is a randomized trial. Several claims, including the four territories, the witnessing attention and the 27-cell grid, are conceptual frameworks rather than measured effects. The team-feedback example is a single case, and the author notes that anonymous statements may be untrue or later reconsidered.

Pratique isso com IX Coach

Pratique isto com o IX Coach

Perguntas frequentes

How do you practice Torbert’s action inquiry?

Action inquiry is William R. Torbert’s method for inquiring while you act, rather than studying a situation after it is over. Practitioners notice the four territories of their experience at once, test their readings of others while the conversation is still going, study their own present action as it unfolds, and keep feedback in the words people actually use. The method rests mainly on Torbert’s own theory and case work, not on randomized trials of these individual practices, so treat it as a disciplined way of paying attention rather than a proven intervention.

Como funciona «Check which territories of experience you are holding»?

Torbert’s first-person theory, as he sets it out in his 2013 essay, names four territories of experience: the outside world, your own sensations as you know them from within, your own thoughts and feelings, and the dynamics of your attention itself. On this view a judgment formed from only some of these territories is missing the others, and naming them makes the gap visible so the judgment can be checked against it. Torbert (2013) presents the check as something you can run on the spot, during action, rather than as a diagnosis of the person.

Como funciona «Notice the attention doing the noticing»?

Starr and Torbert (2005) describe triple-loop awareness (their term for holding the other territories in view together) as an attention distinct from mental thinking, from physical sensing and from the objects of perception, one that holds all three at once with a kind of witnessing quality. They say these experiences are more likely when you put yourself at the edge of your known reality, on the not-necessarily-comfortable threshold between the known and the unknown. On this page’s reading, practicing it means returning to that witnessing when you notice you have been absorbed.

Como funciona «Test your reading of someone while you are still talking»?

Torbert (2013) argues that first- and second-person research encourage on-the-spot and at-the-moment validity tests (checks run in the moment, not afterward), and that interest is growing in the validity of intersubjective research (research that happens between people, in the exchange itself) carried out during the act (while the action is still under way). In a conversation the test is whether your reading survives the other person’s response. On this view the validity sits in the exchange between people, not only in a report written about it afterward.

Como funciona «Research your own action while you are in it»?

Torbert (2013) says first-person research is most at home as research on one’s present activity, because it can feed back instantly on one’s actions. He contrasts this with the after-the-fact study typical of third-person research. On this page’s reading, the point is to let what you notice shape the next move while the action is still under way, which is the contrast Torbert draws with after-the-fact study.

Como funciona «Sort your question by person and by time»?

Chandler and Torbert (2003) lay out a grid: first-, second- or third-person research on first-, second- or third-person practice, in the past, present or future. Torbert (2013) reports this as 27 possible combinations and ties each person to a different aim: third-person research seeks objectivity, second-person research seeks mutuality, and first-person research concerns personal integrity. On this page’s reading, objectivity here means findings that do not depend on who observes them, and mutuality means a shared, two-way relationship among the people involved. Placing a question on the grid shows which kind of evidence can speak to it.

Como funciona «Keep team feedback in people’s own words»?

Torbert (2013) describes a COO on a seven-person senior team who received contradictory comments: some said he was strong on the budget and at selling, others that he was patronizing in meetings. From a third-person view, that spread looks like unreliable raters. From a second-person view, the phrases show the actual, divergent effects of his actions on the people around him. On this page’s reading, keeping the words rather than an average keeps those differences available to act on.

What are the four territories of experience in Torbert’s action inquiry?

Torbert (2013) lists four territories of experience in his first-person theory: the outside world, your own sensations as you know them from within, your own thoughts and feelings, and the dynamics of your attention itself. Starr and Torbert (2005) give a different four: the outside world, one’s own behavior, one’s own feelings and thoughts, and a kind of witnessing of all of these, which they call triple-loop awareness. Using either list as a check means asking, at a decision, which of its parts you were attending to and which you left out. The sources read do not test the check on its own.

How can I test my reading of someone while we are still talking?

Say your reading out loud as a question, rather than as a conclusion, and watch whether the other person’s response fits it. If it does not fit, say so and ask again instead of defending the first reading. Torbert (2013) presents on-the-spot, during-the-act validity testing as part of his method, with validity sitting in the exchange between people. It is a method he proposes and illustrates, not an outcome study of this practice.

How is researching my own action while I am doing it different from reviewing it afterward?

Torbert (2013) says first-person research is most at home as research on one’s present activity, because it can feed back instantly on one’s actions. On this page’s reading, a review afterward looks back at an action that has already finished, so it does not change the next move in the same way. Torbert illustrates the difference with a practitioner’s own written account, which is an example of the method rather than a study of outcomes.

Why does averaging team feedback into one score hide what matters?

In Torbert’s (2013) COO case, the comments came from other members of a seven-person senior team, and the COO, Jack, is the seventh. They contradicted one another, and an average would have hidden the range they describe. Torbert says the quotes communicate the actual divergent effects of Jack’s actions on the people around him, and he presents the actual phrases rather than summaries of them. This is one illustrative case, and the author notes that anonymous statements can be untrue or later revised.

Pesquisa

Conceitos relacionados